ut 
Story is truly astonishing, and plainly shows that he is equally 
ignorant of the nature of the bee, as of the nature of the fly. 
This is one of the bad habits of our day that statements are 
made on matters about which one knows nothing, for the mere 
purpose of getting a reputation of wisdom and knowledge.“ 
An amusing instance of the collision between the old and the 
new learning! 
BuanKkaart (Schauplatz der Raupen, Wiirmer etc. Dutch ed. 
1688; German ed. 1690) describes and figures the larva, pupa 
and imago of 2H. fenar. The larva he calls (after Goedart) 
Schweinmade. Of the imago he says: ,eine Art von zahmen Bienen 
(Musca apiformis) mit zwei Fliigeln* etc. (,A kind of tame bees 
with two wings.‘) He adds: ,quite different from what Goedart 
taught us,“ a reproach which, as I have shown, is undeserved. 
SwAMMERDAM’s (1637—1680) principal work, the ,,Biblia 
naturae“, (Leyden, 1737—38; in German, Leipzig, 1758), was 
published more than half a century after his death. 
Swammerdam, in two passages of his ,Biblia*, comes very 
near connecting Hristalis tenax with the Bugonia, and it is only 
his bias for a literal interpretation of a scriptural text, which 
prevents him from taking the last step that was needed. In 
his chapter on bees (p. 210—212) he says that because bees 
are cleanly animals, and never alight on carcases, the story of 
Samson has appeared to many strange and incredible. He offers 
an explanation very similar to that of Bechart (1) Qvhom he 
does not quote and does not seem to know), that the lion was 
not a corpse, but a skeleton. It was in the height of summer; 
the larvae of certain flies always occurring in carcases had, 
in a very short time, devoured all the flesh; the remaining 
skeleton was soon freed from all bad smells by the combined 
action of sun, rain and dew; under such circumstances it is 
possible (,es lasst sich ohnschwer begreifen*) that the skeleton 
may have become the habitation of bees during the swarm- 
ing season (p. 211, right column.). On p. 212 Swammerdam 
(1) Bochart’s explanation will be given further on p. 16. 
