The Royal Society of New Zealand

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 84, 1956-57, Page xli

The Royal Society of New Zealand Minutes of the Half-Yearly Meeting of the Council, November 22, 1956. The Half-Yearly Meeting of the Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand was held on Thursday, November 22, 1956, in the Council Room, Victoria University College, Wellington. Present. The following responded to the rollcall: Professor L. H. Briggs (President); Professor R. S. Allan, Professor L. R. Richardson (Vice-Presidents); Dr. G. Archey, Mr. F. R. Callaghan, Dr. R. A. Falla, Dr. C. A. Fleming (Government Representatives); Professor K. B. Cumberland (representing Auckland Institute); Mr. K. R. Allen, Dr. M. A. F. Barnett (representing Wellington Branch, R.S.N.Z.); Miss Beryl Brewin, Mr. O. H. Keyes (representing Otago Branch, R.S.N.Z.); Professor R. S. Allan, Mr. B. W. Collins (representing Canterbury Branch R.S.N.Z.); Dr. E. B. Davies (representing Waikato Scientific Association); Dr. J. K. Dixon (representing Rotorua Philosophical Society); Dr. H. O. Askew (representing Nelson Institute); Mr. R. W. Willett (representing Southland Branch); Dr. J. T. Salmon (Co-opted Member); Mr. S. Cory-Wright (Hon. Treasurer); Professor C. A. Cotton, Dr. F. G. Soper (Fellows' Representatives). Apologies. Apologies for absence were received from Dr. D. Miller, immediate Past President; Mr. S. G. Brooker (Auckland Institute), and Mr. N. L. Elder (Hawke's Bay Branch). The apologies were sustained. President's Remarks. Professor Briggs, who was in the Chair, welcomed members to the Council Meeting, specially mentioning the return to the Council of Dr. M. A. F. Barnett, as representative of the Wellington Branch, and Mr. R. W. Willett, representing the Southland Branch. He also extended the congratulations of the Council to two Fellows of the Society, Sir Theodore Rigg and Mr. A. W. B. Powell, who had recently had the honorary degree of D.Sc. bestowed on them. Congratulations were also extended to Professor W. P. Evans, who was celebrating his 93rd birthday. Professor Briggs said he had visited the Rotorua Philosophical Society and given an address there. In his capacity as President he had presented the Hector Medal and Prize to Mrs. Watson Smith (1954 award) and the T. K. Sidey Summer-time Medal and Prize to Dr. H. A. Whale. He stated that under the guidance of Dr. Soper, the A.N.Z.A.A.S. meeting to be held in Dunedin in January promised to be a most successful one. Hon. Minister. At this stage the Hon. R. M. Algie, Minister of Scientific and Industrial Research, attended the meeting and was warmly welcomed by the President and the members of the Council. Professor Briggs stated that the Hon. Mr. Algie had been a great friend to the Royal Society—he showed a great interest in its work and in his reception of a number of deputations on various matters he has shown that he appreciates the work done by the Society. Mr. Algie, in his reply, thanked the President and Council for the welcome extended to him. He was aware of the value of the scientific man to the community and of the Royal Society as comprised of scientific men. He had at times to interpret that value to Cabinet. He was impressed with the Society's publications, but in his portfolios of education and scientific research he was confronted with the problems of finding sufficient money for their many needs. Mr. Algie stated that he was beginning to understand the differences between the Royal Society Council's affairs

and those of its Branches, and he hoped the Executive would meet him after the meeting and acquaint him with the results of its deliberations. The President thanked Mr. Algie for his appreciative remarks and for the help he had given the Society. Mr. Algie then left the meeting. E. R. Cooper Trust. A deputation from the Dominion Laboratory Technical Advisory Committee consisting of Mr. L. B. Hutton (Chairman), Mr. I. D. Dick (Assistant Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research), Mr. G. W. Markham (senior scientific officer of the Department), and Mr. J. T. O'Leary (Secretary of the Committee), attended for the purpose of handing over to the Royal Society of New Zealand, which had previously consented to undertake the administration of the E. R. Cooper Trust Fund, the funds which had been collected for the purpose of the Trust and six memorial medals which had been struck for future awards. In handing over the money and medals, Mr. Hutton briefly referred to the untimely death of Dr. E. R. Cooper, and to the loss suffered by his Department and by science generally. He stated that in collaboration with the Royal Society, rules for administering the award had been drawn up, and it was proposed that a medal and book prize should be awarded every two years in Physics or Engineering. He felt sure there would be no dearth of candidates. Professor Briggs thanked Mr. Hutton and members of the deputation, and assured them that the Royal Society would administer the E. R. Cooper Trust Fund to the best advantage. The members of the deputation then withdrew. On the motion of Professor Briggs, seconded by Mr. Callaghan, it was resolved: “That the Standing Committee take the necessary steps to have the proposed rules governing the E. R. Cooper Trust Fund adopted and gazetted.” In order that the first award may be made within the period specified in the rules, it was resolved, on the motion of Professor Briggs, seconded by Professor Richardson: “That a provisional committee be set up to make nominations for the first award in time for the Annual Meeting, in May, 1957.” Dr. M. A. F. Barnett and Mr. C. E. Fenwick were appointed to represent the Royal Society of New Zealand on the Committee, the other members to be one representative of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and two representatives of the University of New Zealand. Dr. Barnett to be convener of the Committee. A.N.Z.A.A.S. Replying to the President's remarks made earlier, Dr. Soper said that arrangements were well in hand for the A.N.Z.A.A.S. Meeting in Dunedin. So far most of the enrolments had come from Australia. New Zealand seemed to be lagging, and he urged members of the Society to enrol as early as possible in order to facilitate final arrangements regarding bookings, etc., to be made. Dr. Soper stated that U.N.E.S.C.O. had made available two travel grants, and arrangements were being made for two guest speakers. Dr. Soper replied to certain questions regarding travel concessions in New Zealand. Tenure of Office of President. Professor Briggs had brought down a proposal (see 6a supporting agenda papers) that the tenure of the office of President should be reduced from two to one year, and he outlined his reasons for doing so. After a discussion, it was moved by Mr. Keys, seconded by Miss Brewin, and carried: “That the present position be adhered to.” 6a The Office of President. According to the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1933 (Trans. R.S.N.Z., 1936 Vol. 65, pp. 468–495) Clause 7 (ii) the President was elected annually but, apparently by gentleman's agreement, the President remained in office for two years. The one Vice-President was also elected annually. Both officers were eligible for re-election. In 1949 the rule was altered (Statutes Amendment Act, 1949) for both offices. The President, on election, remained in office for two years and continued, ex officio, on the

