by Aristotle
Wind-eggs, then, participate in generation so far as is possible for them. That they should be perfected into an animal is impossible, for an animal requires [15] sense-perception; but the nutritive faculty of the soul is possessed by females as well as males, and indeed by all living things, as has been often said; and that is why the egg itself is perfect only as the embryo of a plant, but imperfect as that of an animal. If, then, there had been no male sex in the class of birds, the egg would have been [20] produced as it is in some fishes, if indeed there is any kind of fish of such a nature as to generate without a male; but it has been said of them before that this has not yet been satisfactorily observed. But as it is both sexes exist in all birds, so that, considered as a plant, the egg is perfect (and that is why it does not change again after impregnation); but in so far as it is not a plant it is not perfect, nor does [25] anything else result from it; for neither has it come into being simply like a real plant nor from copulation like an animal. Eggs, however, produced from copulation but already separated into white and yolk take after the first impregnator; for they already contain both principles. [30]
8 · The young are produced in the same way also by the cephalopoda, e.g. cuttlefish and the like, and by the crustacea, e.g. crayfish and their kindred, for these also lay eggs in consequence of copulation, and the male has often been seen uniting with the female. Therefore those who say that all fish are female and lay [758a1] eggs without copulation are plainly speaking unscientifically from this point of view also. For it is a wonderful thing to suppose that the former animals lay eggs in consequence of copulation and that fish do not; if again they were unaware of this, it is a sign of ignorance. The union of all these creatures lasts a considerable time, as in insects, and naturally so, for they are bloodless and therefore of a cold nature. [5]
In the cuttlefish and calamaries the eggs appear to be two, because the uterus is divided and appears double, but that of the octopus appears to be single. The reason is that the shape of the uterus in the octopus is round in form and spherical, the cleavage being obscure when it is filled with eggs. The uterus of the crayfish is [10] also bifid. All these animals also lay an imperfect egg for the same reason as fishes. In the crayfish and their like the females produce their eggs so as to keep them attached to themselves, which is why the side-flaps of the females are larger than [15] those of the males, to protect the eggs; the cephalopoda lay them away from themselves. The males of the cephalopoda sprinkle their milt over the females, as the male fish do over the eggs, and it becomes a continuous and glutinous mass, but in the crayfish and their like nothing of the sort has been seen or can be naturally expected, for the egg is under the female and is hard-shelled. Both these eggs and [20] those of the cephalopoda grow after deposition like those of fishes.
The cuttlefish while developing is attached to the egg by its front part, for here alone is it possible, because this animal alone has its front and back part pointing in the same direction. For the position and attitude of the young while developing you [25] must look at the Histories.9
9 · We have now spoken of the generation of other animals, those that walk, fly, and swim; it remains to speak of insects and testacea according to the plan laid down. Let us begin with the insects. It was observed previously that some of these [30] are generated by copulation, others spontaneously, and besides this that they produce a grub, and why this is so. For pretty much all creatures seem in a certain way to produce a grub first, since the most imperfect embryo is of such a nature; and in all animals, even the viviparous and those that lay a perfect egg, the first [35] embryo grows in size while still undifferentiated into parts; now such is the nature of the grub. After this stage some of the ovipara produce the egg in a perfect [758b1] condition, others in an imperfect, but it is perfected outside as has been often stated of fish. With animals internally viviparous the embryo becomes egg-like in a certain sense after its original formation, for the liquid is contained in a fine membrane, just [5] as if we should take away the shell of the egg, and that is why they call the abortion of an embryo at that stage an ‘efflux’.
Those insects which generate at all generate a grub, and those which come into being spontaneously and not from copulation do so at first from a formation of this nature. For we must put down caterpillars also and the product of spiders as a sort [10] of grub. And yet some even of these and many of the others may be thought to resemble eggs because of their round shape, but we must not judge by shapes nor yet by softness and hardness (for what is produced by some is hard), but by the fact that the whole of them is changed into the body of the creature and the animal is not [15] developed from a part of them. All these products that are of the nature of a grub, after progressing and acquiring their full size, become a sort of egg, for the husk about them hardens and they are motionless during this period. This is plain in the grub of bees and wasps and in caterpillars. The reason of this is that their nature, [20] because of its imperfection, oviposits as it were before the right time, as if the grub, while still growing in size, were a soft egg. Similar to this is also what happens with all other insects which come into being without copulation in wool and other such materials and in water. For all of them after the grub-stage become immovable and [25] their integument dries round them, and after this the latter bursts and there comes forth as from an egg an animal perfected in its third stage, and of these the winged sort are more numerous than those which walk.
