more. Hunger, I tell myself, will eventually induce it to bite. I am wrong.
Next morning I find it more anxious than the day before and still groping
about, without resolving to fix its mandibles anywhere. I leave it alone
for half a day longer without obtaining any result. Yet twenty-four hours
of abstinence must have awakened a good appetite, above all in a creature
which, if left undisturbed, would not have ceased eating.

Excessive hunger cannot induce it to nibble at an unlawful spot. Is this
due to feebleness of the teeth? By no means: the Cetonia's skin is no
tougher on the back than on the belly; moreover, the grub is capable of
perforating the skin when it leaves the egg; a fortiori, it must be more
capable of doing so now that it has attained a sturdy growth. Thus we see
no lack of ability, but an obstinate refusal to nibble at a point which
ought to be respected. Who knows? On this side perhaps the grub's dorsal
vessel would be wounded, its heart, an organ indispensable to life. The
fact remains that my attempts to make the grub tackle its victim from the
back have failed. Does this mean that it entertains the least suspicion of
the danger which it might incur were it to produce putrefaction by
awkwardly carving its victuals from the back? It would be absurd to give
such an idea a moment's consideration. Its refusal is dictated by a
preordained decree which it is bound to obey.

My Scolia-grubs would die of starvation if I left them on their victim's
back. I therefore restore matters as they were, with the Cetonia-larva
belly uppermost and the young Scolia on top. I might utilise the subjects
of my previous experiments; but, as I have to take precautions against the
disturbance which may have been caused by the test already undergone, I
prefer to operate on new patients, a luxury in which the richness of my
menagerie allows me to indulge. I move the Scolia from its position,
extract its head from the entrails of the Cetonia-larva and leave it to its