Council for a further year. In addition two Vice-Presidents were to be elected annually and be eligible for re-appointment for a further term of one year. I should like the term of Presidency to be reconsidered, and suggest that he be elected for one year only but remain, ex officio, a member of the Council for a further year. It appears to me in the present experience of the Royal Society of New Zealand that the President is elected for two reasons: (a) To honour him as a scientist; (b) to carry out the duties of President and to help in formulating the policy of the Society. It would appear in some quarters that (a) is the more important and, in fact, some of our past Presidents have been elected without their holding previous office on the Council. A Vice-President will normally move up to President and, last year, there was at least one nomination for Vice-President who had never been on the Council nor for that matter on the local branch Council. A President residing in Wellington can of course preside at all meetings, including those of the Standing Committee, and help considerably in formulating policy. Where the President lives out of Wellington it is usually not possible for him to attend meetings of the Standing Committee, and his main function is then that of presiding over the meetings of Council twice a year. There is no machinery for paying the expenses of the President to attend the Standing Committee meetings and with our present arrangement I do not think it is necessary. I have confidence in the Vice-President and the Committee generally to carry out the duties of the Standing Committee in my absence, although I shall endeavour to be present when urgent matters of policy arise. Perhaps it would add to the virility of our Society if we had a quicker turnover of personnel. I think this view is supported by the action last year when there was an election for Presidency and no less than seven members nominated for Vice-Presidency. The question of two Presidential Addresses is another factor bearing on the problem. L. H. Briggs Location of Council Meetings. The Nelson Philosophical Society had submitted a resolution, that in view of the increased cost of holding Council meetings in other centres the decision of the 1954 annual meeting to make the Half-yearly Meeting a peripatetic one be reconsidered. It was pointed out that an invitation to hold the present meeting had been received from the Rotorua Philosophical Society, but after an assessment of the cost of travel to Rotorua had been made, the Standing Committee considered it fair to ask the Member Bodies which meet a proportion of the cost, to express an opinion. The majority were opposed to meeting the heavy cost, and the Standing Committee decided to hold the meeting in Wellington. Some discussion followed, and Professor Briggs suggested that the locale of future meetings be left to the Standing Committee to come to a decision on receipt of an invitation from any Member Body. Finally, on the motion of Dr. Salmon. seconded by Dr. Archey, it was resolved: “That the Standing Committee seek ways and means of having the November meeting in centres other than Wellington.” Nelson Member Body. The resignation of the Nelson Institute as an affiliated Member Body and an application from the Nelson Philosophical Society for affiliation were considered under 6c on the Agenda. On the motion of Professor Briggs, seconded by Dr. Askew, it was resolved: “That the resignation of the Nelson Institute be accepted and that the application of the Nelson Philosophical Society for affiliation be at the same time approved, thus ensuring the continuity of Nelson's membership with the Royal Society of New Zealand in some form from the incorporation with the New Zealand Institute of the Nelson Association for the Promotion of Science and Industry on September 23, 1870.” On the motion of Professor Briggs, seconded by Dr. Archey, it was resolved: “That the Council expresses to the Nelson Institute its cordial appreciation of the many years of association of the Nelson Institute with the Royal Society of New Zealand and its gratification that this association of Nelson with the Society is to be continued by an arrangement that Nelson scientific societies find more appropriate to present conditions.” Finances and Activities of Branches. Mr. K. R. Allen opened the discussion on the report (6b) compiled by a committee consisting of Mr. K. R. Allen (Convener),

Mr. F. R. Callaghan and Dr. J. K. Dixon, which incorporated all the views of Member Bodies expressed in replies to a questionnaire compiled by the Sub-committee, and he moved that the recommendations submitted at the end of the report be adopted. The representatives of the Auckland Institute and Museum opposed the adoption of the recommendations, stating that no adequate reasons had been advanced for such a revolutionary change of policy. The Chairman ruled that the recommendations should be considered one by one. Mr. Allen, seconded Mr. Callaghan, moved the adoption of Recommendation No. 1, that Branches should make an obligatory contribution to the funds of the Royal Society. This evoked a long discussion, in which many opposing points of view were put forward. 6b Finances and Activities of Branches. 6b At the November, 1955, meeting Council resolved that “facts and information be obtained from Branches, and proposals for their obligatory expenditure under Rules, for collation and presentation for Council.” To obtain the information and proposals required by this resolution, the Standing Committee circulated a questionnaire to all Branches. The replies to this questionnaire have been considered by the Standing Committee, which instructed a sub-committee to prepare “a report summarising the replies and including a series of recommendations embodying the majority views of Branches on the principles which should govern any financial obligations imposed on Member Bodies by the Rules”. The following report has been prepared in compliance with this decision:– The original questionnaire had two purposes; the collection of facts as to the finances and activities of Branches and the obtaining of Branch views on the rules governing their finance, particularly as to obligatory expenditure on libraries, etc., and as to contributions to the Royal Society. This report falls correspondingly into two parts The full information derived from the replies is tabulated in the Appendix, but the main results are set out in the summarising tables. At the time of writing replies have been received from all Branches except Hawke's Bay; financial information regarding this Branch has been obtained from the published accounts for 1955, but there is no information available as to its activities or its views on the questions contained in the last sections of the questionnaire. Finances and Activities. The purpose of these sections of the questionnaire was to obtain, in comparable form, information as to the main features of the finances and activities of each Branch. The principal points derived from this information are summarised in Table I. This is self-explanatory, the main point which emerges from it seems to be the great disparity among Branches both in their membership and financial strength and in the way their funds are obtained and spent. Principles Governing Obligatory Expenditure.—In drawing up this section of the questionnaire an effort was made to seek Branch views on a series of principles which are fundamental to any system of obligatory expenditure imposed by the Rules. It was hoped that if the views of all Branches could be obtained on these questions it would become possible to present to Council recommendations which were acceptable to the majority of Branches, and so open a way out of the present unsatisfactory situation in which it has become difficult to find any common ground for discussion. Table II shows the number of preferences expressed for and against each proposal. The first figure in each column shows the number of Branches expressing each view, and the second figure (in brackets) shows the preferences weighted according to the number of council members appointed by the Branch. On nearly every question a clear majority has appeared, and on the basis of these majorities the recommendations contained in the next section of this report have been drawn up. The following points should be made in connection with these recommendations:– (a) No recommendations are made on questions 8, 9 and 10 since the strong affirmative majority on question 1 excludes these alternatives. (b) The recommendation made on question 3 does not follow precisely any proposal submitted to Branches, but it is an attempt to give effect to the majority view in a way which meets the requirements of the other questions. (c) The maximum proportion proposed under question 6 (one-quarter) is about the middle of the suggested range, and was put forward by two branches. The alternative proportion (one-sixth) is adjusted to yield the same contribution by either method of computation from a Branch which spends one-third of its income on a library or museum. Recommendations. The sub-committee therefore recommends on behalf of the Standing Committee: That Council adopts the following principles and instructs the Standing Com-

mittee to draw up for submission to Council any amendments to the Rules or Act necessary to implement them: 1. That Branches should make an obligatory contribution to the funds of the Royal Society. (Question 1.) 2. That this contribution should not be allocated to any specific purpose. (Question 2.) 3. That expenditure by a Branch on a library, museum, etc., should be deducted before assessing the contribution, provided that this does not reduce the contribution below a fixed minimum level. (Question 3.) 4. That the contribution should be calculated as a proportion of the subscription income. (Question 4.) 5 That the percentage should be calculated on income from full members only. (Question 5.) 6. That the contribution should be one-quarter of subscription income after deductions have been made or one-sixth of total subscription income whichever is the greater. (Question 6) 7. That no expenditure on library, museum, etc., should be obligatory on Branches. (Question 7) 8. That the contribution should continue to be independent of any payment toward the cost of the Transactions under Rule H (e). (Question 11.) Effect of Recommendations. On the data contained in the Appendix the approximate contributions required from Branches under the above proposals would be: Auckland, £207; Wellington, £82; Canterbury, £81; Otago, £60; Hawke's Bay, £17; Rotorua, £12; Southland, £11; Waikato, £9; Nelson, £7 Total, £486. As they stand these figures indicate a disproportionately large contribution by the Auckland Branch In a note to its reply to the questionnaire this Branch states: “there are… 750 Auckland members who have joined to support the Museum, Not to support the Institute or Royal Society.” It would seem a simple domestic matter for this Branch to transfer such members to a category in which they were not considered “full members” for the purposes of the above principles. If this were done the income from these members would not be subject to the contribution for the Royal Society The contribution required would then be approximately £75—i.e., slightly less than the amount required from the Wellington and Canterbury Branches. The total contribution to the Royal Society would then be £354. K. R. Allen F. R Callaghan J. K. Dixon