Another point is quite natural, which may be wondered at by many. Caterpillars at first take nourishment, but after this stage do so no longer, but what is called [30] by some the chrysalis is motionless. The same applies to the grub of wasps and bees …10 after this comes into being the so-called pupa, which has nothing of the kind. For an egg is also of such a nature that when it has reached perfection it grows no more in size, but at first it grows and receives nourishment until it is differentiated [35] and becomes a perfect egg. Sometimes the grub contains in itself the material from which, as it feeds, a residue is produced11—e.g. the grubs of bees and wasps; [759a1] sometimes it gets its nourishment from outside itself, as caterpillars and some others.
It has thus been stated why such animals go through a threefold development and for what reason they become immovable again after moving. And some of them come into being by copulation, like birds and vivipara and most fishes, others [5] spontaneously, like some plants.
10 · There is much difficulty about the generation of bees. If it is really true that in the case of some fishes there is such a method of generation that they produce eggs without copulation, this may well happen also with bees, to judge from [10] appearances. For they must either bring the young brood from elsewhere, as some say, and if so the young must either be spontaneously generated or produced by some other animal, or they must generate them themselves, or they must bring some and generate others, for this also is maintained by some, who say that they bring the [15] young of the drones only. Again, if they generate them it must be either with or without copulation; if the former, then either each kind must generate its own kind, or some one kind must generate the others, or one kind must unite with another for the purpose (I mean for instance that bees may be generated from the union of bees, drones from that of drones, and kings from that of kings, or that all the others may [20] be generated from one, as from what are called kings and leaders, or from the union of drones and bees, for some say that the former are male, the latter female, while others say that the bees are male and the drones female). But all these views are impossible if we reason first upon the facts peculiar to bees and secondly upon those [25] which apply more generally to other animals also.
For if they do not generate the young but bring them from elsewhere, then bees ought to come into being also, if the bees did not carry them off, in the places from which the old bees carry the seeds. For why, if new bees come into existence when the seeds are transported, should they not do so if the seeds are left there? They [30] ought to do so just as much,
whether the seeds are spontaneously generated in the flowers or whether some animal generates them. And if the seeds were of some other animal, then that animal ought to be produced from them instead of bees. Again, that they should collect honey is reasonable, for it is their food, but it is strange that they should collect the young if they are neither their own offspring nor [35] food. With what object should they do so? for all animals that trouble themselves about the young labour for what appears to be their own offspring.
[759b1] But, again, it is also unreasonable to suppose that the bees are female and the drones male, for nature does not give weapons for fighting to any female, and while the drones are stingless all the bees have a sting. Nor is the opposite view [5] reasonable, that the bees are male and the drones female, for no males are in the habit of working for their offspring, but as it is the bees do this. And generally, since the brood of the drones is found coming into being among them even if there is no mature drone present, but that of the bees is not so found without the presence of [10] the kings (which is why some say that the young of the drones alone is brought in from outside), it is plain that they are not produced from copulation, either of bee with bee or drone with drone or of bees with drones. (That they should import the brood of the drones alone is impossible for the reasons already given, and besides it is unreasonable that a similar state of things should not prevail with all the three [15] kinds alike.) Then, again, it is also impossible that the bees themselves should be some of them male and some female, for in all kinds of animals the two sexes differ. Besides they would in that case generate their own kind, but as it is their brood is not found to come into being if the leaders are not among them, as men say. And an [20] argument against both theories, that the young are generated by union of the bees with one another or with the drones, separately or with one another, is this: none of them has ever yet been seen copulating, whereas this would have often happened if the sexes had existed in them. It remains then, if they are generated by copulation at [25] all, that the kings shall unite to generate them. But the drones are found to come into being even if no leaders are present, and it is not possible that the bees should either import their brood or themselves generate them by copulation. It remains then, as appears to be the case in certain fishes, that the bees should generate the drones without copulation, being indeed female in respect of generative power, but [30] containing in themselves both sexes as plants do. Hence also they have the instrument for fighting, for we ought not to call that female in which the male sex is not separated. But if this is found to be the case with drones, if they come into being [35] without copulation, then it is necessary that the same account should be given of the bees and the kings and that they also should be generated without copulation. Now if the brood of the bees had been found to come into being among them without the [760a1] presence of the kings, it would necessarily follow that the bees also are produced from bees themselves without copulation, but as it is, since those occupied with the tendance of these creatures deny this, it remains that the kings must generate both their own kind and the bees.
