Wellington Philosophical Society.

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 24, 1891, Unnumbered Page

Wellington Philosophical Society. First Meeting: 17th June, 1891. E. Tregear, President, in the Chair. New Member.—H. Farquhar. A copy of Vol. XXIII. of Transactions of the New Zealand Institute was laid on the table; also proof-sheets of Mr. Hudson's work on the entomology of New Zealand, with plates. The latter were greatly admired.

Second Meeting: 8th July, 1891. E. Tregear, President, in the Chair. New Member.—William Percival Evans, M.A., Ph.D. Papers. — 1. “Mill on Demonstration and Necessary Truth,” by W. W. Carlile, M.A. (Transactions, p. 644.) Sir James Hector thanked the author for his most interesting paper. It was a subject difficult to criticize until the paper had been carefully read. Mr. Maskell agreed with Sir James Hector that the best thanks of the Society were due to Mr. Carlile for his excellent paper, which invested a dry and difficult subject with much more interest than probably any one expected. For himself he found several very suggestive points in the paper—not so much as to the particular question treated as on general grounds. In the first place it reminded him of what seemed to be the general fault of all English writers on philosophy and logic—-that they never seemed to refer to any but English, Scotch, or a few German authors. Now, if they would study French, Spanish, or Italian works also they might enlarge their views, and possibly gain insight into quite new and correctly suggestive trains of thought. Then, again, Mr. Carlile, he thought, had attached far too much importance to the notions of Professor Huxley, a man who, to the speaker's mind, was as bad a specimen of blatant assumption and of illogical absurdity (except, of course, when dealing with actual facts of natural history) as the modern era has shown. There was one point, only incidentally referred to in the paper, which would perhaps require correction. Mr. Carlile parenthetically remarked that the axiom that two things which are equal to a third are equal to one another would be incomprehensible to a Bushman or a Damaraman. Taken as referring to any particular or existing savage, this would be probably true; taken, as a general statement, with the inference that any necessary difference exists between the brain and intellect of a savage and the brain and intellect of a cultivated Englishman, it would certainly not be correct, in spite of the prevailing theory of the present day, which usually affirms it, if not in terms, at least by implication. The President said that, greatly as he admired the work of Professor Huxley in the domain of natural science, he shared with others the regret that the learned Professor should ever step outside the limits of his own domain and enter the fields of politics and theology, where his logic was by no means unassailable. He (the President) had been struck with astonishment when reading Huxley many years ago to find that he had stated that all dream-images were vague and undefined. This is contrary to the facts of experience of most observers. Undefined images might occupy the mind of one who was discussing a subject like “man” from a racial point of view; but in the case of a “triangle” there was no mental conception possible of a triangle generally—it was absolutely necessary to conceive the idea of a triangle as either equilateral, scalene, isosceles, &c. As to necessary truths, it was almost certainly held that the axioms of Euclid were necessary truths; but he had read a clever psychological article in a recent magazine, in which it was asked how it was possible to possess one of these self-evident truths except by in-heritance, without breaking the chain of cause and effect. Such a statement as that “things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other “was not a” self-evident” truth; it required reasoning from experience before the mind could place faith in it. The purely mental conception of a line as having “length without breadth” could not be called useless (although it could not be practically represented), because