Appendix I.—Membership and Finance. Auckland Wellington Canterbury Otago Hawke's B. Rotorua Southland Waikato Nelson No. of Life Members 310 20 5 48 – – 7 – 1 No. of Full Members taking Trans. 260 225 136 161 – 4 50 (changing to 31–19) 14 20 No. of Full Members not taking Trans. 832 79 150 – – 60 – 60 8 No. of Associate Members 449 68 14 57 – – – – 12 Full Member's sub. inc. Trans. 1/8/6 1/12/6 1/15/0 1/10/0 – 1/8/6 1/1/0 17/6 1/1/0 Full Member's sub. not inc. Trans. 1/1/0 1/7/6 1/10/0 – – 1/1/0 – 10/0 1/1/0 Associate Member's sub. ? 12/6 5/0 2/6,5/-,7/6 – – – – 10/6 Income— £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Subscriptions 855 529 421 164 89 70 43 37 26 Transactions 80 56 (inc. in subs.) 35 – 3 2 – 5 – Investments 2,070 8 – 71 1 – 1 12 – Grants 20,240 – – – – – – – – Addmissions – – – – – – – – – Other 89 – 9 2 15 – 4 6 – Total £23,334 £537 £465 £237 £108 £72 £48 £60 £26 Expenditure— £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Stationery and sec. 320 107 32 83 31 2 4 5 3 Meetings 420 88 86 9 30 13 6 27 3 Library 1,675 134 140 – ? 12 45 – – – Museum 4,775 – – – – – – – – Transactions, levy 112 106 54 59 ? 3 2 19 (7/6) 10 Transactions, postage, etc. – 47 40 – – 2 – – 2 Travelling Expenses 13 13 13 11 11 6 4 4 6 Contributions to Royal Society – – – – – 16 – – – Maintenance 1,079 – – – – – – – – Other 15,209 (salaries) – 39 44 (Grants) 26 – – – – Total £23,603 £505 £404 £205 £113 £80 £36 £36 £23 Assets— £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Library 24,145 991 2,000 – 1,000 150 – – – Museum 172,018 – – – – – – – – Observatory – 1,000 – 300 – – – – – Buildings 246,672 300 – – – – – – – Investments 59,869 250 – 3,156 – – – – – Cash at Bank 6,717 – 135 564 548 90 126 36 29 Other 27,000 (Furn. & Fittings) 140 (Equipment) 319 (Pubs. Debtors) – 79 (Equipment) – 74 (Equipment, Subs. in adv.) 9 (Crockery) – Total £536,422 £2,681 £2,454 £4,030 £1,627 £240 £200 £45 £29

Half-yearly Meeting, 1956 Appendix II.-Activities. Auckland Wellington Canterbury Otago Hawke's B. Rotorua Southland Waikato Nelson General Meetings. Number of general meetings 15 13 11 8+ – 10 6–8 10 7 Open to public Yes Yes 1 or 2 Yes – Yes Yes Yes Yes Average attendance at public meetings 115 40 150–200 60 – 45–50 15 30 18 Average attendance at non-public meetings – – 40 – – – – – – Sections. Number of Section 3 6 2 2 – Nil Nil Nil Nil Total number of Section meetings 40 35 12 30 – – – – – Average attendance 20–30 17–40 24–63 20–25 – – – – – Total number of field days 6 2 3 – – – – – – Average attendance 30 25 30 – – – – – – Public Functions. Number of regular functions Nil Nil Nil Nil – 1 Nil Biennial Nil Average attendance – – – – – 60 – – – Number of special functions Lectures 95 1 – 1 – – – – – Exhibitions 16 Average attendance Lectures 55 Exhibitions 6,000 80 – 250 – – – – – Library. Does Branch own Library? Yes Yes Yes No – Yes Yes No No Shelved with another or independent Ind. Ind. With C.U.C. (Library made over to Otago University 25 years ago.) – Ind. With another – – Open to public Yes Yes No – No Yes – – Total number of volumes 30,500 3000 5,000 – 150 Small – – Annual borrowings, direct 2,758 300 – – 40 – – – Annual borrowings, interloan 200 50 – – – – – – – Museum. Is Branch sole owner of museum? Yes No No No – No No No No Is Branch joint owner of museum? – No No No – No No No No Does Branch contribute to other museums? – No No Yes*Has also £2,000 in fund for hall in museum extension. (£12 p.a.) – By work By work No Indirectly Open to public? Yes – – – – Yes – – – Total annual attendances 166,489 – – – – 3,000 – – – Observatory. Is Branch sole owner of Observatory? No Yes No Yes – No Bird watch stn. No No Is Branch joint owner of Observatory? No No No No – No No No No Does Branch contribute to other Observatories No No No No – No No No No Equipment owned by Branch Telescope Telescope Camera, etc. – 2 Telescope – – – – – Function—Scientific? Yes Yes – No – – Yes – – Public demonstration Yes Yes – Yes – – No – –

Half-yearly Meeting, 1956 Appendix III.—Principle Governing Obligatory Expenditure. Auckland Wellington Canterbury Otago Hawke's B. Rotorua Southland Walkato Nelson 1. Should Branches contribute to Royal Society? No Yes Yes Yes – Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. Should such contribution be earmarked? Yes No Yes No – No No No Yes To what purpose? Transactions – Adminis'tion – – – – – Administration If Contribution Inaugurated— 3. Should amount depend on expenditure of Br. on lib. mus. etc.? Yes No Yes (?) No – No Yes Yes Yes 4 Should contribution be: (a) Capitation levy? No No Yes No – No – No No (b) Per cent. of sub. income? No Yes No Yes – Yes Yes Yes Yes (c) Per cent. of total income? No No No No – No – No No (d) Independent of size of Branch? – – – No – – – No No 5. Should basis be total of full members only? Not applicable to Auckland Total Full Total – Full Full Full Total 6. Rate suggested – 25% 7/6 33 1/3% (provided no charge is made for Trans.) – 25% – 16 ⅔% 10% 7. Should present obligatory expenditure on library, etc., be abolished? – Yes No Yes – Yes No Yes Yes Should some capitalising provision be retained? – No – No – No – No No If Contribution is Not Inaugurated— 8. Is present principle satisfactory? Yes No Yes No – No Yes Yes Yes 9. Are present proportions satisfactory? Yes No Yes No – – Yes Yes Yes If not, what is suggested? – ¼:¼ – ½ to Roy. Soc. – – – – – Would fixed total allocated as Branch desires be preferred? No N.A. No No – No – – No 10. Should Roy. Soc. rely on Govt.? Yes No – Chiefly – Yes Yes Yes Yes Should it seek other sources? – Yes – Yes – Yes – – Yes What? Donations and Bequests All avenues – Endowments Industry – Publicity Industry – Bequests Raise price of Trans. Finance exchange copies of Trans. from another source. Primary and Secondary Industry 11. Should contribution be independent of payment for Trans.? No Yes Yes No – Yes – Yes Yes

Table I. Auckland Wellington Canterbury Otago Hawke's B. Rotorua Southland Waikato Nelson Membership. Total Membership 1,851 392 305 266 – 64 57 74 41 % Life Members 17 5 2 18 – – 12 – 2 % Full Members 59 78 93 61 – 100 88 100 68 % Associate Members 24 17 5 21 – – – – 30 % Full Members taking Trans. 24 74 47 100 – 6 100 19 28 Income. £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Total Income 23,334 537 465 237 108 72 48 60 26 % from Subscriptions 4 98 91 68 83 97 90 62 100 Expenditure. £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Total Expenditure 23,603 505 404 205 113 80 36 36 23 % on meetings 2 17 21 4 27 16 17 75 13 % on Library and Museum 90 26 35 0 11 56 0 0 0 % to Royal Society 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 % on Trans. (Levy) 1 21 13 29 3 2 53 1 44 Assets. £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Total Assets 536,422 2,681 2,454 4,030 1,627 240 200 45 29 % Library, Museum, etc. 36 74 82 7 61 62 – – – % Building 46 11 – – – – – – – % Investments 11 9 – 78 – – – – – Activities. No. of Section 3 6 2 2 – Nil Nil Nil Nil Total number of meetings 61 50 23 38 – 10 7 10 7 Approximate total attendances 2,900 1,500 1,200 1,100 – 475 100 300 130 Average attendance per member 1.6 3.8 3.7 4.1 – 7.4 1.8 4.1 3.2 Library Yes Yes Yes No – Yes Yes No No Museum Yes No No No – No No No No Observatory No Yes No Yes – No Yes No No

