In the History of the Academy of Sciences of Paris, 1701, some objections are proposed by M. Mery against the egg system. This able anatomist supports, with reason, that the vesicles found in the female testicles are not eggs, but are so adherent to the internal substance of the testicle that they cannot be naturally separated therefrom; that if they could separate themselves from this substance it would be impossible for them to get out, because the common membrane, which surrounds all the testicle, is a web of too firm a texture to admit of a conception; that a vesicle, or round soft egg, could open a passage in it; and as the greatest number of physicians and anatomists were prejudiced in favour of the egg system, and, from the experiments of De Graaf, believed that the number of cicatrices in the testicles marked the number of foetuses, M. Mery mentions the testicles of a woman, where there was such a quantity of these cicatrices, that, agreeable to this system, would have supposed a fecundity almost beyond imagination. These difficulties excited other partizans of the egg system to make new researches. M. Duverney examined and dissected the testicles of cows and sheep: he pretended that the vesicles were eggs, because there were some less adherent to the testicles than others, and insisted it was natural to believe, that when they came to perfect maturity they were separated altogether, especially as by inflating the internal cavity of the testicle the air passed between these vesicles and the adjoining parts. M. Mery only answers that this not a sufficient proof, since these vesicles have never been seen separate from the testicles. M. Duverney remarked the glandular bodies on the testicles, but he did not look on them as an essential and necessary part towards generation, but merely as accidental exuberances, like gall-nuts, on the oak. M. Littre, whose prejudice for the egg system was still greater, pretended, not only that the vesicles were eggs, but even asserted he had discovered in one of them a well-formed foetus, of which he distinguished the head and trunk very perfectly, and even gave the dimensions. But besides this wonder being only seen by that gentleman, and no other naturalist, it is sufficient to read his Memoire[P] to perceive how doubtful was the fact. By his own words we find the matrix was schirrhous, that the testicle was corrupted, and that the vesicle, or egg, which contained this imaginary foetus was smaller than the other vesicles, or eggs, which did not contain any thing, &c. [P] Anno 1701, page 3.