arithmetical figures used in trigonometry proved that the boundaries of geometrical figures really had position, but not magnitude of breadth. So that this is almost a necessary truth; and, although abstract truths were little more than hypotheses, still, if they were “working hypotheses,” they were of enormous value. He might instance the value of the Forty-seventh Proposition of the First Book of Euclid: the discoverer of the principle in this problem offered up a hecatomb of oxen to the gods for so great a truth being found; and it had proved of inestimable value to the world in astronomy, navigation, engineering, &c. He could understand the schoolboy's delight if allowed to prove the truth of the Fifth Proposition of the First Book of Euclid by turning the triangle on its back, but he hardly thought such a simplification would be allowed, although many of the propositions might be swept away as being evident at sight, and not made clearer by the attempted proof. As to Mr. Maskell's assertion that the Bosjesman, or any savage, had as much intellectual power as the civilised European, there would be difficulty in measuring the amount of latent power in any individual; but it was certain that the expression of that power was immensely unequal. It would be almost impossible to assert with gravity that the mind of an African who with great difficulty could be taught the use of numbers beyond two or three was equal to any one of the minds of Bacon, Newton, or Herschel, although a potentiality of mind equal to great intellectual effort might lie unrecognised in the brain of the savage. Mr. Carlile, in reply, expressed his gratification at the appreciative criticism his paper had received. The President had already explained some of the matters to which exception had been taken. He had not meant to suggest that the simplification of the proof of the Fifth Proposition which he suggested in any way detracted from its validity or importance. There were several of the propositions at the beginning of the First Book which were rather obscured than illustrated by the proof furnished of them: the Thirteenth, for instance. If we regard a point in a straight line as an angle of 180°, it was certain that drawing any number of lines through this point could have no tendency to alter the size of this angle; yet this was what was elaborately proved. He thought a desideratum among the definitions was a definition of what was meant by the size of an angle. It proceeded to speak of the size of angles without furnishing any criterion for their measurement. If this were furnished it would necessarily carry with it the proof of the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth, and a host of other propositions. The size of an angle, and the length of the subtending side in any triangle, were, it seemed to him, two names for the same thing. There was no use of propositions to prove the fact of their concomitant variations. 2. “On the Shifting of Sand-dunes,” by H. C. Field. (Transactions, p. 561.). Sir James Hector said he thought the subject a most important one. In a new country they should be very careful as to how they interfered with the natural changes of the coast-line. He was of opinion that Mr. Field had done good service in bringing this matter before the Society. They in New Zealand would have to guard against selling lands situated in dangerous positions on the coasts. They should also prevent mischievous people from interfering with mouths of rivers, and thus preventing natural changes. Mr. Field's paper had opened up a subject of extreme practical importance to the colony. Mr. Beetham thought this a valuable paper. It would encourage those who had the opportunity to note carefully such changes as had been spoken of. There was no doubt great alterations had taken place on our coasts and in our rivers owing to the causes mentioned by Mr. Field.

Third Meeting: 29th July, 1891. E. Tregear, President, in the chair. The President called attention to the volume of old views of Wellington and other parts of New Zealand, presented to the Society by Major Gudgeon. Papers.—1. “On the Establishment of an Expert Agricultural Department in New Zealand,” by W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S. (Transactions, p. 625.) The Hon. R. Pharazyn said he quite agreed with Mr. Maskell that it was of the greatest importance that such an expert department should be established, and he would be glad to do all in his power to support such a movement. It had been found in other countries that a department of this kind had worked well, and had proved of the greatest benefit to those engaged in agricultural pursuits. Mr. G. Beetham was also in favour of a department such as Mr. Maskell described. He believed that if properly represented the Government and the House would favourably consider such a proposition. He complimented Mr. Maskell for the valuable work he had done in this branch of science, and said that the thanks of the Society were due to him for having brought this important matter forward. Mr. Carlile thought that the farmers would highly approve of the establishment of such a useful department, and he thought the various incorporated societies would assist in urging the forming of a department of this kind. The President agreed with all that had been said. The following resolution was moved by Mr. Maskell: “That, in the opinion of this Society, the establishment of a well-equipped expert Agricultural Department is urgently required in New Zealand.”

Fourth Meeting: 8th, August, 1891. E. Tregear, President, in the chair.

