Graeca vero Aristotelis exemplaria [420] (nisi mendam subesse iudicemus) ita habent[1]: Τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα γόνιμα, πλὴν ὅσα τὸ μὲν μεῖζον τὸ δὲ ἔλαττον γίνεται τῶν διδύμων, τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον τερατώδες, hoc est, ut ego arbitror: E caeteris itaque gemina foecunda sunt, nisi quibus hoc contingit, ut alter maior fuerit, alter minor. in iis enim tandem in monstrum degenerat qui minor novissime provenit. Utra autem sententia fuerit verior, indicabit experientia. Videtur certe Plinius vel ex professo cum Aristotele hac in re minime convenire, quando Celsum authorem non Aristotelem citet[2]. In quibusdam exemplaribus Plinianis habetur (uti recte annotavit Claymundus) non alioqui, sed aliqui negant omnino geminos excludi, Haec ille. Quaerendum an legendum in Aristotelis verbis non πλὴν ὅσα, sed πλὴν ὅτι: et γίνεται praesens loco praeteriti ἐγένετο accipiendum sit, ut non simpliciter hic de ovis geminis scribat Aristoteles, sed de illius tantum gallinae geminis, quorum historiam hoc in loco recitat hoc sensu[3], Ex ovis octodecim gallinae cuiusdam omnibus geminis, pauca quaedam irrita fuerunt: caetera vero omnia (rite) foecunda: nisi quod e geminis pullus alter semper minor fuit, et ultimus (alter scilicet minor de ovo postremo excluso vel parto) monstruosus. In ovis quibusdam gemelli sunt, sed alter geminorum comprimit alium: et aliquando ruptis telis (tunicis) bicorporeus generatur, Albert.

But the Greek manuscripts of Aristotle (unless we believe that there a mistake is concealed) have this passage: Tà mèn oûn álla gónima, plën hósa tò mèn meîzon tò dè élatton ghìnetai tøn didýmøn, tò dè teleutaîon teratødes: that is, as I think: Therefore, in comparison with the other ones, the twin eggs are fertile, but to some of them it happens that a twin is larger, the other smaller. In short, of them degenerates then into a freak the smaller one, hatched out as last. Then experience will show which one of two statements is closer to the truth. And doubtless it turns out clear that Pliny openly in this regard doesn’t agree with Aristotle, being that he quotes Celsus as reliable source, not Aristotle. In some Pliny’s manuscripts is quoted (as Claymundus correctly pointed out) not alioqui - on the other hand, but aliqui - some people - negant omnino geminos excludi - affirm that twins are not hatched at all, these words are of Edward Wotton. We have to wonder whether in the words of Aristotle we must read not plën hósa - except how much, but plën hóti - except that: and whether the present tense ghínetai – hatches - should be read in place of the past tense eghéneto - hatched, since in this passage Aristotle is not merely writing about twin eggs, but only of the twin eggs of that hen, whose eggs he is quoting the history in the following excerpt as follows: Of the all twin eighteen eggs of a hen, only few of them were sterile: doubtless all the others were fertile (as usual): except that, from the twin ones, one of two chicks hatched out always smaller, and the last one (that is, the smaller of the couple, hatched out from the last hatched or laid egg) was freakish. In some eggs there are twins, but one of twins compresses the other: and sometimes after the membranes (the coverings) are ruptured he hatches endowed with two bodies, Albertus.

Calor fovens gallinae semen illud in fistulas (sic habet codex impressus) paulatim ovi candidum vertit, tum vero et lutei aliquid. nam alae et crura ex luteo fiunt. indicio est, quod pulli, qui ex ovo cuius lutea duo sunt absque sepiente membrana quatuor alis et totidem pedibus nascuntur, arbitranturque prodigium quale olim Mediolani contigit, Cardanus. Atqui nos alibi de anate scripsimus, et rursus de columba, quae tetrapodes tantum, non etiam tetrapteri fuerunt. Monstra (inquit Aristot. de generat. anim. 4. 4.[4]) saepius gignuntur in iis, quorum partus numerosus est, et praecipue in avium genere, earumque potissimum in gallinis, iis enim partus numerosus, non modo quod saepe pariant ut columbae, verum etiam quod multos simul conceptus intra se continent, et temporibus omnibus coeunt. hinc gemina etiam pariunt plura. cohaerent enim conceptus, quoniam in propinquo alter alteri est, quomodo interdum fructus arborum complures, quod si vitella distinguuntur membrana, gemini pulli discreti sine ulla supervacua parte generantur. sed si vitella continuantur, nec ulla interiecta membrana disterminantur, pulli ex iis monstrifici prodeunt, corpore et capite uno, cruribus quaternis, alis totidem, quoniam superiora ex albumine generentur, et prius: vitellum enim cibo iis est. pars autem inferior postea instituitur, quanquam cibus idem <in>discretusque[5] suppeditatur. in ovis quibusdam gemelli sunt. sed alter geminorum comprimit alium: et aliquando ruptis telis (involucris) bicorporeus generatur, Albert. Iam quale certo tempore est ovum in gallina, tale aliquando prodiit luteum totum, qualis postea pullus est. {Gallina}[6] <Gallo> etiam {discissa} <discisso> talia sub septo, quo loco foeminis ova adhaerent, inventa sunt, colore luteo tota magnitudine ovi perfecti: quod pro ostento augures capiunt, Aristot.[7] Audio et trilecitha[8], id est triplicis vitelli ova interdum reperiri: frequentius vero dilecitha, eaque in medio testae plerunque cavitatem habere. Magis nutriunt et subtiliora sunt ova quae duos vitellos habent, Elluchasem.

