Presidential Address

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 74, 1944-45, Page XXIX

Presidential Address Dr. H. H. Allan. Since the previous annual meeting we have lost two distinguished honorary members. Frederick Chapman was elected in 1932. Born in London in 1864, he served in the geological department of the Royal College of Mines from 1881 till 1902, when he went to Melbourne as palaeontologist to the National Museum, a position he held till 1927. He then became Commonwealth palaeontologist, retiring in 1936. His death on December 19, 1943, ended a long and fruitful career. While becoming a leader and a recognised authority in his profession he was interested and versed in nearly all aspects of natural history. His name will ever endure as one who inspired and encouraged others to take up the studies he so loved himself. To him we owe several valuable palaeontological papers in our Transactions. Sir Edwin Butler, F.R.S., was elected in 1939. Born in 1874, he devoted his life to advancing the study of economic mycology in the Empire. As Imperial Mycologist to the Agricultural Research Institute at Pusa, India, he rendered great service, and no more fitting person could have been chosen to be the first Director of the Imperial Mycological Institute at Kew. The great developments within the Empire of work on and institutions for the furthering of economic mycology are very largely due to his energy and guidance. Very helpful in this regard was his visit to New Zealand in 1923. His was an outstanding and arresting personality, whether he were at the lecture table or directing the affairs of his Institute. His death in April last removed an Empire leader in science. I wish also to pay tribute to the late Sir Albert Seward, F.R.S., who was elected in 1928. Born in 1863, he early on devoted himself to the study of fossil plants and their significance in evolution. His masterly work on the mesozoic floras of the world gained him widespread renown, and he became a commanding figure in the scientific life of Great Britain. Gifted as he was with a beautiful voice, skilled as he became in clear and vivid expression, his influence spread far beyond the confines of academic and scientific circles. For many years head of the Botany School at Cambridge, and Master of Downing College, he became Vice-Chancellor of his University, and proved that a great scientist may be also a great administrator. His death in 1941 came at the plenitude of his powers. Seventy-five Years of “The Transactions.” On October 10, 1769, scientific work in New Zealand began when Solander and Banks strolled along the Waikanae River at Poverty Bay. At Wellington, one hundred years later, on May 5, 1869, James Hector signed the preface to the first volume of our Transactions and regular publication of the results of study ensued. After

seventy-five years it seems well to review the progress made, so far as it is reflected in the published papers, and to consider the outlook for the future. In his inaugural address to the Institute, His Excellency Sir George Bowen, on August 4, 1868, outlined the character and objects of the Institute as stated in the preamble to “The New Zealand Institute Act, 1867.” “It is expedient to make provision for carrying out the geological survey of the Colony and to establish and incorporate a public institution in the City of Wellington to be called “The New Zealand Institute” which Institute shall comprise a public museum and laboratory and a public library. And it is also expedient by means of lectures, classes and otherwise to promote the general study and cultivation of the various branches and departments of art, science, literature and philosophy.” Sir George went on: “Co-operation is the secret of success in all scientific pursuits, and the New Zealand Institute, while leaving its affiliated societies unfettered in the performance of their separate functions, will publish their chief transactions on a uniform plan, thereby concentrating the information collected by local observers throughout the country, and providing for the preservation, in a permanent and accessible form, of the results of their labours.” “Let me remind you,” he said, “that the main object of the Legislature in founding this Institute was not merely to make provision for healthy intellectual recreation, but rather to provide guidance and aid for the people of New Zealand in subduing and replenishing the earth—in the heroic work of colonisation.” Sir George referred particularly to the geological, botanical, zoological and physical sciences. He also stressed the value of work on the ethnology and anthropology of the Maori race, and on the encouragement of technical and scientific education. “I fully believe,” he added, “that the New Zealand Institute contains within itself a sure principle of vitality because it contains a sure principle of usefulness.” The first volume gave us a magnificent start, and those great essays of Hector, Monro, Travers, Buchanan, Buller, Colenso, Ludlam, Crawford, and Shortland we may still read with enjoyment and profit. In the first volume, too, Hector gave that famous list of thirty-one subjects “in the hope that it may be found useful, as suggesting future communications to the various societies.” This list largely aimed at exploiting the natural resources of the country, the development of agriculture, horticulture and forestry, and the advancement of civil engineering and public health; but fundamental work in botany, geology, zoology, and anthropology received some mention. Every one of these thirty-one subjects still requires and is receiving serious attention to-day: “formation of sandbanks in rivers, and bars to harbours,” “habits of animals, especially of those destructive to trees and cultivated plants,” “resources of the Colony in cements, concretes, plasters, building stones,” “causes of failure of introduced grasses on some of our soils,” “medicinal plants,” “harbour improvements,” and so on. Sir William Jervois, in his anniversary address for 1883, said: “I am happy to say that there is not one of these subjects that has not