Fifth Meeting: 9th September, 1891. W. T. L. Travers, F.L.S., in the chair. New Member.—R. T. Turnbull. Papers.—1. “Instances of Instinct in Insects,” by G. V. Hudson, F.E.S. (Transactions, p. 354.) Mr. Phillips said he disagreed with the author as regards the hereditary instinct of animals; he believed that animals and man derived their intelligence in constructive ability in a similar manner—namely, from a common vital force, a subject on which he had read a paper before this Society a short time ago. He did not agree to credit everything to evolution. A spider's web is superior to anything that man can construct. There is a force in nature given to man or insects which is common to both, and not necessarily hereditary. Mr. Maskell said he was obliged to dissent from the conclusions of the author. Whatever the reality might be of the three or four facts given by Mr. Hudson, they seemed entirely insufficient to form a basis for a theory of instinct such as was proposed. For example, in the case of the falling insect mentioned, Mr. Hudson adduced this as an instance clearly pointing to acquired faculties, the result of long series of minute variations and progress. But the case was of extreme weakness unless Mr. Hudson was prepared to assert of his own knowledge that the remote ancestor of this moth—the very first of the race—did not do precisely the same thing. Assuming (what did not seem to be proved) that the moth which fell on this occasion did so from fright,—assuming that the moth could see far enough to detect an approaching enemy (also not proved),—how could anybody say that the very first created moth of the species did not do the same thing under similar conditions? And if it did, where would the progressive inherited variation leading to the instinct of the moth now referred to come in? The founding of theories tending to sap and destroy the first principles of human belief on such vague and unproved assertions as those of the paper was mischievous in the extreme, and the speaker regretted that so many young students of the present day were apt to give way to the temptation of indulging in them. Sir Walter Buller was somewhat disappointed with Mr. Hudson's paper, because its ambitious title had led him to expect much more than it gave in the way of original research. He could not conceive a more fruitful subject than the one selected by the author; but, instead of the large array of facts and observations from his own experience one might have expected, Mr. Hudson had recorded only two instances of remarkable instinct in New Zealand insects, the rest being quoted from English authors. The paper appeared to him a little crude, but he felt sure Mr. Hudson was on the right track. It seemed to him impossible to reject the theory of hereditary instinct with such evidence before us. Take, for example, the hexagonal cell of the common honey-bee. What the first bee may have done it is, of course, impossible to know, but within the memory of man the bee had constructed its cell on exactly the same model, as the result of hereditary instinct. Sir James Hector said the paper was evidently an attempt to meet statements attacking the theory of evolution that were made at previous meetings. He held that there was nothing about first causes in that theory, and that it was a powerful aid to the working naturalist in unravelling and unfolding the various steps in the scheme of creation. He recommended members to read some interesting anecdotes bearing on the question of modification of instincts into individual reasoning-powers which are related in Good Words by Dr. Günther. He referred especially

to the nesting habits in confinement of the magpie and house-sparrow, which showed that inherited memory, or instinct, though very potent, could be overruled by individual effort. Mr. Harding called attention to what he said at the last meeting on Mr. Carlile's paper. He did not think we could have both reason and instinct. He related how a beaver in captivity showed instinct, but very little reason. There was a communal instinct which enabled savages to construct bridges, and such things, without the aid of architects or surveyors. Mr. Hudson's paper, as a clue to the mystery of nature, was worthless, but it was a good working theory for a naturalist. It was a mistake to put forward such statements as Mr. Hudson had done as if they were actual facts. Mr. Travers described how the gull carried the shell to a height, and then dropped it, when it broke, and disclosed the fish inside, which the gull fed upon. This was probably the result of an accident in the first instance, followed by reason in repeating the action. The bird could not acquire this from any created habit. Mr. Wallace is inclined to abandon the idea of instinct. Dr. Günther's example of the magpie is remarkable. He did not think Mr. Hudson intended, as Mr. Maskell inferred, to dogmatize. The paper was valuable, and contained most interesting facts. We must inquire into all facts of this kind if we wished to add to our knowledge in natural history. Sir Walter Buller said he wished to supplement Mr. Travers's account of the instinct displayed by Larus dominicanus in breaking shell-fish. During his travels he had thousands of times watched the operation— the bird ascending obliquely to a certain height, then dropping the shell and coming down to feast on the contents. But what had specially struck him was this: The sagacious bird never dropped the shell on soft sand or ooze, but always selected the hard portion of the beach, where the impact of the falling shell would produce the desired result. That fact alone exhibited a certain amount of intelligence on the part of the bird. But there was this curious fact also: The young sea-gull never resorted to this mode of breaking shells. It took from two to three years for the bird to attain its full livery of black and white plumage; it was easy, therefore, to distinguish the young bird in its spotted grey dress, and he could not remember having once seen it rise in the manner described. This would seem to tell against the theory of hereditary instinct, because the habit was evidently an acquired one, and the result of imitation. Mr. Hudson, in reply, was gratified at the interest taken in his paper. He was sorry that the title had been misleading. He merely offered it as a supplement to Mr. Carlile's paper, and did not pretend that it was exhaustive. With reference to Mr. Phillips's remarks on the “vital force,” he was not aware that the existence of any such power had been demonstrated. In connection with Mr. Maskell's remarks, he wished to direct attention to the extensive modifications which man had produced in many domestic productions by exercising selection in certain directions. Natural selection having so much wider a scope, and so much more time to act, it must have produced far greater results than man's selection. With regard to the term “natural selection,” he was aware that there were certain objections to its use, but it was shorter than the more accurate one, “survival of the fittest.” In stating that the instincts of insects were inherited in the same manner as their structure and colouring, he was only following the almost universal opinion of entomologists. In fact, it appeared to him impossible to explain the phenomena of the insect-world in any other way. How, for example, would it benefit an insect to inherit a resemblance to some inanimate object, unless it also inherited the instinct to assume the peculiar position necessary to complete the deception? He could not understand Mr. Harding's statement as to the superiority of the savage over the civilised man in