Half-yearly Meeting, 1956 Table II. For Against No Opinion 1. Should Branches contribute to Royal Society? 7 (10) 1 (2) – 2 Should such a contribution be earmarked for any special purpose? 3 (5) 5 (7) – If a Contribution is Inaugurated. 3. Should the amount depend on expenditure on Library, Museum, etc.? 5 (7) 3 (5) – 4. Should the contribution be capitation levy? 1 (2) – ) ) 1 (2) Should thé contribution be percentage of Subscription Income? 6 (8) – ) 5. Should basis of contribution be total members? 3 (5) – ) Should basis of contribution be full members? 4 (5)– ) 1 (2) 6. What rates are suggested? 10%,16 ⅓%, 25%, (2), 33 ⅓%, and 7/6 7. Should present obligatory expenditure on Library, etc., be abolished? 5 (7) 2 (3) 1 (2) If a Contribution is not Inaugurated. 8. Is the present principle satisfactory? 5 (7) 3 (5) – 9. Are present proportions satisfactory? 5 (7) 2 (4) 1 (1) Would fixed total allocated as Branch desires between Library, etc., and R.S.N.Z. be preferred? – 5 (8) 3 (4) 10. Should the Royal Society rely on Government for funds? 6 (8) 1 (2) 1 (2) Should it seek other sources? 4 (6) – 4 (6) What Scheme is Adopted 11. Should any contribution to Royal Society be independent of payment for Transactions? 5 (7) 2 (4) 1 (1) The discussion was interrupted by an adjournment for lunch, at which Wellington members were the hosts. Roll Call. On resuming at 2 p.m., the roll call for the afternoon session was as for the morning. Discussion continued on No. 1 recommendation, and finally Mr. Allen, in reply, stated that the majority of Branches supported the proposal. The following motion was then carried on a show of hands: “That Branches should make an obligatory contribution to the funds of the Royal Society.” Mr. Allen moved, Mr. Callaghan seconded, Recommendation No. 2, and it was carried: “That this contribution should not be allocated to any specific purpose.” Mr. Allen moved, Mr. Callaghan seconded, that Recommendation No 3—“That expenditure by a Branch on a library, museum, etc., should be deducted before assessing the contribution, provided that this does not reduce the contribution below a fixed minimum level.” On the suggestion of Miss Brewin, the mover and seconder of the motion agreed to include the word “observatory” after the word “museum”. On the motion of Dr. Soper, seconded by Miss Brewin, it was resolved to amend the motion by adding after “observatory, etc.” the words “or by levy towards the cost of the Transactions”. Professor Cumberland seconded. Dr. Archey then moved as a further amendment “That the words ‘provided that this does not reduce the contribution below a fixed minimum level’ be deleted” On being put to the meeting this amendment was lost. The following amended recommendation was then carried: “That expenditure by a Branch on a library, museum, observatory, etc., or by levy towards the cost of the Transactions should be deducted before assessing

the contribution, provided that this does not reduce the contribution below a fixed minimum level.” Mr. Allen then moved, Mr. Callaghan seconded, Recommendation No. 4—“That the contribution should be calculated as a proportion of the subscription.” Professor Cumberland moved, Mr. Collins seconded, an amendment—“That the contribution be calculated on a capitation basis.” On being put, the amendment was lost. The following motion was then carried: “That the contribution should be calculated as a proportion of the subscription income.” Mr. Allen moved, Mr. Callaghan seconded Recommendation No. 5—“That the percentage should be calculated on income from full members only” On the motion of Dr. Archey, seconded Professor Cumberland, it was resolved—“That the motion be amended by the addition of the words ‘excluding life members’.” The amended motion was then carried as follows: “That the percentage should be calculated on income from full members, excluding life members.” On the motion of Mr. Allen, seconded Mr. Callaghan, Recommendation No. 6 was adopted as follows: “That the contribution should be one-quarter of subscription income after deductions have been made or one-sixth of total subscription income whichever is the greater.” Mr. Allen moved, Mr. Callaghan seconded, Recommendation No. 7. After discussion, it was resolved: “That no expenditure on library, museum, etc., should be obligatory on branches” Mr. Allen moved, Mr. Callaghan seconded, Recommendation No. 8—“That the contribution should continue to be independent of any payment towards the cost of the Transactions under Rule H (e).” It was resolved that this recommendation be reworded as follows, and adopted: “That payment towards the cost of the Transactions under Rule H (e) shall not form part of the contribution.” On the motion of Dr. Archey, seconded by Miss Brewin, it was resolved: “That the Standing Committee be requested to submit the proposed new rules to the Member Bodies in time for their March meeting.” In order to regularise the position of the Wellington Branch in regard to obligatory support of its library, it was resolved, on the motion of Dr. Fleming, seconded by Dr. Archey: “That the dispensation granted to the Wellington Branch be granted for the current year.” On the motion of Professor Allan, seconded by Dr. Archey, it was resolved: “That the thanks of the Council be extended to Mr. Allen and his committee for carrying out a difficult task with courtesy and competence.” Library Binding. The Honorary Librarian, Professor Richardson, presented a report on the binding of the Library and a sample of the books (100 volumes) which had just been bound by the Lumbeck process was laid on the table for inspection. The report was received. Honorary Returning Officer and Fellowship Rules. The report prepared by Mr. Allen (6c) and the Notice of Motion to amend and make additions to the rules of the Society relating to Fellows were considered, and on the motion of Mr. Allen, seconded by Professor Briggs, it was resolved—“That Rule G.I. 6 (b) be amended to read:

“Six months before the Annual Meeting the Secretary shall forward to each Fellow resident in New Zealand a voting-paper containing the names of the nominees, together with an envelope marked ‘Voting-paper’ on the outside, and with a space for the signature of the voter on the inside of the flap. Each Fellow desiring to vote shall return his voting paper to the Secretary within one month of its despatch. Each voting-paper shall be returned in a sealed envelope marked ‘Voting-paper’ on the outside and shall be signed by the voter on the inside of the flap. The envelope distributed by the Society or any other envelope so marked may be used for this purpose. Any voting-paper not returned in this manner shall be deemed invalid The Secretary shall retain the voting-papers in their envelopes unopened and shall deliver them to the Convener of the Fellowship Selection Committee.” Mr. Allen proposed a new Rule G.I. 6 (d), seconded by Professor Richardson. On the motion of Dr. Archey, seconded by Professor Briggs, it was resolved that the proposed new Rule G.I. 6 (d) be amended to read: “The members of the Fellowship Selection Committee with the longest continuous service on that committee shall be convener. In the event of two or more members having equally long service, the Council shall elect the Convener from those members with the longest service. The Convener shall receive the voting-papers from the Secretary, and together with one other Fellow, after verifying their validity, shall count the votes for each nominee. He shall communicate the results of the voting to the other members of the Fellowship Selection Committee and to the Secretary, but not to any other person. If at any time the Convener is unable to act, the member of the Committee with the next longest continuous service shall act in his stead.” On the motion of Mr. Allen, seconded by Professor Briggs, it was resolved: “That Rules G.I. 6 (d) and (e) be renumbered G.I. 6 (e) and (f).” The Royal Society of New Zealand. The Office of Hon. Returning Officer and the Method of Electing Fellows. At the 1956 Annual Meeting the Council referred to the Standing Committee for report on the question of continuing the office of Returning Officer. The matter has been discussed on a number of occasions, and the following facts and recommendations have emerged:— 1. The office is not provided for in the Act and Rules. 2. In present practice the Returning Officer performs no useful function since the method of voting does not allow him to make any effective check on the genumeness of the vote. 3. It is desirable that the methods of voting and scrutiny should be changed to allow for an effective check on the votes and that a specified officer should be charged with this duty. The Rules should be amended to bring this about. 4. The Convenership of the Fellowship Selection Committee is the appropriate officer for this purpose, and the office should be accordingly recognised in the Rules and provision made for a substitute. 5. To safeguard the security of the voting papers they should be returned in a sealed envelope. The envelope should be opened only by the officer appointed to scrutinise the votes. Suitable envelopes should be distributed by the Secretary with the voting papers. 6. Ballots held at meetings of the Council should be scrutinised as at present, by scrutineers appointed for the occasion. 7. To give effect to these proposals, the Standing Committee recommends that the amendments set out below be made to the Rules at the forthcoming meeting of the Council. Notice of Motion to Amend the Rules. Notice is hereby given that at the Council Meeting, to be held on Thursday, November 22, 1956, Mr. K. R. Allen, on behalf of the Standing Committee, will move the undermentioned amendments and additions to the Rules of the Society relating to Fellows:— 1. That Rule G.I 6 (b) be amended to read: Six months before the Annual Meeting the Secretary shall forward to each Fellow resident in New Zealand a voting paper containing the names of the nominees, together with an envelope marked “Voting Paper” on the outside, and with a space for the signature of the voter on the inside of the flap Each Fellow desiring to vote shall return