been not merely touched on, but very carefully gone into; in fact, I greatly doubt whether any young country in the world has been so systematically investigated as New Zealand has been under the auspices of this Institute.” There is some exaggeration in this, but exaggerated also is the statement of Cockayne in 1919, referring to Hector's list, that “there is hardly a mention of those subjects which have filled most of the fifty volumes” of the Transactions. Do we not find many papers on the “History, mythology, ethnology, etc., of the Maori race,” on “mineral and metalliferous deposits,” on “the occurrence of rare plants, animals and minerals,” on “localities for fossils”? It was natural that at that early stage Hector should throw into relief matters that would attract the attention of the layman and of those who would have to provide the funds. I am afraid it is still necessary to-day to do somewhat as Hector did. Naturally, also, many of the topics mentioned received attention rather in departmental reports and special technical journals than in the pages of the Transactions, leaving us more free to publish basic work. This is all to the good, if only we can rest assured that the matter published will be recognised by those who control our finances as essential and not merely frills. An analysis of the contributions so far made should be of interest: We find that the three sciences—Zoology (1470 papers), Botany (784), and Geology (752)—account for over 75 per cent. of the papers published. If we include the 249 papers on palaeontology (all too few deal with palaeobotany) and the 19 papers on the organic chemistry of indigenous plants we have 65 per cent, of the total dealing with biological matters. Zoology reached its peak, so far as number of papers goes, in the fifth lustrum, when 146 papers were published. There was a distinct drop in the thirteenth lustrum, when 42 papers were published. Publication has since been maintained at about that level. Botany had its maxima in the third and sixth lustra, in each of which 88 papers were published. In Botany, too, there was a distinct drop in the thirteenth lustrum, the papers averaging from then on about 30 per lustrum. Geology had its maximum in the eleventh lustrum, with 81 papers, and has since averaged about 55 papers per lustrum. The year 1930, then, appears to have been a turning point in all these subjects, but they still maintain predominance over other subjects. Chemistry has accounted for 214 papers, with a maximum in the first lustrum, with also a marked drop from 1930 onwards. The total of papers for physics is 67, for meteorology 17, for seismology 18, and for oceanography 8. Physics was more to the fore from 1893 to 1898 than at any other period, while astronomy, with 49 papers, appears to be maintaining the average of 3 per lustrum. Anthropology and ethnology have 151 papers to their credit, but only three have appeared since 1924. The figures for other subjects are: philology 21, but only two since 1903; economics 11, scattered throughout the volumes till 1927; medicine 19, but only two since 1903; geography 27, the last appearing in 1907; history 60, the last in 1924; education 19, the last in 1905; mathematics and

