Wellington Philosophical Society. 845 



Mr. Travers said he thought that this was the same butterfly that 

 Mr. Hudson called Pyrameis. He had met with it often in Wellington 

 and other places in New Zealand. 



Mr. Hudson said that Vanessa was the old name and Pyrameis the 

 new. There was a slight difference in the wings. V. itea was found in 

 New Zealand and Australia, and Pyrameis in New Zealand only. 



Mr. Maskell said he was glad to see a young member presenting a 

 paper of this kind. Mr. Cohen had some good collections, and frequently 

 exhibited them at the meetings ; but this was the first time he had 

 communicated his observations to the Society. 



2. " Illustrations of Darwinism ; or, The Avifauna of New 

 Zealand considered in relation to the Fundamental Law of 

 Descent with Modification," by Sir W. Buller, K.C.M.G., 

 F.E.S. {Transactions, p. 75) 



Mr. Maskell did not intend to discuss the paper at length, as he 

 could not follow distinctly the whole of the paper. In dealing wi'th the 

 subject he did not think the author had gone below the surface. He 

 had not contradicted any of the fundamental arguments against the 

 Darwinian theory. He thought it a great pity that the author had re- 

 ferred in the manner he did in his introduction to the papers by th« 

 President and Mr. Coleman Phillips-personality on such occasions 

 should be avoided as much as possible, and members should not be held 

 up to ridicule. He would recommend the author to withdraw the re- 

 marks in the introduction before he submitted it for publication. 



Mr. Travers said he was a follower of Dai-win's doctrines, and he had 

 made many observations similar to those mentioned by Sir W. Buller on 

 the subject. He mentioned the disappearance of forms of life which 

 occupied a conspicuous place in former years, and he referred to in- 

 stances of variation of form, plumage, and colour that he had observed 

 in plants and animals. He did not think the paper just read contained 

 views that would excite controversy. There was nothing really very new 



Mr Field described specimens of birds in New Zealand which are 

 quite different from anything described in Sir W. Buller's work on the 

 birds of New Zealand, especially as regards colour, and this, he thought 

 would favour the development theory. He mentioned many instance's of 

 this in ferns and other plants. 



Mr. Carlile, as an outsider as regards natural science, said he would 

 not have presumed to intervene in a discussion of this sort if it were not 

 that Darwinism had now taken possession of the whole field of human 

 knowledge. It had given a human interest to science. Nowadays 

 when one endeavoured to follow such a discussion as the recent one be- 

 tween Weismann and Herbert Spencer, on such a point perhaps as 

 the cause of the change of structure in the heads of the soldier-ants, he 

 found that he was really engaged on a question that had an interest 

 bearing on important social problems. It bore, for instance, on such a 

 question as that of whether habitual drunkenness could be inherited or not 

 The greater interest nowadays attaching to science would probably secure 

 for it in the future that leading position in the curricula of our universi- 

 ties that had been often claimed for it. Evolution was one thing but 

 evolution by means of purely fortuitous variations was another. Sir W 

 Buller had adduced the case of protective colouring as a case of Dar- 

 winian evolution. It was, however, rather a difficulty in the way of the 

 acceptance of the theory. One could understand how even the smallest 

 degree of added swiftness in a young fish would assist it to escape its 

 enemies, and so tend to the perpetuatiou of the type ; but it was impos- 

 sible to understand how the initial stage in the variation— from brown to 

 green, say— could have any preservative effect at all. 



