40) 
sometimes with the addition of dung (Pliny XI, 20, comp. 
p. 22) (1). The feature common to all these processes is the 
exclusion of the carcase from the open air. 
There is little doubt that, under favorable circumstances, 
the oxen-born bee (Hristalis tenax) could be obtained by all these 
processes (the sneers of Redi notwithstanding, comp. p. 24) but 
I shall confine myself to the examination of the account in the 
Geoponica, which is detailed enough for a scientific analysis. 
At first sight, nothing seems to be more preposterous than the 
account of Florentinus; but a close criticism soon reveals that 
the process must have been the result of experiments which 
may have been repeated for centuries, and resulted in the end, 
as I shall endeavour to prove, in a very rational method for 
obtaining Hristalis tenax. 
The account begins thus: ,Juba gave directions for breeding 
bees (apes facere) in a wooden box (areca lignea); but Democritus 
and Varro (2), the last writing in Latin, report that they were 
bred in a house, which is the better way (quid etiam melius est).* 
, Build a house (5), ten cubits high, with all the sides of equal dimensions, 
with one door, and four windows, one on each side; put an ox into it, thirty 
months old, very fat and fleshy; let a number of young men kill him by beating 
him violently with clubs, so as to mangle both fleesh and bones, but taking 
(1) The silence of Pliny about Aristotle in this instance, already noticed 
by Aldrovandi, is significant, because at his time he must have had access to 
many of Aristotle’s works which are now lost. Irom the non-committal attitude 
of Aristotle with regard to the Bugonia it may perhaps be inferred that he 
never has had the opportunity to investigate a case of it. If he had been in 
the position to refute it by showing that the pretended oxen-born bee was not 
a bee, but a two-winged fly, he would have probably mentioned it in one of 
his works. As the case stands, it would seem that he considered it as a 
superstition not deserving any notice. 
(2) This refers to some passage of Varro which is no longer found in his 
works (Remark in John Conington’s Commentary on Virgil, I, 356). 
Democritus is not the philosopher, but some obscure writer sometimes 
called the false Democritus (Comp. Voss, in his translation of the Georgica p. 280). 
(3) For house, oikos, the commentator Conington has chamber. This 
passage has already been given on p. 7—8; I reproduce it here for the sake 
of easier reference. 
