182 the president's address. 



them now is very different. What I and everybody else believed 

 were cells in those days, we do not believe are cells at all now ; 

 and what I believed were vessels, prove in many instances to be 

 parasitic growths in the substance of the shell. That shows the 

 difference of interpretation in the things you actually see, and it 

 shows you how important it is to distinguish between the two — 

 the things you see with the bodily eye, so to speak, and the things 

 you see with the mind's eye. In those days everybody was finding 

 cells everywhere. It was just the beginning of the cell doctrine, 

 and when the cellular structure of the epidermis of the higher 

 animals was discovered, of course the verv natural inference was 

 that the things corresponding with the epidermis — the epidermic 

 skeleton — would be proved to be cellular also ; and the evidence 

 seemed quite satisfactory, and yet now that evidence is found 

 to bear a very different interpretation. You know the old saying, 

 that a wise man changes his mind as often as he sees occasion for 

 it. I have never stuck to an error when I really felt there was 

 sufficient ground for changing my opinion, and, therefore, in the 

 later editions of my book on the microscope, I have given what I 

 believe to be the true interpretation of these appearances. So it is 

 quite possible that the appearances described by Mr. BufThaui may 

 be susceptible of some other interpretation. I very cordially hope 

 that these observations may be followed up through successive 

 seasons until it shall be shown that there is only one interpreta- 

 tion, whatever that may be, put upon them. 



Now, I have a few remarks to make upon another communica- 

 tion, which we had from Mr. Lowne on the structure of the eyes 

 of insects. It was not my good fortune to be present at more than 

 just the conclusion of that communication, but I knew Mr. Lowne's 

 views on the subject ; and I have since read the last paper which 

 he communicated to the Linnasan Society. It was with very great 

 regret that, just about Easter, I read in the columns of " Nature " 

 a strong condemnation of this paper, and of the want of proper 

 knowledge on the part of the Council of the Linnasan Society, 

 which had induced them to publish it ; and this, from one of the 

 ablest of the younger school of naturalists, Professor Eay 

 Lankester, of whom I wish to speak with every respect as to his 

 great ability, his large contributions — most important contributions 

 — to various departments of biological research ; whose father was 

 an old fellow-student of mine in this very building, and was to the 