statistics 46, the last in 1918; philosophy 23, the last in 1908; literature 10, but only one since 1911. Engineering topics made their best showing in the first three lustra, when 49 of the 61 papers were published, the last appearing in 1917. Some 28 papers defy classification except as “miscellaneous,” but since 1908 only two come under this head. Roughly grouping the different subjects we get the following totals for the successive decades:— 1st Decade 2nd Decade 3rd Decade 4th Decade 5th Decade 6th Decade 7th Decade Total Natural History 455 521 509 402 411 418 280 2996 Physics and Chemistry 88 56 59 47 45 45 16 356 Pure and Applied Mathematics 43 18 6 23 17 0 0 107 Humanistic Studies 55 58 74 79 21 24 3 314 Miscellaneous 5 1 6 14 2 0 0 28 Totals 646 649 656 568 496 487 299 3801 The average number of papers per volume for these groups in different periods is: Natural History—1869 to 1898, 50; 1899 to 1929, 40; 1930 to 1944, under 30. Physical and Chemical Subjects—1869 to 1883, 9; 1884 to 1929, 5; 1930 to 1944, under 2. Pure and Applied Mathematics—1869 to 1883, 4; 1844 to 1918, 1; 1919 onwards, a trace. Humanistic Studies—1869 to 1903, 7; 1904 to 1924, 4; 1925 onwards, a trace. The average number of papers per volume for all subjects is for the period 1869 to 1883, 67; for 1884 to 1898, 64; for 1899 to 1913, 54; for 1914 to 1929, 49; for 1930 to 1944, 30. I have not attempted to analyse the relative length of papers in the successive volumes; long and short papers occur throughout, but the trend seems clear for long rather than short papers to be offered for publication. In sum, there have been 3899 papers contributed by over 800 authors. In interpreting these figures we have to remember the changes that have been made in format, and especially that various other avenues of publication have opened up since the Transactions began; for example, the Journal of the Polynesian Society in 1892, the New Zealand Journal of Agriculture in 1910, and the Journal of Science and Technology in 1918. Further, there have been increasing facilities for publishing in overseas journals. Cost of publication has increased, and available funds have not increased in proportion. By the Royal Society of New Zealand Act in 1933, the New Zealand Institute was abolished and there was constituted a “Body for the Promotion of Science, to be known as the Royal Society of New Zealand.” Art, literature, and philosophy were no longer our concern. Indeed, the Act of 1903 mentions only science as coming under

our purview. In view of all these points we can understand the gradual restriction of the Transactions to a limited number of sciences. Bishop Williams, in his presidential address for 1937, stated that two criticisms of the Transactions had come to his notice:—that the papers were too technical, and that there was not sufficient variety in the subjects treated. “The answer to the first,” he said, “is simple. If a paper is to be of value to the scientific reader it must of necessity be technical. We would like to encourage readers of the Transactions, but mere popularity is not a legitimate aim of such a society as this.” On the second count he remarked that “our field of operation would appear to be limited solely by our interpretation of the term ‘science’.” We are also limited, however, by what is offered for publication by our members. We may expect that within the next decade further journals dealing with scientific matters will be commenced in New Zealand. Already geographers and botanists, at least, are thinking in this direction. There seems little doubt that for some years to come our Transactions will continue on the same lines of those of the last 15 years, and geology, zoology, and botany will account for the bulk of the papers. But quantity is not all. What of quality? Cockayne, in reviewing 50 years of work, said: “The greater number of papers which have appeared of recent years would have been accepted by the scientific journals of Great Britain and America, if the numerous papers strictly of local interest be excluded from the estimate.” So far as I can judge, the same verdict is true of the papers published in the succeeding 25 years. Let us recall some of the great contributors of the past, with the dates of their periods of publication: Buchanan (1869 to 1888). Twenty-eight papers, mainly botanical; illustrations to the first 19 volumes. “He was a great explorer, or rather, wanderer, and he endured much hardship in collecting specimens of geological interest, minerals, birds even, and certainly above all other things, plants.”—James Hector. Buller (1869–1899). One hundred papers on zoology, mainly ornithological. “His papers had commanded the attention of scientific men not merely in New Zealand, but in Europe and America.”— M. Chapman. Colenso (1869–1899). One hundred and three papers, chiefly on botany and ethnology. “Colenso had been a constant contributor to the work of the New Zealand Institute. He took a lively interest in its progress, and in its success in every direction. He contributed to its meetings articles of the greatest interest and value upon almost every branch of natural science. He did valuable work as an explorer in the early days of the settlement of New Zealand, and then and subsequently he did good work as a recorder in zoological science. But above all things he did good work in extending the knowledge of the botany of New Zealand. But these were bypaths in comparison with his great work in philology.”—Hector. Crawford (1869–1888). Thirty-five papers, mainly geological. A man of lively intellect, interested in a wide range of subjects, and an ardent supporter of the Institute.

