Besides, the worm which is transformed into a fly proceeds from an egg; the egg is the produce of the copulation of the male and female, and includes the foetus, which must afterwards enter into a chrysalis, before it arrives at its state of perfection, as a fly; in which form alone it has an engendering power; whereas the spermatic worm has no faculty of generation, nor proceeds from an egg. Even should we allow the semen to contain eggs, from whence issue spermatic worms, the same difficulty will still remain, for these supposed eggs have not the copulation of the two sexes for their principle of existence, as in insects; consequently the partizans of that opinion cannot pretend any similarity, nor derive any advantage from the transformation of insects; which rather destroys the basis of their explanation. When the innumerable multitude of spermatic worms are opposed to those physicians who are prejudiced by this system, they answer, as before observed, by the examples of plants and trees. But this comparison is not entirely just, because all the spermatic worms excepting one perish by absolute necessity, which is not the case with the seeds of a tree or plant, for those which do not become vegetables, serve as food for other organized bodies, and for the expansion and reproduction of animals; whereas we do not see any use for the spermatic worms, or any end to which we can refer their prodigious superfluity. On the whole, I only make this remark in reply to what is, or may be said on this matter; for I own, that no arguments drawn from final causes will either establish or destroy a physical system. Another objection made against this opinion is, there being, to all appearance, an equal number of separate worms in the seed of all kinds of animals, for, say they, it is natural to imagine, that in those kinds where foetuses are most abundant, as in fishes, insects, &c. the number of spermatic worms should be more numerous than in those where generation is least abundant, as in man, quadrupeds, birds, &c. for if they are the immediate cause of production, why is there no proportion between their number and that of the foetus? Besides, there is no proportionable difference in the size of most kinds of spermatic worms, those of large animals being as small as those of the least. Those of a rat, and those of a man, are nearly the same, and when there is any difference it is no ways relative to the size of the individual. The Calmar, which is a very small fish, has spermatic worms above one hundred thousand times larger than those of a man or a dog. Another proof these worms are not the immediate and only cause of generation.