his voting-paper to the Secretary within one month of its despatch. Each voting-paper shall be returned in a sealed envelope marked “Voting Paper” on the outside, and shall be signed by the voter on the inside of the flap. The envelope distributd by the Society or any other envelope so marked may be used for this purpose. Any voting paper not returned in this manner shall be deemed invalid The Secretary shall retain the voting-papers in their envelopes unopened and shall deliver them to the Convener of the Fellowship Selection Committee. 2. That a new Rule G.I. 6 (d) be inserted to read: The member of the Fellowship Selection Committee with the longest continuous service on that committee shall be Convener. In the event of two or more members having equally long service the committee shall elect the Convener from those members with the longest service. The Convener shall receive the voting-paper from the Secretary, and, after verifying their validity, shall count the votes for each nominee. He shall communicate the results of the voting to the other members of the Fellowship Selection Committee, but not to any other person If at any time the Convener is unable to act the member of the Committee with the next longest continuous service shall act in his stead. 3. That Rules G.I.6 (d) and (e) be renumbered G.I. 6 (e) and (f). Report on Royal Society's Publications. Dr. Archey presented the report by the Auckland members of the Committee previously set up (see 6d), and he moved the following recommendations, Dr. Salmon seconding: “That having regard to the continually increasing printing costs the levy be raised to 10/-per volume.” After some discussion, this motion was carried: “That the present prices charged to members for back numbers of Transactions and Bulletins be maintained, and that the Standing Committee's recent policy of costing and pricing its publications for sale to non-members be continued.” Recommendation (c) That the number of author's free reprints be reduced to 25, but that a scale of charges for extra reprints be drawn up and published was amended to the following: “That the number of author's free reprints remain at fifty, and that a scale of charges for extra reprints be drawn up and published.” Recommendation (d) as follows was then carried: “That a Publications Account be set up to cover the cost of the Transactions and Bulletins, this account to be credited with moneys received from the sale of publications less 10% administrative charge. The Publications Account should not include the cost of packaging and forwarding the Transactions and Bulletins to Library exchanges, which is properly chargeable against the Library Account or general administration.” Report on Royal Society Publications. 1. The Auckland members of the Committee have discussed with the Honorary Editor the system of handling MSS. and proofs. The procedure is well organised and businesslike, and members of the Committee are impressed by the very large amount of work willingly undertaken and energetically and efficiently carried out by the Hon. Editor and the Assistant Hon. Editor. The appended statement “A” shows the present cost of the Journal and how it is increasing. 2. Relations with the printers are good, and it is doubtful if any better arrangements could be made since the Editor is unable to find any Wellington printer prepared to do the work at a competitive price. 3. The Editor proposes to increase the use of 8-point type in the new volume, in order to reduce costs. He is investigating a suggestion that further economy would result from increasing the page size to quarto and using double columns. 4. The present issue of fifty reprints to authors seems excessive by present-day standards. It appears to be the practice with most overseas journals to supply very few, say 10, free reprints, or even none, and authors are required to remit the cost of reprints when returning proof. 5. In connection with publication costs, and incidentally of annual grant in relation thereto, a point of criticism we have encountered, and we feel sometimes with justification, is the extensive detailed descriptive material in certain papers. The Hon. Editor is, however, taking steps to meet this difficulty. 6. Distribution of the Transactions. The Committee recognises the paramount importance of the Transactions as a medium of exchange for the building up of the Society's library

and for consequent benefit to scientific work in the Dominion. It is obvious that the cost of these copies is a proper charge on the Society's funds. The Society receives 416 overseas exchange journals from 36 countries at an approximate face value of £1,057. To obtain these we send away 416 volumes of the Transactions which, based on the figures in “A”, cost the Society approximately £830 to produce. The monetary comparison does not, however, tell the whole story, as many exchanges come from countries whose currency is difficult to obtain. 7. It is also recognised that the present price of 15/- per part (£3 per annum) to non-members of the Society bears a reasonable relation to cost of production. Members of the Society receive the Transactions at a considerably reduced rate. Members who take the Transactions comprise two classes. (1) Scientists who need the Transactions as part of the literature of their work; and. (2) Lay members who take the Transactions (a) out of a sense of loyalty, (b) looking to find something of interest, or (c) as part of a long-standing arrangement. With regard to class (1), while it is recognised that the Transactions contain only a limited number of papers in each discipline within each issue, it is still felt that the cost even to scientific members is out of line with the prices charged for overseas learned society publications. With regard to class (2), it is inevitable that the papers published will become even more specialised and technical, and for this reason, apart from whatever price may be decided upon, the number of laymen taking the Transactions will decrease Scientists themselves are laymen in respect to other disciplines, and as they find less in their own field in the Transactions they also may discontinue taking it. 8. Nevertheless the Society's long established practice of supplying Transactions to members at a reduced rate is in accord with the practice of learned societies overseas, though the amount being charged has steadily increased, as with us, over the years. 9. The Committee therefore recommends: (a) That having regard to the continually increasing printing costs the levy be raised to 10/- per volume. The Committee recommends further: (b) That the present prices charged to members for back numbers of Transactions and Bulletins be maintained, and that the Standing Committee's recent policy of costing and pricing its publications for sale to non-members and booksellers be continued. (c) That the number of author's free reprints be reduced to 25, but that a scale of charges for extra reprints be drawn up and published. (d) That a Publications Account be set up to cover the cost of the Transactions and Bulletins, this account to be credited with moneys received from the scale of publications less 10% administrative charge. The Publications Account should not include the cost of packaging and forwarding the Transactions and Bulletins to library exchanges, which is properly chargeable against the Library Account or general administration. Appendix. Cost of Transactions Royal Society of New Zealand. 1952–53. Volume 80 (515 pp.). £ s. d. Part 1 619 14 0 Part 2 430 12 2 Part ¾ 821 6.8 £ 1,871 12 10 1953–54. Volume 81 (718 pp.) £ s. d. Part 1 518 13 6 Part 2 509.3 7 Part 3 454 15 2 Part 4 474 15 11 £1,957 82 1954–55. Volume 82 (1120 pp.). £ s. d. Part 1 913 1.7 Part 2 1,295 9.0 Part 3 793 4.5 Part 5 912 9.5 £3,914 4.5 £ s.d. Part 4, Science Congress Volume 499.7 11 1955–56. Volume 83 (911 pp.)* Estimated: in press. £ s. d. Part 1 859 18 9 Part 2 654 15 0* Part 3 602.0 0* Part 4 1,000.0 0* £3,116 13 9 Cockayne Memorial Fund. The Hon. Editor, acting on instructions from the Standing Committee, presented a report (6e) on the Cockayne Memorial Fund, and the suggestion of the original committee that a Cockayne Memorial Volume be published. This report pointed out the lack of uniformity in the size of the two