Haast (1869–1887). Forty-two geological papers. “Who, by his explorations and discoveries, has done so much both officially and privately to advance the intellectual and material progress of Canterbury and of the whole Colony of New Zealand.”—Phil. Inst. of Canterbury. Hector (1869–1903). Seventy-three papers on geology, zoology, botany. “By his own researches in geology, zoology and botany in the Dominion of New Zealand, he added greatly to the knowledge of these branches of science; as head of the Geological Survey, of the Meteorological Department, and of the Colonial Laboratory, and as Director of the Colonial Museum he was the chief scientific advisor of successive governments for a long period of years, while as Chancellor of the New Zealand University he was closely associated with the highest education of the Dominion.”— G. M. Thomson. Hutton (1869–1906). One hundred and eighty-four papers on geology and zoology. “By his long series of original contributions on the geology and zoology of New Zealand he established the knowledge of these subjects on a sure and permanent foundation, and made for himself a world-wide reputation as a geologist and zoologist, and by his researches on the origin of the fauna and flora of New Zealand became a recognised authority on questions of biogeography.”—C. C. Farr. Kirk. One hundred and thirty-two papers on botany. “Whose scientific labours have contributed so largely to the advancement of the study of botany in New Zealand.”—F. W. Chapman. Travers (1869–1903). Thirty-eight papers on botany. “He was one of the chief promoters of the New Zealand Institute in 1867, was a member of the Board of Governors from that time, and for many years was honorary treasurer.”—Hector. Skey (1870–1898). Eighty-eight papers on chemistry. “With a natural bent for chemistry and diligent labour and study he had attained such a position as to be recognised as one of the world's foremost authorities in certain branches of the science.”—Hector. Cheeseman (1872–1923). Ninety-two papers on botany and geology. He reached New Zealand when eight years old and “his works must perforce be in the hands of all pursuing studies either with the flora or the vegetation and must be consulted daily.”— Cockayne. Fereday (1872–1898). Nineteen papers on entomology. A pioneering student in this branch of science in New Zealand. Thomson, G. M. (1875–1927). Thirty-five papers on natural history. “A conscientious and enthusiastic naturalist, equally interested in problems of botany, in systematic zoology, and in economic zoology, and in the facts of acclimatisation.”—W. B. Benham. Bickerton (1875–1895). Twenty papers, mainly on astronomy. An exponent of the theories of cosmic and partial impact. Broun (1876–1908). Eighteen papers on zoology. His work on Coleoptera was “a monument of the zeal and industry of an ardent naturalist.”—Hector,

Hamilton (1879–1913). Fifty-five papers on natural history and anthropology. “An eminent student of Maori lore, a lover of nature, an earnest seeker after truth. Tupai te Ahorangi.”—Hamilton Memorial Tablet. Maskell (1879–1898). Thirty-nine papers on zoology. “Who took up the subject [of the scale insects] after the death of Signoret, and his name is now famous throughout the world as the best authority on it.”—Ann. Rep. N.Z. Inst., 1899. Petrie (1879–1926). Sixty-four papers on botany. “His name will always be revered as that of one of the great pioneers at a time when such were urgently needed in the domain of New Zealand field botany.”—L. Cockayne. Parker (1881–1894). Twenty-three papers on zoology. “For 18 years a member of the Council and an indefatigable supporter of the Institute.”—J. Shand. Chilton (1882–1929). Fifty-four papers on zoology. Who came to New Zealand as a boy. “No other life in the Dominion has ever been more generously given to the patient toil of learning and teaching, and yet has been so little in danger of becoming absorbed by them, to the exclusion of thought on the ends of learning and life.”— G. M. Thomson. Brown (1883–1903). Twenty papers on botany. “The most enthusiastic naturalist I ever met.”—L. Cockayne. Laing (1884–1940). Thirty-two papers on botany. “He claimed no high place for himself, but what he knew and thought he passed on eagerly to others.”—H. H. Allan. Hill (1887–1926). Forty-five papers, mainly on geology. “Hill had a most stimulating influence and did much to arouse and maintain interest in the study of natural science.” Hogben (1887–1918). Twenty-six papers on seismology. “Will be remembered for two things: as being one of the most eminent educationists the Dominion has produced, and as being the outstanding pioneer of seismology in the Southern Hemisphere.”— G. M. Thomson. Suter (1890–1919). Thirty-seven papers on zoology. “Patience, perseverence and concentration were his characteristics.”— C. Hedley. Best (1898–1923). Seventeen papers on anthropology. New Zealand born, and “her greatest student of Maori lore and culture.” —Peter Buck. Cockayne (1898–1933). Fifty-three papers on botany. “His was an open, challenging, enthusiastic spirit, consumed almost entirely by the desire to advance New Zealand's botanical knowledge.”—R. M. Laing. Thomson, J. A. (1906–1926). Fifteen papers on geology. “One of the most distinguished men of science New Zealand has produced.”—J. S. Of distinguished workers whose fame rests less upon matter appearing in the Transactions, but whose contributions we are glad to acknowledge may I mention Cowan, Dendy, McKay, S. P. Smith, Rutherford, Somerville, Tregear, Morgan, Tillyard, Guthrie-Smith, Hilgendorf? To many another I would fain pay tribute—our annals