works of engineering skill. In conclusion, he was surprised at objections being raised to the idea that knowledge would gradually become an inherited attribute in the human race. How much better, for example, it would be if we could inherit all our elementary learning, and thus have so much more time for more advanced studies! There were many instances where insects inherited the faculty of performing most complex actions without being taught, and he did not see why the same law should not apply to man when a sufficiently long interval of time had elapsed to render his activities hereditary.

Sixth Meeting: 23rd September, 1891. Sir James Hector in the chair. New Member.—Hastings Lee.

Abstract. The author sketched briefly the older radical and type theories, showing how each failed to lay sufficiently bare the internal structure of the molecule. The chain theory was then gone into at some length, and its inability to explain many well-known cases of isomerism pointed out. Having thus made evident the necessity for widening the theory, the author proceeded to explain the stereo-chemic hypothesis of Le Bel and van't Hoff. By help of models, the possible derivatives of a single carbon and the combinations of two such systems were developed, it being thus shown how two hitherto unknown classes of isomers were rendered possible—viz., those due to the presence of asymmetric carbon-atoms, and those due to the presence of doubly-bonded pairs of carbon-atoms. Many examples from organic chemistry were then given in support of the hypothesis, special stress being naturally laid on those compounds (e.g., tartaric acid, amygdalic acid, malic acid, propylene glycol, amylic alcohol, camphor, &c.) whose optical activity was not dependent on the solid state. In conclusion, attention was drawn to the fact that the stereo-chemic method had already been extended to other elements, notably nitrogen and oxygen; that it had done much service in the development of organic rings, had explained in a very satisfactory manner several hitherto abnormal anhydrides and oximes, and bade fair to be of considerable use in comparing the chemical energies of the several members of any special group. Sir James Hector complimented the author on his splendid paper. He hoped that before long the services of Dr. Evans would be secured as a teacher in one of our colleges. He pointed out how necessary it was for Wellington to have a college where a lecture of this kind would be of much benefit to students, and he hoped Dr. Evans would on a future occasion give the Society further experimental proofs of the theories he advanced. Mr. Hulke said he had listened with great pleasure, for the subject of the paper had been for some time past of great interest to him. If there was any foundation of truth in the theory, then the polariscope would be to the chemist what the spectroscope was to the astronomer. All innovations met with opposition. When, half a century ago, the increasing

number of organic compounds necessitated a revision of chemical nomenclature, Dumas tried hard to stop the change. He sneered at constitutional formulæ, and the designation of compounds by their common-sense names. And so with the new theory. Its authors were ridiculed by some of the greatest chemists of the day. Because Wisliceuns favoured it Kolbi attacked him in no measured terms, accusing him of quackery and charlatanism akin to spiritualism; and now Kolbi is gone, and Wisliceuns sits in the professorial chair formerly occupied by his bitter opponent. Dr. Evans, in reply, said that unfortunately very few experiments connected with stereo-chemistry had much attraction for any one but a chemist, and nearly all demanded a much longer time than that placed at the disposal of a lecturer. With regard to the remarks of the Chairman on the relations between optical activity and living organisms, he might say that such a connection had been almost conclusively proved not to exist. The special acid mentioned by Sir James Hector—namely, tartaric acid—had been synthetically produced in all its modifications; and these had proved themselves the exact counterparts of those derived in the usual manner from the juice of the grape. Many other optically-active substances had also been synthesized with like results. Moreover, all attempts to bring about optical activity by means of ferments and other living organisms, in fluid whose molecules did not possess asymmetric carbon systems, had resulted negatively. Seventh Meeting: 21st October, 1891. Sir James Hector in the chair. Papers.—1. “Further Coccid Notes: with Descriptions of New Species, and Remarks on Coccids from New Zealand, Australia, and elsewhere,” by W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S. (Transactions, p. 1.) Mr. Maskell read extracts only from the paper, and drew attention to a collection of insects on the table which had been described by him. He pointed out the great interest there was in the study of these scale-insects, especially from an economic point of view. He was sorry that so little interest was taken, especially by those who were more immediately affected by these pests. They were ready enough to ask for information, but rarely acted on the advice given. It was disheartening to those who devoted so much time to the economic side of the question, and almost enough to make those engaged in it give up such work. He would still do all he could to induce the Government to establish an Agricultural Department. The proposal had generally been received well in the Houses of Parliament, but he was afraid that until more pressure was brought to bear the Government would not move in the matter. He probably would ask the Council of this Society to still further assist him in bringing about the object desired. Sir W. Buller said he had listened with pleasure to Mr. Maskell's interesting and practical remarks. He thought, notwithstanding what Mr. Maskell had said, that work of this nature would in time be appreciated, and he thought that an Agricultural Department would be established, thanks greatly to the exertions of Mr. Maskell. Mr. Travers said farmers and fruit-growers would thoroughly appreciate the establishment of an Agricultural Department. Many of them were benefiting by the advice given by those who worked on the scale and

