In his biological works, the philosopher of nature Aristotle abundantly theorized the reproduction of different animals, whether by sexual, parthenogenic or spontaneous generation. In accordance with his fundamental theory of hylomorphism, which said that any physical entity was a link between matter and form, Aristotle`s fundamental theory of sexual reproduction asserted that the semen of man imposed form, the series of properties transmitted to descendants on the “matter” (menstrual blood) delivered by the female. Thus, the feminine matter is the material cause of production – it provides the matter that will form the descendants – while the male seed is the effective cause, the factor that inspires and limits the existence of the thing.  However, as proposed in the history of animals, many creatures are formed not by sexual processes, but by spontaneous production: the Dutch biologist and microscopist Jan Swammerdam (1637-1680) rejected the concept that an animal could be born from another animal or a cult by chance, because it was ungodly and like others considered the concept of spontaneous production to be irreligious. and he associated it with atheism and ungodly opinion.  Ancient beliefs have been subjected to examination. In 1668, Francesco Redi questioned the idea that maggots were born spontaneously from rotten flesh. I think there are good reasons to wonder whether there is a spontaneous or abnormal generation of animals, as has been the constant opinion of naturalists so far. At the moment, it seems to me most likely that this does not exist; but that even all insects are the natural problem of the parents of the same species with themselves….