GENESIS^ OR PARTHENOGENESIS ? 449 
larva lie describes tbe ovarian chamber as filled with a pale 
homogeneous substance; which encloses about a dozen cells 
showing opaque nuclei. Portions of this material are sepa- 
rated from the rest by a constriction of the walls of the 
ovarian chamber; which becomes more and more decided. 
The larva is developed from this separated portion. In the 
midst of it may be seen a small vesicle , which is transparent; 
but sometimes includes within it a nucleus , though not always; 
a mass of rounded corpuscles being found occasionally in its 
place. This transparent vesicle is not admitted by Huxley to 
be a true egg, because the essential element — the germinal 
spot — is wanting. It is termed by Huxley “ a false egg.” 
Lubbock describes the same occurrence in the cochineal insect ; 
that is to say; a vesicle without germinal spot; but full of fine 
granules. Quatrefages denies these vesicles the name or 
character of egg, and terms them veritable buds . On the 
ground of the distinction thus drawn he pronounces that the 
larvation of the Aphis and cochineal insect is not an instance 
of Parthenogenesis, but of what this illustrious naturalist has 
named Geneagenesis. Por the doctrine of true Partheno- 
genesis is that an ovum (a true egg) shall be the source of 
the embryo; and that its development shall take place in 
the generative organs of a female; but that the female shall 
be virgin and the egg fertile without fertilisation. 
Anatomically; then; this vesicle of the Aphis larva is con- 
sidered by Huxley a pseudovum — not a bud; not an egg , — but 
an intermediate link; which; says Quatrefages; establishes a 
peculiar relation of the bud to the egg between which there 
may be many links. A special objection to Owen's interpre- 
tation of Parthenogenesis; in which Carpenter and Huxley 
concur; is the hypothetical existence of a “ prolific power" resi- 
dent in the “ virgin ” germ-mass of the Aphis larva. This ob- 
jection is; however; disposed of in a manner which antagonizes 
equally with the views of all three of these distinguished 
authorities by Balbiani's recent discovery; to which we now 
direct the reader’s attention. The translated fecundating 
action of the older writers; the prolific power of Owen; the 
geneagenetic energy of Quatrefages; and the hermaphroditism 
of the egg invented by M. Barthelemy, are certainly; in the 
present case, gratuitous hypotheses; and equally “ unproven.” 
Por our Aphis; the subject of our long discussion; seems 
likely to remove itself in an altogether unexpected manner 
from the debated field of Parthenogenesis; and the old opinion 
of Reaumur; Leuwenhoek; and Cestom to prove after all the 
right one ! 
According to Balbiaui's account the insect is androgynous; 
and he explains it thus. In the end chamber of the ovarian 
