The 
the Chryfalis is not the egg of the Caterpillar. 
His words are: ‘* To conclude, what is there 
“¢ here in common between an ege and an 
Aurelia? The former has neither life nor 
motion, and is difcharged from another 
animal ; the latter is not difcharged by any 
animal, but is only changed from one thing 
into another.” However, though Mouffet 
denies that the Aurelia is an egg, he has not 
courage enough to call it an animal; he con- 
fiders it only as a kind of medium, or mean 
condition, between two animals; or as a 
third being between the Caterpillar and the 
Butterfly; faying, “ It appears neverthelefs by 
«« what I have already faid, that the Aurelia is 
not an egg; the truth is, that it is to be 
called a kind of tranfmutation, and not a ge- 
neration of the Caterpillar into an Aurelia, 
and of the aurelia into a Butterfly.” But 
as this difficulty, contrived by his own ima- 
gination, has rendered utterly inexplicable what 
otherwife might be very eafily explained, he 
has recourfe, as is ufual in fuch cafes, to the 
immenfe power of the Creator, and after this 
concludes the fubject in the following words : 
“IT well know how the Ariftotlians perplex 
*“‘ themfelves in this cafe with a wonderful 
** transformation, and at laft are obliged to 
“« refer us to God’s indeterminate power.” 
- But we leave to the wildnefs of their own 
genius, thofe learned men, who rafhly affirm 
that the true notions of every thing that appear 
in infects, as well as in other bodies, are to be 
found in the eminent writers of antiquity. Na- 
ture, that indulgent parent, exhibits, all ‘that 
relates to them, to us, every fummer, in the 
plaineft and fimpleft manner; nay, fhe gives us 
an opportunity of demonftrating thofe her pro- 
ceedings, and that in the moft fatisfactory 
manner, in the very depth of winter, by the 
help of the artificial heat of a ftove, or any like 
continuance. Let us rather take a {pecimen 
or two of the unworthy manner, by which the 
genuine reprefentations of thefe changes, which 
are no more than‘the natural fhootings of the 
limbs, that atolatt thereby come to make their 
appearance, ‘have been confounded and ob- 
icured, even by men who have fpent their 
whole lives in refearches into the nature of 
animal generation in general; and have ap- 
plied themfelves more particularly to find outthe 
nature of thofe changes obfervable in infe@s. 
The firft I thall mention, is that fecond De- 
mocritus, the celebrated Harvey, who, againi{t 
the current of the moft convincing experi- 
ments, boldly affirms with Ariftotle, that the 
Chryfalis (though it be indeed the very in- 
fect) is a perfect egg, from which of Courfe 
the infect may, by the help of transformatién, 
be afterwards expected. to {pring. Take his 
own words: * ** Such are likewife the feeds of 
** many infects, (called worms by Ariftotle) 
** which being at firft produced in an imperfect 
** fate, fearch ont their food ; by which being 
* Lib. de Gen. Anim. Exerc, II. . 
§ Exerc. LXXII. de Hum. Primig. 
“ 
4 
€¢ 
a 
¢ 
a 
€ 
«ec 
ce 
cc 
cc 
cc 
Ha 6.7 OR X 
t+ Lib. de Gen. Anim. Exerc. LVIT. 
** Lib. II. de Gen. Anim. C. 1. 
ob DINGSCE fC 4BYS, 
‘*¢ nourifhed and increafed, from a Caterpillar 
** they become an Aurelia, anda perfect ege 
‘* and feed from an imperfect one.” By this, 
he not only with Ariftotle calls the Chryfalis a 
perfe& egg, which, according to the fame au- 
thor, is neither a Caterpillar nor a Butterfly, 
but feems to give into Mouffet’s falfe and abfurd 
opinion, who affirms, that the Chryfalis is a 
kind of medium, or middle being between the 
Caterpillar and the Butterfly. This paflage of 
Harvey's fhews us, that he was not acquainted 
with thofe infects which proceed immediately 
from an egg ina ftate of perfection, without 
ever appearing in the form of worms, Cater- 
pillars, or Nymphs; or at leaft that he ima- 
gined the mutation they undergo is perform- 
ed within the egg; and that therefore their 
generation is the fame in all refpects with 
that which he has defcribed as proper to 
Chickens within the egg of the Hen; or with 
that other generation which he attributes to 
the worms of infects -+, which {pring from 
eges, and which he reprefents as perfectly 
agreeing with the generation of Chickens. 
But although this great philofopher calls the 
Chryfalis a perfe@t egg, he neverthelefs does 
not affert that the infe@t proceeds from the 
chryfalis, as from an internal and hidden prin- 
ciple, in the fame manner that he affirms the 
chicken {prings from the Hen’s egg, or that 
the infect is formed by one part of egg, while it 
only receives the matter of its increafe from 
the other part ; which he fays is the cafe in 
the generation of Chickens. Nay, his opinion 
on this occafion is far more rational and folid, 
for he admits it, with Ariftotle, as an axiom: Hg 
** That the animal is not made out of the 
“ worm, as out of an egg, from a part of it; 
“‘ but that the whole worm grows, and be- 
** comes an articulated animal,” without con- 
fidering that Ariftotle calls the Aurelia an egg. 
Now if we compare the pafflage which Harve 
has adopted from him, with the fcene which 
nature every year prefents to us, we {hall find 
the words contain a true definition of the 
Nymph : but as both Harvey § and Ariftotle ** 
have here befides fancied a metamorphofis, 
which they call “a diftribution of one thing 
“<< that is to be altered into many ;” and which 
in another place +4 Harvey has expreffed by 
the following periphrafis: «* In the generation 
“< that is performed by a metamorphofis, things 
are produced as it were by the impreffion 
of a feal, upon the matter of them, or by 
this matter’s being caft into a mould, the 
whole of it €ntirely transformed.” This 
account is not only falfe, but altogether de- 
grades and darkens the true fyftem of thofe na- 
tural mutations: no fatisfactory explication can 
be drawn from it, of any manner in which 
thefe fancied metamorphofes, and imaginary 
transformations, can be faid to happen. 
But the better to underftand Harvey’s doc- 
trine of infects, which, however, does not 
If 
cc 
ce 
t Lib. de Gen. Anim. Exerc. XVII. 
+t Exere. XIV. de Gen, Anim. 
reach 