The warmth of the hen warming that seed gradually turns the egg white into tubular structures (so has the printed code), but also a part of the yellow. In fact the wings and the legs are formed from the yellow. It is a proof of this the fact that from an egg with two yolks without a separating membrane chicks are born with four wings and as many legs, and they are regarded as a portent, like that which once happened in Milan, Gerolamo Cardano. So, in a passage speaking of the duck, and then of the dove, I wrote that they were born with only four legs, not with four wings too. Aristotle in De generatione animalium IV, 4 says: The monsters are produced more often in that animals whose offspring is numerous, and especially in birds, and very often in hens, for  their laying is large, not only because they lay often like doves, but also because the hens contain simultaneously many products of conception within themselves and copulate at all seasons. Hence they lay also several twin eggs. For the products of conception are clinging together, since they are close each other, as sometimes it happens when the fruits of trees are very numerous, but if the yolks are separated by a membrane, separate twin chicks are generated without any exceeding part. But if the yolks are held together nor are bounded by any interposed membrane, from them freak chicks hatch with one body and one head, with four legs and as many wings, since the upper parts are generated from the albumen, and earlier: for the yolk is food for them. While the lower part comes into existence afterwards, although an identical and equal food is supplied. Twins are found in some eggs. But one of the twins compresses the other: and sometimes after the membranes (the wrappers)  have broken, a subject with two bodies hatches from them, Albertus. Like in a certain moment the egg is showing itself in the hen, so sometimes – the egg - showed itself entirely as yolk, which later will be a chick. Also when a rooster has been cut up, such eggs, sized like a complete egg yellow in color, have been found under the transverse septum where eggs adhere in the females: which is taken as a portent by augurs, Aristotle. I hear that trilecitha – trilékitha - eggs are found, that is, with three yolks: but more often with two yolks, and that usually they show a cavity in the middle of the shell. The eggs with two yolks are more nourishing and more fine, Elluchasem Elimithar.

¶ Fiunt et tota lutea quae vocant schista[9], cum triduo incubata tolluntur, Plin. ¶ Ego me aliquando ovum videre memini cuius testa ab altera parte extrema in angustum veluti collum instar cucurbitae se colligebat.

¶ Also those they call schista - split - become entirely yellow when removed after have been brooded for three days Pliny. ¶ I remember to have seen sometimes an egg whose shell at one of two ends got narrower into a narrow neck like that of a pumpkin.

¶ Gallinae nonnulla pariunt ova mollia vitio, Aristot.[10] Albertus ova sine testa exteriore inter subventanea numerat, ut infra recitabimus. Qui ixiam[11] biberunt, sumptis remediis vomentes, tales fere humores reddunt, qualia sunt ova gallinarum altilium, quae sine putamine reddunt propter ictum aut aliam vim quampiam, διὰ τινα πληγὴν ἤ περίστασιν, Scholiastes Nicandri. Et rursus, Ova sine putamine parit (ῥίπτει, eijcit) gallina, ἤ ἀπὸ πληγῆς ἤ ἐκ πλήθους ἐναποκειμένου αὐτῇ. hoc est, vel propter ictum aliquem, vel propter multitudinem (ovorum nimirum se invicem comprimentium) in ea. Poetae quidem versus hi sunt, Ἄλλοτε μὲν πληγῆσι νέον θρομβήϊα γαστρὸς | Μαρναμένη (scilicet gallina) δύσπεπτον ὑπεκγόνον ἔκχεε γαίῃ.[12]

¶ The hens lay some eggs which are soft because of a defect, Aristotle. Albertus includes among sterile eggs those without external shell, as I will say later. Those people who drank the mistletoe, when they vomit after take the remedies, send forth liquids just like the eggs of breeding hens they lay without shell because of a hit or some other violent reason, dià tina plëgën ë perístasin, the commentator of Nicander. And still: The hen lays (ríptei, flings) eggs without shell, ë apò plëgês ë ek plëthous enapokeiménou autêi, that is, either because of some blow, or because of the great number (obviously of eggs, crushing each other) present in her. But the verses of the poet are as follows: Állote mèn plëgêsi néon thrombëïa gastròs | Marnaménë dýspepton hypékgonon ékchee gaíëi. - Fighting (i.e. the hen) with the bruised body because of numerous hits, pours to earth the shapeless and raw seed without shell.

