INTRODUCTION OF THE MICROSCOPE 75 
This is an exceptionally good piece of anatomization for that 
time, and is a fair sample of the fidelity with which he worked 
out details in the structure of small animals. Besides show- 
ing this, these figures also serve the purpose of pointing out 
that Swammerdam’s fine anatomical work was by no means 
confined to insects. His determinations on the structure of 
the young frog were equally noteworthy. 
But we should have at least one illustration of his handling 
of insect anatomy to compare more directly with that of 
Malpighi, already given. Fig. 17 is a reduced sketch of the 
anatomy of the larva of an ephemerus, showing, besides other 
structures, the central nervous system in its natural position. 
When compared with the drawings of Malpighi, we see there 
is a more masterly hand at the task, and a more critical spirit 
back of the hand. The nervous system is very well done, 
and the greater detail in other features shows a disposition 
to go into the subject more deeply than Malpighi. 
Besides working on the structure and life-histories of ani- 
mals, Swammerdam showed, experimentally, the irritability 
of nerves and the response of muscles after their removal 
from the body. He not only illustrates this quite fully, but 
seems to have had a pretty good appreciation of the nature 
of the problem of the physiologist. He says: 
“Tt is evident from the foregoing observations that a great 
number of things concur in the contraction of the muscles, 
and that one should be thoroughly acquainted with that 
wonderful machine, our body, and the elements with which 
we are surrounded, to describe exactly one single muscle 
and explain its action. On this occasion it would be neces- 
sary for us to consider the atmosphere, the nature of our food, 
the blood, the brain, marrow, and nerves, that most subtle 
matter which instantaneously flows to the fibers, and many 
other things, before we could expect to attain a sight of the 
perfect and certain truth.” 