papers already printed made it impracticable to incorporate them as a Memorial Volume. He recommended: (1) That the obvious original intention of the Sub-committee of 1935 be adhered to, and that the income from the Cockayne Memorial Fund be expended from time to time for the publication in the Transactions of botanical papers of special merit, these papers to constitute and be designated as a series of Cockayne Memorial Papers. On the motion of Dr. Falla, seconded by Professor Allan, it was resolved: “That the Standing Committee look into the possibility of utilising the whole of the Cockayne Memorial Fund in the year 1960 in a Cockayne Memorial Volume.” Dr. Salmon moved, Professor Allan seconded, and it was carried: “That the idea of publishing a Cockayne Memorial Volume from a collection of reprints of these papers be abandoned.” Cockayne Memorial Fund. Acting on the instructions of the last meeting of the Standing Committee, I have gone into the question of the Cockayne Memorial Publications and would report as follows:— The Sub-committee's report, published in the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, 1935, Volume 65, pp. 448–9, has never been incorporated as rules, nor has the report ever been officially adopted. The report, however, was amended in Clause 8 at the 1935 meeting to provide for the publication of papers of special merit embodying the results of botanical research carried out by New Zealand workers. This amendment of the original report was carried and is the only official record in the Minutes of the Society which could be regarded as adopting the original Sub-committee's report. In this Minute it was also suggested that the papers printed should eventually form the Cockayne Memorial Volume. This suggestion was not actually adopted, but was incorporated in the next circular sent out from the Society's office asking for contributions to the Cockayne Memorial Fund. Since then, successive editors have published two Cockayne Memorial Papers, one in Volume 75, Part III, by George Simpson, and the other in Volume 84, Part 1, by W. R. B. Oliver. The first paper by Simpson is in the old format of the Transactions, and printed on very poor paper. The paper by Oliver is in the new format of the Transactions, printed on the present high quality paper. The two papers could not be bound together in a single volume owing to the difference in format. To use reprints in this way for the eventual production of a Memorial Volume would necessitate recomping the second and all subsequent reprints to the size of the original one, but even if this were done the plates in Oliver's reprint and subsequent reprints would have to come to the edge of the paper when the reprints were recomped to the old size. This would not be satisfactory. If we can assume that the adoption of the amendment to Clause 8 of the original Subcommittee's report binds the Society to the adoption of the report in toto, then no portion of the capital of the Cockayne Memorial Fund may be expended, but only the annual income therefrom. This means that the Fund must be maintained in perpetuity. The instruction under Clause 11 of the Sub-committee's report, saying that regulations governing the award shall be subsequently formulated and adopted by the Annual Meeting of the Royal Society of New Zealand, etc., has never been carried out. Taking the above facts into consideration, I would recommend as follows:— (1) That the obvious original intention of the Sub-committee of 1935 be adhered to, and that the income from the Cockayne Memorial Fund be expended from time to time for the publication in the Transactions of botanical papers of special merit, these papers to constitute and be designated as a series of Cockayne Memorial Papers. (2) That the idea of publishing a Cockayne Memorial Volume from a collection of reprints of these papers be abandoned. In further amplification of Recommendation (2), the publication of a Memorial Volume produced from a collection of reprints of papers already published over an extended period in time would not make a memorial in keeping with the eminence of the late Dr. Leopard Cockayne. Such a volume would in fact be a collection of outdated information. If the Council feels that a memorial volume to Dr. Cockayne should be published, then I suggest that the Society issue a Bulletin as a Cockayne Memorial Volume in 1960, which year is the 25th anniversary of Dr. Cockayne's death; and that this Bulletin consist of botanical papers contributed by authors invited to do so by the Society. It should contain a preface, which I would suggest should be written by Dr. H. H. Allan, and an introduction written possibly by Dr. W. R. B. Oliver, the two most eminent surviving botanists who were associated with Cockayne.

(3) That a Sub-committee of the Council be set up to draw up rules, to be presented to the Council for the proper operation of the Cockayne Memorial Fund. November 6, 1956. (Signed) John T. Salmon. Adoption of Rules. Dr. Archey having given notice that the following rules were irregular, as they had been made by the Standing Committee and not adopted by the Council, he moved, and it was carried, that: “Rule 5, Section F.I. Hutton Memorial Award, be amended by adding the following:—‘Council shall appoint a committee consisting, if possible, of three holders of the award representative of the three sciences concerned (zoology, botany and geology) to recommend each award. This committee shall meet, the cost of one meeting to be a charge on the Hutton Fund.” Rule 1, section F.IV, T. K. Sidey Summer-time Fund, be amended by adding the following: “Copies of the notice shall be distributed to societies and institutions, the names of which appear on a list approved by the Council.” and that the following new rule be added to the Section: “Rule 7. If no award be made on any given occasion, a general notice shall immediately be distributed in the same manner as in Rule 1. This notice shall indicate the purposes of the award, the subject-matter of the research, the qualifications required of applicants, and the probable date of the next award. The date of such award shall be considered within a period not exceeding two years of such notice.” Fuel and Power. Dr. Bastings, Convener of the Fuel and Power Sub-committee, presented a report supported by copies of correspondence from the Hon. Minister of Scientific and Industrial Research. The report outlined the approaches which had been made to the Hon. Minister by correspondence and interview and also to the President of the N.Z. Electrical Supply Authorities' Association. The results in both cases had proved unsatisfactory and Dr. Bastings concluded that no useful purpose is likely to be served by pursuing the matter at the present time. It was resolved, on the motion of Professor Briggs: “That the Sub-committee go into recess, and that Dr. Bastings be warmly thanked for his work.” Darwin Anniversary Expedition Proposals. Dr. Falla spoke to the report he had presented (see 7b) and outlined in committee certain proposals which were under consideration. On the motion of Professor Briggs, seconded by Professor Richardson, it was resolved: “That the Council approves of the principle of collaboration with the Royal Society of London regarding a Darwin Expedition.” It was further resolved, on the motion of Professor Briggs: “That the committee set up by the Standing Committee continue in action” Report of Sub-Committee for Darwin Anniversary Expedition Proposals. In June, 1956, a circular prepared by Dr. C. F. A. Pantin outlining proposals for a scientific expedition in the South Pacific to mark the centenary of the publication of Darwin's “Origin of Species” was forwarded to the Royal Society of New Zealand by the Royal Society of London with an invitation to send a representative to meetings in London on July 26 and 27, to discuss the matter further. The Standing Committee appointed Dr. R. A. Falla to attend the London meeting, and set up a sub-committee consisting of Dr. R. A. Falla, Convener, Professor L. R. Richardson, Dr. M. A. F. Barnett, and Dr. C. A. Fleming, to make a further report. There were present at the London meeting: Dr. C. F. A. Pantin (in the Chair), Sir Gavin de Beer, Professor G. L. Brown, Dr. G. E. R. Deacon, Dr. R. A. Falla (New Zealand), Dr. S. H. Haughton (South Africa), Mr. A. Shavitsky (Australia), Professor T. A. Stephenson, Professor C. E. Tilley, and it was agreed: 1. That the Council of the Royal Society should be invited to set up an Expedition Committee to produce a joint document on behalf of the Royal Society, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Royal Society of South Africa and the Australian Academy of Science.

2. That a memorandum be presented to the Council of the Royal Society on the lines of the original draft memorandum, including references to Darwin and Wallace and outlining the proposed nature and timing of the expedition. 3. That the proposed expedition should be directed especially to the South Pacific islands and the West of South America, particularly Chile, and there should be nine stations as follows: (a) On the Kermadec Islands. (b) Cook Island. (c) Rapa (Austral Islands). (d) Pitcairn Islands. (e) Easter Island. (f) Juan Fernandez. (g) Chiloe. (h) and (j) Two South Chile Stations. 4. That with regard to the use of French islands the French Academy should be asked if it was prepared to collaborate. 5. That each country taking part in the expedition might be invited to contribute to the cost by bearing the cost of its own scientists and of their travel to the picking up points, and possibly in the expense of the ship. 6. That the staff required would total 12 (suggestions are for 2 geologists, 4 zoologists, 4 botanists, 1 marine biologist and 1 leader). 7. That little funds would be required for the actual publication of results if this was done through the journals of learned societies, but some funds might be needed for the publication of a narative account unless this were done commercially. The New Zealand representative agreed to take back to the Royal Society of New Zealand a recommendation that it should associate itself with the proposals, and he further agreed to institute enquiries about the extent to which New Zealand might be able to assist by providing a ship. The Standing Committee then confirmed the appointment of this sub-committee as above, and adopted for circulation a report inviting member bodies and interested organisations to comment on the proposals and forward suggestions. The document prepared following the July meetings in London was presented on October 11 to the Council of the Royal Society. It approved in principle the promotion of the South Pacific Expedition, and authorised. (a) The investigation in consultation with the other British Commonwealth organisations named of ways of obtaining financial support for the project; and. (b) The creation of a South Pacific Expedition Committee. This committee consists of the following: Dr. C. F. A. Pantin (Chairman), Professor G. L. Brown (Biological Secretary, Royal Society), Sir Gavin de Beer, Commodore K. St. B. Collins, Dr. G. E. R. Deacon, Dr. H. Godwin, Dr. J. S. Huxley, Professor T. A. Stephenson, Professor C. E. Tilley, Professor C. M. Yonge, with power to co-opt additional members. The New Zealand sub-committee is pursuing three courses of action: (a) An enquiry about available ships. (b) Programme and personnel. (c) Co-ordinating the views of member bodies. R. A. Falla, Convener, Sub-Committee, Darwin Anniversary Expedition. Board of Trustees of National Art Gallery and Dominion Museum. Dr. Fleming presented a report on the resolution of the Annual Meeting to approach the Prime Minister regarding a larger scientific representation on the Board. The Minister of Internal Affairs had replied that in view of the number of interests which had to be represented on the Board of Trustees, he was of the opinion that scientific interests were adequately represented. Dr. Fleming reported that the Board has now set up a committee to investigate the desirability of amending the constitution of the Board, and that both he and Mr. McQueen are members of that committee. The report was received. Trans-Antarctic Expedition. Professor Richardson presented a report regarding arrangements for the departure of the expedition to the Antarctic. The first vessels carrying personnel would be leaving about December 15. As convener of the Royal Society's Antarctic Research Committee, Dr. Fleming laid on the table a set of twenty-one reports compiled by competent research workers on biological subjects, and he stated that the geological series was in course of preparation.