other insects. The making-known the life-history of these pests was of the greatest value. Mr. Harding thought that the Agricultural Department would become an accomplished fact. Sir J. Hector said that Mr. Maskell deserved the thanks of the Society for having contributed such a valuable paper. He thought, with regard to the establishment of an Agricultural Department, it was necessary that some more definite scheme should be decided on, and more information provided, before a department of this kind could be formed. It was not quite such a simple matter as might be supposed. It required to be carefully thought out. In the meantime the Government were doing all they could in the matter. He hoped Mr. Maskell would still continue his valuable work on these insects, especially that part bearing on the economic branch of the study. Mr. Maskell did not wish what he had said to refer specially to what he had himself done in this particular branch of scientific research. He referred generally to the small amount of interest taken in this important work. 2. “Further Notes and Observations on Certain Species of New Zealand Birds,” by Sir Walter Buller, K.C.M.G., F.R.S. (Transactions, p. 75.) The author exhibited several handsome specimens. Mr. Travers agreed with Sir Walter Buller that many of our rare birds were fast disappearing. He said that the introduced ferrets, &c., were in a great measure the cause; they were destroying the domestic fowls, and had to be killed as vermin. Mr. Phillips said that if the ferrets were vermin, and there were no rabbits, they should certainly be destroyed; but that they had been most useful in getting rid of the rabbits was most certain. Sir Walter Buller said we had far better never have introduced such animals; the rabbits would have died out, or could have been otherwise destroyed, but we should find it difficult to get rid of the ferrets. Eighth Meeting: 11th November, 1891. The Hon. W. B. D. Mantell, F.G.S., in the chair. Paper.—“On Moth-destruction,” by Coleman Phillips. (Transactions, p. 630.) The author exhibited a lantern and fittings by which it was proposed to catch the moths in large quantities. Sir James Hector said that Mr. Phillips had certainly done good work in pointing out a simple and effectual way of getting rid of these insects that are so destructive in our gardens and fields of crops; it was the first time, as far as he knew, that the lantern had been used in a practical way for this object. He did not think any useful insects would be destroyed. Mr. Hudson agreed that the lantern idea was novel for the purpose of destroying moths on such a large scale. He was afraid it would not reach the worst kind of pests, which he thought were the slugs. The wireworm referred to was not a moth, and its beetle had no wings; the lantern would, however, attract some of the wood-boring beetles with wings. He did not think we had the wireworm in New Zealand.

Mr. Richardson thought we had the wireworm here. The reason why so many were captured was that the light of this lantern was so much greater than ordinary lights. Mr. Phillips did not claim to have invented this lantern; he had only adapted and improved it for this purpose. He intended supplying them to his neighbours. He said that one of the moths he caught did terrible damage to the grass, oats, and turnips—the fields swarmed with them. Annual Meeting: 24th February, 1892. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., in the chair.

Abstract. The report stated that eight meetings had been held during the year, and the attendance had been larger than usual. This was no doubt owing to the fact that the subjects treated in the papers read were more varied than had generally been the case. Twenty papers were read. Five new members had joined the Society during the year, and the total number now on the roll was 155. The statement of accounts showed that the receipts amounted to £137 1s. 3d., and the expenditure to £103 18s. 7d., leaving a balance of £33 2s. 8d. There was also a fixed deposit of £21 towards the prize fund.