And first for its verity, although asserted by some, and traditionally delivered by others, yet is it very questionable. For beside _Ælian_, who is seldom defective in these accounts; _Aristotle_ distinctly treating hereof, hath made no mention of this remarkable propriety: which either suspecting its verity, or presuming its falsity, he surely omitted: for that he remained ignorant of this account it is not easily conceiveable: it being the common opinion, and generally received by all men. Some have positively denied it, as _Augustinus_, _Niphus_, _Stobæus_, _Dalechampius_, _Fortunius Licetus_, with many more; others have experimentally refuted it, as namely _Johannes Landius_, who in the relation of _Scaliger_, observed a _Chameleon_ to lick up a fly from his breast: But _Bellonius_ [SN: _Comment. in Ocell._ Lucan.] hath been more satisfactorily experimental, not only affirming they feed on Flies, Caterpillars, Beetles and other Insects, but upon exenteration he found these Animals in their bellies: whereto we might also add the experimental decisions of the worthy _Peireschius_ and learned _Emanuel Vizzanius_, in that _Chameleon_ which had been often observed to drink water, and delight to feed on Meal-worms. And although we have not had the advantage of our own observation, yet have we received the like confirmation from many ocular spectators. As touching the verisimility or probable truth of this relation, several reasons there are which seem to overthrow it. For first, there are found in this Animal, the guts, the stomack, and other parts official unto nutrition; which were its aliment the empty reception of air, their provisions had been superfluous. Now the wisdom of nature abhorring superfluities, and effecting nothing in vain, unto the intention of these operations, respectively contriveth the Organs; and therefore where we find such Instruments, we may with strictness expect their actions; and where we discover them not, we may with safety conclude the non-intention of their operations. So when we perceive that Bats have teats, it is not unreasonable to infer they suckle their younglings with milk; but whereas no other flying Animal hath these parts, we cannot from them expect a viviparous exclusion; but either a generation of eggs, or some vermiparous separation, whose navel is within it self at first, and its nutrition after not connexedly depending of its original.