Dr. Fleming stated that these reports would be available to members of the Expedition before they left for Antarctica. Professor Richardson and Dr. Fleming were thanked for their reports. Co-operation Between the Royal Society and Other Scientific Societies. A report (7c) prepared by Professor Briggs and Professor Richardson was approved for circulation to Member Bodies and scientific organisations. Co-Operation Between the Royal Society of New Zealand and Other Scientific Organisations. For many years after the formation in 1867 of the New Zealand Institute, later to become the Royal Society of New Zealand, it remained the only scientific body in the country. With the advancement of science there has been a natural development of specialised scientific societies based on a single discipline although some scientific interests are still catered for by individual branches of the Royal Society. This establishment of specialised societies has led to examination of some system by which these organisations may still be associated with the Royal Society. Such ways and means have been under consideration by the Royal Society for the past seven years after consultation with a wide range of other national scientific bodies on several occasions. Linkage through formal affiliation has been exhaustively studied but found impracticable within the framework of the Royal Society. It would appear that, apart from co-operation on specific occasions, the other national scientific bodies best flourish with complete constitutional independence. This does not mean that the Royal Society of New Zealand refuses to associate itself with other organisations. This is completely contrary to the aims, objects and traditions of the Royal Society which, when deemed desirable, has associated itself freely with other organisations at a national level and through its Branches with many local organisations in a wide range of activities of a more regional nature. For example, at the national level, in maintaining the organisation of the New Zealand Science Congresses, the Royal Society carries out the essential function in this country of an Association for the Advancement of Science by bringing together some twenty or more participating organisations widely representative of science in this country. In most centres as well, Branches of the Royal Society have joined with other regional organisations in holding joint public meetings for lectures, demonstrations and other similar purposes. These activities maintain a unity in the scientific community and provide an opportunity for the activities of a specialist scientific organisation to be brought before the more general audiences which are found in the Branches of the Royal Society. When organisations have sought the co-operation of the Royal Society of New Zealand in the past, co-operation at the regional level has been generally very successful both in the holding of ad hoc lectures jointly with a Branch or in the discussion and subsequent dealings on a matter of regional importance. In one centre the Branch has developed as part of its regular programme lectures held in turn with the different scientific bodies in the area. It is suggested that other Branches may find this a most useful practice rather than to rely solely on ad hoc joint meetings. A regular endeavour on these lines may well slow down the rate of the developing dichotomy which many regard as unhealthy in a still limited scientific community. The high and generally successful level of co-operation on matters of regional scientific or public interest results from the more ready appreciation by regional bodies of the background and needs in a local matter. Sufficient members of a Branch and of its Council will commonly have an understanding of a matter brought by another society to the Branch for its support for that matter to be adequately discussed and a proper brief prepared for further action As has happened frequently, a joint committee can be readily set up to prepare such a brief which, if proper, can be carried to the Council of the Royal Society for its support and action. In maintaining the organisation of the New Zealand Science Congress, of the Pacific Science Congress and of A.N.Z.A.A.S. when held in New Zealand, and in similar activities the Royal Society carries out at the national level an activity parallel to that of Branches holding joint meetings at the regional level. Co-operation in this respect is fully established and should need arise for further developments on these lines, they can be readily instituted. The difficulties of co-operation at the national level appear mostly in cases where other organisations seek the active support of the Royal Society in matters of their own special concern. Frequently the Council of the Royal Society has associated itself in full sympathy in such matters and has assisted in carrying them to a satisfactory conclusion. On other occasions the Royal Society has been requested to consider and take action in a matter presented to the Council only as a formal motion from the originating body and without a supporting brief in terms of which the Council can readily reach a decision The Council has on some occasions supported, essentially pro forma, proposals presented in this way and

transmitted them to the appropriate authority. Too often the matter lapses with or is rejected by the final authority because of the lack of supporting evidence. Such a result is satisfactory neither to the originating body nor to the Royal Society. The failure is due to a poor measure of co-operation between the originating body and the Royal Society. In other cases, the matter must be referred back from the Council of the Royal Society. With the increasing delays the opportunities for action diminish and in final outcome the matter is not properly pursued at the appropriate time. Equally, this results from faulty co-operation between the two bodies. In order to eliminate the difficulties which have arisen previously in some cases, it is recommended to other societies seeking the co-operation of the Royal Society in matters of national significance, that they approach the Royal Society of New Zealand at the earliest possible occasion requesting the setting up of a joint committee to examine and report upon the matter to both societies. Through this action, the Royal Society has the opportunity in the first instance of considering whether the matter is a proper one for the Society to pursue in the terms of its constitutional obligations Subsequently through the representation of both bodies on the Committee the Royal Society and the originating society will be equally and fully informed on the progress of the deliberations of the Committee which can further decide on a proper joint course of action and prepare a suitable supporting brief. Such procedure will also enable a matter suitable for co-operative action to be moved uniformly through the originating body and the Royal Society, so avoiding such extensive delay. Ninth Pacific Science Congress. An invitation from the President of the Organising Committee of the Ninth Pacific Science Congress to be held in Thailand between November 18 and December 9, 1957, was read by the President. Dr. Archey stated that he considered that the same officers should not always be selected for representation of New Zealand at the Pacific Science Congress—he thought it was a privilege which should rotate amongst members. Whoever is appointed should be prepared to act on the Council of the Pacific Science Association on which he is at present the Society's representative, and in doing so it would necessitate their missing much of the actual Congress. The letter of invitation was received, and it was resolved to circulate its contents to Member Bodies for their information. Discussion as to the number of representatives which New Zealand should send to the Ninth Congress ensued, and it was agreed that at least six should go from New Zealand and the Royal Society should have a representation of two. Dr. Archey said that of the two one should be the representative on the Council of the Pacific Science Association and the other should be on the highest scientific level. It was resolved, on the motion of Professor Allan, seconded by Dr. Archey: “That the Society approach the Hon. Minister through the budget for a grant to send two representatives to the Ninth Pacific Science Congress.” Travelling Expenses. Travelling expenses for the meeting were approved. National Collections. Owing to the lateness of the hour it was decided that the National Collections Report (7a) be received, and that discussion on it be deferred until the next Council Meeting. On the motion of Dr. Salmon, seconded by Mr. Callaghan, it was resolved that in the meantime Recommendation No. 2 be proceeded with: Recommendation No. 2: “That an enquiry be initiated to provide a complete factual statement of the holdings, housing and curation of natural history collections in New Zealand, with an accompanying statement of the professional and technical staff working on them.” National Collections: Natural History. 1. A Report prepared by the National Collections Committee (Dr. D. Miller, Mr. F. R. Callaghan, Dr. W. R. B. Oliver (Convener) and Dr. J. T. Salmon) was circulated to the governing bodies of museums, university college museums, scientific departments, and societies on February 10, 1956. Further questionnaires referable in particular to collectors and museums were sent out, one on August 24 to Member Bodies, and an amended one to the above institutions and societies on September 12, 1956. 2. Replies to the questionnaires have been received up to November 2, 1956, from the following:—R. W. Willett, N.Z. Geological Survey; G. O'Halloran, Marine Department;

