694 Proceedings. 



Fifth Meeting : 9tli Septcmher, ISDl. 



W. T. L. Travers, F.L.S., in the chair. 



Neiu Member.— B.. T. Turnbull. 



Papers. — 1. " Instances of Instinct in Insects," by G. V. 

 Hudson, F.E.S. (Transactions, p. 354.) 



Mr. Phillips said he disagreed with the author as regards the here- 

 ditary instinct of animals ; he helieved that animals and man derived 

 their intelligence in constructive ability in a similar manner — namely, 

 from a common vital force, a subject on which he had read a paper 

 before this Society a short time ago. He did not agree to credit every- 

 thing to evolution. A spider's web is superior to anything that man 

 can construct. There is a force in nature given to man or insects which 

 is common to both, and not necessarily hereditary. 



]\Ir. Maskell said he was obliged to dissent from the conclusions of 

 the author. Whatever the reality might be of the three or four facts given 

 by Mr. Hudson, they seemed entirely insufficient to form a basis for a 

 theory of instinct such as was proposed. For example, in the case of the 

 falling insect mentioned, Mr. Hudson adduced this as an instance clearly 

 pointing to acquired faculties, the result of long series of minute varia- 

 tions and progress. But the case was of extreme weakness unless oMr. 

 Hudson was prepared to assert of his own knowledge that the remote 

 ancestor of this moth — the very first of the race — did not do precisely the 

 same thing. Assuming (what did not seem to be proved) that the moth 

 which fell on this occasion did so from fright, — assuming that the moth 

 could see far enough to detect an approaching enemy (also not proved), — 

 how could anybody say that the very first created moth of the species did 

 not do the same thing under similar conditions ? And if it did, where 

 would the progressive inherited variation leading to the instinct of the 

 moth now referred to come in ? The founding of theories tending to 

 sap and destroy the first principles of human belief on such vague and 

 unproved assertions as those of the paper was mischievous in the extreme, 

 and. the speaker regretted that so many young students of the present day 

 were apt to give way to the temptation of indulging in them. 



Sir Walter Buller was somewhat disappointed with Mr. Hudson's 

 paper, because its ambitious title had led him to expect much more than 

 it gave in the waj' of original research. He could not conceive a more 

 fruitful subject than the one selected by the author ; but, instead of the 

 large array of facts and observations from his own experience one might 

 have expected, Mr. Hudson had recorded only two instances of remark- 

 able instinct in New Zealand insects, the rest being quoted from English 

 authors. The paper appeared to him a little crude, but he felt sure Mr. 

 Hudson was on the right track. It seemed to him impossible to reject 

 the theory of hereditary instinct with such evidence before us. Take, for 

 example, the hexagonal cell of the common honey-bee. What the first 

 bee may have done it is, of course, impossible to know, but within the 

 memory of man the bee had constructed its cell on exactly the same 

 model, as the result of hereditary instinct. 



Sir James Hector said the paper was evidently an attempt to meet 

 statements attacking the theory of evolution that were made at previous 

 meetings. He held that there was nothing about first causes in that 

 theory, and that it was a x^owerful aid to the working naturalist in un- 

 ravelling and unfolding the various steps in the scheme of creation. He 

 recommended members to read some interesting anecdotes bearing on the 

 question of modification of instincts into individual reasoning- powers 

 which are related in Good Words by Dr. Giiuther. He referred espe- 