As bees are a peculiar and extraordinary kind of animal so also their [5] generation appears to be peculiar. That bees should generate without copulation is a thing which may be paralleled in other animals, but that what they generate should not be of the same kind is peculiar to them, for the erythrinus generates an [10] erythrinus and the channa a channa. The reason is that bees themselves are not generated like flies and similar creatures, but from a kind different indeed but akin to them, for they are produced from the leaders. Hence in a sort of way their generation is analogous. For the leaders resemble the drones in size and the bees in possessing a sting; so the bees are like them in this respect, and the drones are like [15] them in size. For there must needs be some overlapping unless the same kind is always to be produced from each; but this is impossible, for at that rate the whole class would consist of leaders. The bees, then, are assimilated to them in their power of generation, the drones in size; [if the latter had had a sting also, they would have [20] been leaders, but as it is this much of the difficulty remains, for the leaders are like both kinds at once, like the bees in possessing a sting, like the drones in size].12
But the leaders also must be generated from something. Since it is neither from the bees nor from the drones, it must be from their own kind. The cells of the kings [25] are produced last and are not many in number.
Thus what happens is this: the leaders generate their own kind but also another kind, that of the bees; the bees again generate another kind, the drones, but do not [30] also generate their own kind—this has been denied them. And since what is according to nature is always in due order, therefore it is necessary that it should be denied to the drones even to generate another kind than themselves. This is just what we find happening, for though the drones are themselves generated, they generate nothing else, but the process reaches its limit in the third stage. And so beautifully is this arranged by nature that the three kinds always continue in [760b1] existence and none of them fails, though they do not all generate.
Another fact is also natural, that in fine seasons much honey is collected and many drones are produced, but in rainy seasons a large brood of ordinary bees. For the wet causes more residual matter to be formed in the bodies of the leaders, the [5] fine weather in that of the bees, for being smaller in size they need the fine weather more than the kings do. It is right also that the kings, being as it were made with a view to producing young, should remain within, freed from the labour of procuring necessaries, and also that they should be of a considerable size, their bodies being, as it were, constituted with a view to bearing young, and that the drones should be [10] idle as having no weapon to fight for their food and because of the slowness of their bodies. But the bees are intermediate between the two other kinds, for this is useful for their work, and they are workers as having to support not only their young but also their fathers. And it agrees with our views that the bees attend upon their kings [15] because they are their offspring (for if nothing of the sort had been the case the facts about their leadership would be unreasonable), and that, while they suffer the kings to do no work as being their parents, they punish the drones as their children, for it is nobler to punish one’s children and those who have no work to perform. The fact [20] that the leaders being few generate the bees in large numbers seems to be similar to what obtains in the generation of lions, which at first produce five, afterwards a smaller number each time, at last one and thereafter none. So the leaders at first produce a number of workers, afterwards a few of their own kind; thus the brood of [25] the latter is smaller in number than that of the former, but where nature has taken away from them in number she has made it up again in size.
Such appears to be the truth about the generation of bees, judging from theory [30] and from what are believed to be the facts about them; the facts, however, have not yet been sufficiently grasped; if ever they are, then credit must be given rather to observation than to theories, and to theories only if what they affirm agrees with the observed facts.
A further indication that bees are produced without copulation is the fact that the brood appears small in the cells of the comb, whereas, whenever insects are [761a1] generated by copulation, the parents remain united for a long time but produce quickly something of the nature of a grub and of a considerable size.13
Concerning the generation of animals akin to them, as hornets and wasps, the facts in all cases are similar to a certain extent, but are devoid of the extraordinary [5] features which characterize bees; this we should expect, for they have nothing divine about them as the bees have. For the so-called ‘mothers’ generate the young and mould the first part of the combs, but they generate by copulation with one another, for their union has often been observed. As for all the differences of each of [10] these kinds from one another and from bees, they must be investigated with the aid of the illustrations to the Histories.
11
· Having spoken of the generation of all insects, we must now speak of the testacea. Here also the facts of generation are partly like and partly unlike those in [15] the other classes. And this is what might be expected. For compared with animals they resemble plants, compared with plants they resemble animals, so that in a sense they appear to come into being from semen, but in another sense not so, and in one way they are spontaneously generated but in another from their own kind, or some of them in the latter way, others in the former. Because their nature answers [20] to that of plants, therefore few or no kinds of testacea come into being on land, e.g. the snails and any others, few as they are, that resemble them; but in the sea and similar waters there are many of all kinds of forms. But the class of plants has but [25] few and one may say practically no representatives in the sea and such places, all such growing on the land. For plants and testacea are analogous; and in proportion as liquid has more life-supporting power than solid, water than earth, so much does the nature of testacea differ from that of plants, since the object of testacea is to be [30] in such a relation to water as plants are to earth, as if plants were, so to say, land-shell fish, shell-fish water-plants.