R. Cooper, Art Galleries and Museums Association; W. M. Hamilton, D.S.I.R. (2); Entomological Society of New Zealand; C. M. Smith, Botany Division; Miss B. Brewin, Zoology Department, University of Otago; G. T. Baylis, Botany Department, University of Otago; Professor Percival, Canterbury Univ. College; Anonymous Group, Canterbury Branch R.S.N.Z.; Professor Gordon, Botany Department, Victoria University College; G. A. Knox, Zoology Department, Canterbury University College; V. D. Zotov, Botany Division, D.S.I.R.; Town Clerk, Palmerston North; H. D. Skinner, Otago Museum; Miss Marion Fyfe, Otago University; E. B. Davies, Rukuhia Soil Research Station; C. R. Russell, Canterbury Branch R.S.N.Z.; B. W. Campbell, Otago University; E. S. Gourley, Cawthron Institute; H. C. McQueen, Wellington; G. H. Cunningham, Plant Diseases Division, Auckland; Miss O. Sansom, Southland Museum; Wellington Branch R.S.N.Z.; National Art Gallery and Dominion Museum Board of Trustees; N.Z. Forest Service. 3. The following attempt has been made at an interim summary of the opinions received. 4. In the replies received there was a general expression of interest in the objectives of the Royal Society as set out in the circulars and a hope that the present position would be improved by the Society's initiative: definition of the term “National” in reference to collections was sought. 5. Most replies consider that museums should be regarded as the proper repositories of natural history collections of the type and reference classes. Qualifications are expressed, however, in regard to (1) The entomological collections housed at Cawthron Institute, Nelson. (2) The opinion that museums should not be the sole repositories of major collections. (3) Cultured collections of micro-organisms should be held at medical and agricultural research stations. An opinion was expressed that in view of the fact that taxonomic work, hitherto done in museums, was now undertaken by specialists in universities and departments, that museums should not be regarded as sole repositories of natural history collections. Attention was also drawn to the fact that though popularly the museums are regarded as repositories of natural history collections, they are not regarded as centres of taxonomic research. Several replies disagree with the statement that Government departments cannot curate collections, pointing out that museums are not invariably regarded as the proper locations for natural history collections. 6. Replies received indicated that the museums concerned lacked space and qualified staff to enable satisfactory custodianship to be provided for collections. Opinions were expressed that no New Zealand museum at present has space, staff, and finance to enable it to carry out the responsibilities entailed. In some cases (Dominion Museum, Canterbury Museum) pending extensions of present buildings were anticipated to overcome the space problem in the future. 7. Opinions regarding restricting collections to a definite number of museums were very varied, with perhaps a slight tendency in favour of those in the four main centres Some favoured concentration on two centres and others considered “proper curation guarantees,” as their only criterion. Some considered it highly desirable to have collections housed where active work directly connected with their collections was in progress. It was also considered that anything approaching a complete taxonomic and curation service in four centres would be almost impossible to provide, through lack of qualified staff and adequate funds. 8. No definite opinions were received on the questions of the advisability of housing definite classes of material in specified museums. No advantages were thought to accrue either to the museums, except those selected, or to collectors. It was felt that this was a question to be dealt with by the museum authorities. 9. None considered that there was any collection of plants or animals which it would be disadvantageous to house in one museum only. 10. There was general support for the principle that museums should be encouraged to appoint staff of high qualifications for taxonomic and curation duties. A number of qualifications was made, however; staff should be interested in the fields covered by the collections and not in narrow specialised research fields; that approaches to botanical taxonomy by herbarium methods is no longer adequate; difficulties in securing staff for all groups at any museum; that the value of a collection depends greatly upon the fact that it has been made and worked on by specialists. 11. As basic requirements of suitable repositories the provision of fireproof, waterproof and verminproof space for safe, hygienic storage, for convenient examination and use of specimens; professional staff (taxonomists) of high qualifications; technical staff qualified to ensure proper curation, recording, labelling and indexing; well lit, moisture and temperature controlled rooms and library; regular three monthly inspection of all biological material were among the specifications enumerated.

12. General agreement exists that it is desirable that duplicates of all type specimens be placed systematically in different institutions for safety purposes; that replicates of all type specimens housed overseas should be made and kept up-to-date. 13. Opinions on the availability of specimens in museums varied consderably. Some considered the position quite satisfactory. Others considered that space was often lacking for thorough examination; that there were shortcomings in regard to indexing and references; that rules for inspection and borrowing were either too exacting or not sufficiently stringent, and that prompt loan by post was desirable. 14. To promote closer association between State departments and museums in activities in which natural history collections are involved, a Branch of the Geological Survey has been located in Auckland Museum: negotiations are planned for the consideration of the location of D.S.I.R. units at the Dominion Museum. Both D.S.I.R. and Museums welcome the development. 15. The Dominion Museum welcomes the action taken by the Royal Society; is concerned at the low salaries paid to Museum staff compared with university and departmental scales: advises that a constitution revision committee has been set up to give further consideration to the Reports: hopes that the matters raised by the Royal Society report will be pursued at high administrative level. 16. Few replies dealt with the question of transfers of collection material from one museum or State Department to another. Such as were given did not favour transfers; the legal difficulties arising in those cases where bequests were made to particular institutions were raised. 17. No replies have been received from museum authorities regarding their attitude towards developing a policy of leadership in taxonomy and curation of national collections of natural history. 18. Many replies expressed dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs, but felt there was some evidence of improvements pending. Attention is drawn particularly to the lack of qualified staff available for the tasks involved, and this leads to the conclusion that some degree of concentration is essential if collections are to be properly cared for. One suggestion is that the Dominion Museum should be constituted the central consultant body for scientists wishing to study type specimens. Others consider it essential that all museum Directors should confer and in due course evolve a sound scheme to meet New Zealand's needs, so that collectors may with confidence deposit their types in safe custody. 19. Conclusions. It is difficult to reach a decision or decisions as to what should be done in the best interests of New Zealand natural history collections from the replies received. The viewpoints of all the museum authorities not having been expressed, leaves a very big gap in the information necessary to form any opinion. At present, collectors do not appear to have as much confidence in museums as should be the case. This is understandable in view of the handicaps in regard to finance, staff, space and facilities which museums have suffered from for many years. There is a general opinion that in order to improve matters, great difficulties will be experienced in finding staff with proper qualifications and in financing additional accommodation and facilities. The question arises as to whether State funds should be sought to improve conditions at the museums or it be left to State departments and University Colleges to develop collections by use of their own votes. 20. Recommendation. The recommendation is made that the Royal Society. (1) Adopt a principle which asserts that natural history collections are of such importance, that wherever they are located, they should be properly housed, curated, and accessible to scientists; and. (2) In consequence initiates an enquiry to provide a complete factual statement of the holdings, housing and curation of natural history collections in New Zealand, with an accompanying statement of the professional and technical staff working on them. This action to be taken with a view to adopting a policy whereby natural history collections in New Zealand may be properly housed, safeguarded and made available for scientific use. (Signed) F. R. Callaghan, Convener. November 3, 1956. Special Nominations Committee. On the motion of Professor Briggs, seconded by Professor Richardson, it was resolved: “That the Standing Committee look into the rules regarding the Special Nominations Committee in accordance with the Minutes of the Annual Meetings held 1947 (Trans. 77 p. xxvi) and 1948 (Trans. 78 p. iv and ix).” Salaries. On the motion of Dr. Salmon, seconded by Mr. Cory-Wright, it was resolved: “That the Secretary's salary be increased to £800 per annum and made retrospective to 1st January, 1956”

On the motion of Professor Briggs, seconded by Professor Allan, it was resolved: “That the Assistant Librarian's salary be increased in terms of the increases in the Public Service scale.” Votes of Thanks. Professor Allan moved a very hearty vote of thanks to the President, Professor Briggs, for his able chairmanship of the meeting. Carried by acclamation. The meeting concluded at 6.40 p.m. (Confirmed.) L. H. Briggs, 6th December, 1956. Chairman.