are rich. Nor must we altogether forget those who achieved no special fame, did not come into the light of public notice, but who helped to build the edifice, the foundation stone of which was laid by Solander, the corner stones by Hector, Hutton and the other heroes of 1869, and which must go on building through the years to come. Of the servants of the Society and of science in the Dominion who are still with us I shall not speak. Some of them are before me now. Before me, too, are some of those who are still advancing to the peak of their achievement. Throughout the country there are ardent workers. May the example of the pioneers hearten us all to further the cause of science for humanity, to encourage those just entering on a path that may lead to no great monetary rewards, but to great contentment of soul. A brief reference to famous overseas scientists who have contributed to our pages should not be omitted. Their names recall great achievements. The dates refer to their election as honorary members. J. Agardh (1900), F. von Mueller (1870), O. Finsch (1870), L. Lindsay (1871), J. E. Gray (1871), R. McLauchlan (1874), J. Stirton, S. Berggren (1876), D. Sharp (1877), J. Beneden (1888), A. Günther (1873), T. G. Bonney, A. Liversidge (1890), J. Tenison-Woods (1875), A. Reischek, C. von Ettingshausen (1888), H. von Jhering, C. Hedley (1894), A. de Quatrefages, G. Massee (1900), O. Klotz (1903), O. Beccari, W. M. Davis (1913), O. Wilckens (1936), C. Skottsberg (1938). Very substantial contributions, 51 papers, were made by E. Meyrick, who was elected an Honorary Member in 1907. “One of the most renowned workers on the microlepid-optera of the world.”—G. V. Hudson. So from Great Britain, Australia, the United States of America, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, and Brazil our pages have been enriched by papers from 11 zoologists, seven botanists, and six geologists of great repute, and by the paper on “Transpacific Longitudes” of O. Klotz. Any student of the history of the New Zealand Institute and of the Royal Society will agree that we may be proud indeed of the work accomplished. This address is a review of but one aspect. No one conversant with the record and qualified to judge will dispute the claim that over 75 years our Transactions have contributed greatly to our store of knowledge and to the advancement of the Dominion. I think we can justly claim that in recent years the standard has been well maintained, though the range of subjects has decreased. This decrease should not receive over-emphasis. As I have pointed out, three sciences have dominated almost throughout. The Transactions have provided room for papers of basic interest and importance, often lacking in popular interest and therefore apt to be undervalued or unrecognised by the general public, and even by our legislators. Such research may appear remote from everyday affairs, but there are not wanting signs that our legislators and the general public are becoming more and more seized of the fact that these investigations may lie at the very base of our social structure, and on them depend in no mean measure the development of our resources, the furtherance of our industries, the welfare and health of the community.

We here have all been exercised in mind by the lack of sufficient funds fully to cope with the valuable work coming forward, and have been, temporarily one sincerely hopes, compelled to restrict the cost of individual papers. It will be our duty so to justify our claim for further financial assistance by putting our record and aims plainly before those whose duty it will be to evaluate them in terms of their worth to the Dominion, that substantial help may be forthcoming, and the work proceed. We have to face the future, and play our proper part in the changing world with its new problems. It may be that as further journals come into being our Transactions may assume a somewhat different shape. It may prove our best course to provide avenues for the publication of the longer papers and bulletins that are beyond the scope of ordinary journals. We shall have to consider more fully, too, means of enlightening the public as to what our functions are, and of explaining to them what is being accomplished. It may not be our function to provide a popular journal, on the lines of Endeavour, which reminds us by its title and frontispiece that it was this ship that brought Solander and Banks to our shores. It will be our duty, however, to support any well-designed movement to enable the people of New Zealand to appreciate and value the work for science that is being done. Ours is a great trust. May we see to it that the Royal Society maintains within itself “a sure principle of vitality, because it contains a sure principle of usefulness.”