seasons, without injury. Certain crustaceans
afford instances of the extraordinary resistance
to desiccation of which their progeny are capable.
The cyprides, which are almost microscopic,
have eggs of extreme tenuity, and which
remain without drying up or shrivelling in the
mud of ponds laid dry all the summer long,
and which are hatched and developed as soon
as the autumnal rains return. Is not that
a fact as remarkable as the history of the
rotifer found on roofs? The Apus cancriformis
presents us with a still more extraordinary case.
According to the statements of naturalists, its
eggs appear capable of preservation for several
years, without losing their vitality; and it is thus
that they explain the presence of myriads of these
crustaceans, which are observed to appear immediately
after heavy rains, in places where they
had not been seen for years. If you search the
history of the molluscs, you will find that there
exist great numbers which, beneath the shelter
of their shell, will live for an extraordinary
period without communication with the external
world, if they are surprised and surrounded by
unfavourable circumstances. Some, in spite of
their absolutely aquatic habits, occasionally
remain dry during the whole interval between
the highest tides; that is to say, a month or
more. Others, which inhabit the tufts of moss
in which the rotifers themselves are found, seem
absolutely destined to participate in the very
same vital phases. Certain snails hibernate for
six whole months, and close their dwelling with
a door secreted for the purpose. M. Flourens
kept several of these animals for a whole year,
without food; they showed signs of reanimation
when the illustrious physiologist treated them
to a feast of fresh-cut grass. We may even
state that, under certain circumstances, some
few of the tiny molluscs to which we have
referred exhibit a suspension of vitality much
more miraculous than that which is attributed
to the rotifers. M. Moquin-Tandon, in his
magnificent work, relates that he has seen snails
come out of their shell and crawl about, after
remaining shut up for from a year and a half to
two years. He kept several punctuated clausillas
screwed up in a piece of paper for twenty-six
months. M. St. Simon saw porcelain zonites
that lived two years and a half without aliment.
M. Sarrat forgot in a box some specimens of
pupa quinquedentata which he collected in
1843, and these creatures were still living in
1847, four years afterwards!

Was it ever supposed that all these animals
defied the lapse of time only by the aid of desiccation,
and that they were reanimated by the
application of water alone? The case is the
same with the rotifers. If they have been made
the subject of such marvellous tales, it is simply
because their extreme minuteness allowed any
and every supposition to be hazarded; while,
with regard to others, although very small as
molluscs, the truth was too easily demonstrable
by merely crushing them. M. Seguin imbedded
some toads in plaster, and kept them in pots, lie
believes for ten years, but is not quite certain.
On breaking the plaster, he found that one of
the pots contained a toad in perfect health; the
plaster was exactly moulded over it, and filled
every vacant space. As soon as the plaster
was broken, the toad struggled to get out of
prison, but was held back by one of its feet,
which still stuck fast. When this was disengaged,
it jumped on the ground, and at once
resumed its habitual movements, as if there had
occurred no interruption in its mode of existence.
After such instances of vital persistence,
ought we to shout, "A miracle!" so loudly,
because a few rotifers or a few tardigrades may
be preserved for a certain time in the midst of
sand, and show signs of life only when the sand
is wetted? The tact is less extraordinary than
that related of the toad; for, the rotifer, when it
contracts itself, finds a protection in its rings
and its shell, whereas the reptile remains naked in
the medium which environs it.

The causes of error in the experiments on
pseudo-resurrection are not difficult to indicate.
The revivals, which are looked upon with such
wonderment, are nothing else than either the
hatching of a new generation, or the waking up
of animalcules, which had been preserved from
utter dryness by their natural envelope, and
which, by that means, had retained their
vitality for a considerable period. But in both
these cases, pseudo-resurrection has its limits;
and we must not follow the example of certain
naturalists, who accord to this phenomenon an
unlimited duration. "All the rotifers," says
Bory de St. Vincent, "are aquatic; and we
cannot help believing that, in consequence of
their complicated structure, drought acting upon
them exactly as it does on fishes and other
creatures that live in a watery medium, it
must kill them rapidly, without any possibility
of resurrection after death. It is true that, on
several occasions, by macerating water-weeds
that had long been dried, and by putting water
into vessels full of sediment in which we had
kept or bred animalcules the preceding year, we
have raised a population of rotifers and other
microscopical creatures; they were simply
hatched and developed therein, like the minute
crustaceans, whose germs remain buried and
incased in mud until the rainy season supplies
the moisture necessary for their hatching and
growth."

The causes of error are best detected by
operating upon a determinate and quite limited
number of animalcules. It then becomes evident,
first, that living animalcules, which have
contracted themselves to escape desiccation,
are revivable in this state, only for a very
limited time, which in summer does not exceed
twenty days. Secondly, when you operate
on dry mould, the produce is often new-hatched
young, which make their appearance, after a
long preservation, within their conservative
envelopes, as occurs with the eggs and chrysalides
of many insects, of crustaceous and other
animals. These hatchings have so often led
the resurrectionists into error, that even in experiments
on a very restricted number of