¶ Pariunt autem ova nonnulla infoecunda, vel ex iis ipsis, quae conceperint coitu. nullus enim provenit foetus, quamvis incubitu foveantur. quod maxime in columbis notatum est. Sterilitas ovis accidit, vel quia subventanea sunt, de quibus infra dicetur: vel aliis ex causis. corrumpuntur enim fere quatuor modis. Primo, albumine corrupto, ex quo partes pulli formari debuerant. Secundo, propter corruptionem vitelli, unde alimentum suppeditandum erat. itaque formatur pullus imperfecte, et partes quaedam in ipso non absolutae inveniuntur et non coniunctae, sicut in abortu animalis vivipari ante perfectionem lineamentorum foetus. Albumine autem corrupto nihil omnino per incubationem formatur, sed ovum totum turbatur et corrumpitur, sicut corrumpitur humor (sanies) in apostemate, quamobrem perquam foetida redduntur talia ova. (Haec esse conijcio quae Aristoteles et alii urina vocant, de quibus infra copiosius scribetur. nostri putrida ova, sule eyer. quanquam Aristoteles urina non albumine, sed vitello corrupto fieri ait). Tertio contingit ovum corrumpi, membranarum et fibrarum quae per albumen tendunt, vitio. nam corrupta tunica quae continet vitellum, humor vitellinus effluit, et confunditur cum albumine. itaque impeditur ovi foecunditas. Corruptis autem fibris, corrumpuntur venae et nervi pulli, et chordae: et impeditur nutritio, et compago ligamentis destructis dissolvitur, et laesis nervis sensus admittitur. Quarto, per vetustatem, exhalante spiritu in quo est virtus formativa: unde vitellus pondere suo penetrat albumen, et ad testam fertur in eam partem cui incumbit ovum. His quatuor modis ova infoecunda fieri contingit. In secundo quidem modo aliquando accidit, quod humoribus corruptis partes igneae combustae feruntur ad testam ovi, eamque aspergunt: unde ovum in tenebris [421] lucet quemadmodum quercus putrefacta.

¶ Albertus is speaking: In fact they lay some sterile eggs, or alone, or eggs they conceived after coition. In fact no fetus is formed despite they are warmed by brooding. A thing observed overall in doves. To the eggs it happens to be sterile or because they are full of wind, of which it will be spoken later, or for other reasons. In fact they become rotten more ore less according to four manners. First, on account of the corrupt albumen, from which the parts of the chick were to be formed. Second, because of the corruption of the yolk, whence the sustenance of the chick was to be provided. For thus the chick is formed imperfectly, and in it are found certain unfinished parts and not joined together, as in the abortion of a viviparous animal before the perfection of the lineaments of the foetus. But, since the albumen is corrupted, nothing is formed at all throughout the entire incubation, but the whole egg becomes decayed and fetid, as the liquid (the pus) goes bad in an abscess, that's why such eggs become exceedingly fetid. (I think that they are these the eggs called by Aristotle and others as full of wind, about which it will be written more profusely later. Ours call sule eyer the rotten eggs. Nevertheless Aristotle says that the eggs full of wind are formed not from albumen but from gone bad yolk). Third, it happens that the egg deteriorates because of the membranes and fibers which stretch through the albumen. For when the tunic which contains the yolk is corrupted, the liquid of the yolk flows out and mingles with the albumen. Thus the fecundity of the egg is hindered. But when the fibers are corrupted, the veins and nerves of the chick, as well as fibers are also corrupted: its nutrition is hindered, when the ligaments are destroyed the bond between the parts is dissolved and when the nerves are injured the sensitivity is lost. Fourth, because of getting old, since the air in which lies the formative property comes out: hence the yolk by its own weight penetrates the albumen and moves to the shell, in that part where the egg is bending. Therefore it happens that the eggs become infertile in these four ways. In the second manner sometimes it happens that because of an alteration of the liquids the warm parts running into combustion move toward the shell and sprinkle it: that's why in the dark the egg emits light as it happens for a rotten oak - by bioluminescence.