\ 
4. Th BOOK of NATUR E; of, 
called, {uch as colour, firmnefs of the parts, and 
the like excepted, thefe Nymphs reprefent ex- 
actly, and in a furprifing manner, the little wing- 
ed animals they are to produce; and even in 
the {pace of two or three days after they have 
caft a very thin fkin, all thofe parts appear in 
moft of them. 
This accurate agreement, or rather this fame+ 
nefs of the Nymph with the little animal it co« 
vers in the prefent form, has given room to 
fome who have written on this fubje@, to call 
the Nymphs of Ants, Flies, and Bees, by the 
names of Ant-fhaped, Fly-fhaped, and Bee- 
fhaped Nymphs. This we fee in Ariftotle, in 
the place above cited: He fays, ‘* When they 
** have received the out lines of the fhape which 
“ they are afterwards to wear, at this period 
** they are called Nymphs.” Even the learned 
Mouffet, though in his book of Infedts he be- 
ftows a particular chapter upon the Chryfalis, 
there denies that any diftin& parts are to be 
obferved in it, yet is not to be underftood 
as including the Nymph in that affertion ; he 
does not even make the leaft mention of it: 
and, indeed, thofe diftin@ parts are fo evident in 
the Nymphs of infects, as fcarce to leave the 
leaft room in any to doubt, but that they are 
the very animal which they fo evidently re- 
prefent. This certainly muft be the reafon why 
the Nymphsare often call’d Chryfallides and Au- 
relia by the fame author, in the courfe of his 
work ; though no defcription is given of them 
in the chapter we have here named. 
As errors never are confined to thofe who firft 
fall into them, the incomparable Harvey *, by 
committing the fame miftake with Mouffet in 
his notions concerning the nature of the Chry- 
falis, has ranked the Nymphs of the Bees in the 
number of them. With the fame Mouffet, 
Ariftotleand Aldrovandus have explained the dif- 
ficulties which occur‘in following, by a nice exa- 
Mination, the tranfmutations of this clafs of 
infects, by a fyftem more ingenious and fubtil, 
than agreeable to truth and the nature of things ; 
fince both he and Ariftotle -+-, Aldrovandus, and 
numbers of other authors, have imagined, that 
_ the. Nymphs of Bees are fo far from containing 
the parts of the future infects; that they can 
only be looked upon as the eggs which are to 
produce them. ; 
Tho’ there are fome flight external differences 
between the Nymph and Chry‘falis, which we 
have already obferved, the Chryfalis notwith- 
ftanding ought tobeconfideredasa Nymph; there 
are alfo fome. external differences amongft the 
Nymphs themfelves, which it is likewife proper 
to take notice of in this place. ‘Thus, there is 
by far a greater agreement between the Nymph 
of the common Antand the Antitfelf, than there 
is between the Nymphs of Bees, or of Flies, and 
thefe winged infects refpectively ; fo that there 
appears the fame difagreement between Nymphs 
of one kind and another, as between thefe and 
Chryfallides. Butasallthefedifferences are merely 
accidental, as will hereafter more plainly appear, 
little regard is to be paid to them; notwith- 
ftanding Ariftotle, who at the fame time that 
he afferts a fimilitude, in point of fhape, between 
# Tn Lib. Gener. Anim, Exerc. 14 
t In Lib, i. Cap. 5. de Chryfallide, 
the Nymphs and the little animals to be ex- 
pected from them, fo far denies fuch a pro- 
perty in the Chryfallides, that he reprefents 
them merely as the eggs of thofe infects to 
which they belong t. eae 
That we may treat more accurately of the 
Chryfalis, or Aurelia, which is indeed nothing 
more than a gold-coloured or gilded Nymph, 
and neither is nor ought to be called f{pecifically 
or diftin@tly by this name, nor can at all times, 
feeing all the Nymphs which are called Chry- 
fallides have not this bright outfide ; this Chry- 
fallis, I fay, in the fame manner as has been 
fhewn of the nymph,’ “ not only contains all 
“* the parts of the future animal, but is indeed 
that animal itfelf”’. This truth, however, is con-= 
tradi@ed among the) antients by Ariftotle, and 
among the moderns by Harvey, and number-_ 
lefs other writers. As, we have obferved that the 
Nymph of the Ant differs from that of the Bee; 
and this laft from the Nymph of the Fly; we 
remarked alfo, that the Nymph generally known 
by the name of a Chryfalis, differs from all 
thofe beforementioned. That this may appear 
the plainer, for example, in the cafe of the But- 
terfly’s. Chryfalis, Tab. XXXV. fig. vi. and vit. 
it will be proper regularly to demonftrate, not 
only the differences by which the Nymphs of 
the Ant, Bee and Fly may be diftinguithed 
from. one another’s, but thofe variations like- 
wife by which the Butterfiy’s Chryfalis is dif 
tinguifhed from thefe Nymphs; and the dif- 
ferences alfo, by which all thefe .Nymphs 
and Chryfallides vary from the infects. they are 
to produce. By this means we fhall be enabled 
to attain a perfect idea of that moft remarkable 
property, by which they perfectly agree with 
each other. ‘This property we affirm to confit 
in an exact reprefentation of the future animal, 
and of all its parts. 
The firft property then, by which the Nymph 
of the Ant, Tab. XVI. No. v. agrees better with 
the Ant, thanthe NymphsofFlies, Bees, or Butter- 
flies, do with thofe infects refpectively, and by 
which property, of courfe, the Nymph ofthe Ant 
differs from the Nymphs of the three other infects 
before-mentioned, confifts in this ; that the com- 
mon Ant, which has no wings, but only anten- 
nz, or horns, and legs, affords as clear and diftin& 
a reprefentation of thofe parts, when hid un- 
der the form of a Nymph, as when it after- - 
wards appears in its own proper and perfect 
fhape ; excepting only, that the legs and horns, 
which in the Nymph are folded up in a delicate 
manner, fhew themfelves at large, and in ano- 
ther fituation, in the Ant itfelf. So that the dif- 
ferent difpofition of thefe parts, in the ant and 
its Nymph, which every one mutt allow to be 
an article of little confequence, conftitutes all 
the difference that there is between them. 
Neverthelefs, the overlooking of this truth, the 
moft important of all in the theory of infects, in 
the cafe of their Chryfallides, has been the great 
reafon why the true knowledge of the nature 
of this fpecies of Nymph has been buried to this 
time in obfcurity, to give way to a fancied me- 
tamorphofis. ' 
+ Hitt, An. Lib. v. Cap, x9. 
The 
