662 Proceedings. 



Eighth Meeting : 1st November, 1893. 



Major-General Schaw, President, in the chair. 



Papers.— 1. "Common Vital Force: Section II. — Dis- 

 covery V. Invention," by Coleman Phillips. {Transactions, 

 p. 609.) 



Mr. C. Pharazyn said that this was too abstract a subject to discuss 

 at short notice. Perhaps it would be better to defer discussion until 

 the series of papers was completed. The greatest inventor only adapted, 

 after all had been said. 



Mr. Tanner did not think the author had enlightened us sufficiently 

 on the difference between invention and discovery. He thought an inven- 

 tion might be a discovery, but a discovery could not be an invention, 

 unless it was mechanically applied. 



Mr. Tregear did not quite understand what the author meant by vital 

 force. He got terribly mixed up in regard to this power. He could not 

 agree with the author's views. 



Mr. Lambert said, with regard to the force mentioned by Mr. Phillips, 

 that under certain circumstances the intellect of a person became acute, 

 and he used it. He mentioned an instance that occurred to himself, 

 which was carried out successfully. It was an instrument he discovered 

 that would be absolutely correct for perspective drawing. 



Mr. Phillips replied briefly. 



2. "Common Vital Force: Section III. — Potentiality of 

 Divergence," by Coleman Phillips. {Transactions, p. 611.) 



Mr. Tanner said there was a limit to the changes mentioned by the 

 author. No mongrel could perpetuate itself. The tumbler pigeon could 

 fly without tumbling. You could not change the species into a different 

 order. 



Mr. Hudson said that all the questions mentioned by Mr. Phillips 

 were answered in Darwin's " Origin of Species." We did not gain much 

 from these theories — facts were what we wanted. He explained what was 

 meant by divergence of character according to Darwin. 



Mr. Maskell did not admire Darwin — it was making ropes of sand, 

 nothing tangible or solid on which to build theories ; and so it was with Mr. 

 Phillips's paper : there was nothing to go upon, and he had not defined what 

 he meant by " common vital force." He did not say whether it was 

 material life, intellect, or mental faculties. The question was, what is 

 nature ? It had never yet been defined. He agreed with Mr. Phillips that 

 no two people were alike ; but in microscopical life objects were absolutely 

 alike — we came across absolute identity in individuals of the same species. 

 That would do away with Mr. Phillips's theory. 



Mr. Phillips, in his reply, said that Darwin was not a theorist; he 

 carefully collected his facts, and then his theories came out. If IMr. Mas- 

 kell was right in regard to the similarity of microscopical individuals it 

 would be difficult to carry on the study of medical bacteria. Was the micro- 

 scope of sufficient power to enable us to settle the question ? 



The Chairman said that such papers as that just read were useful. 

 Darwin certainly brought forth facts, but he did not quite agree with the 

 theories Darwin founded on those facts. Whether there was any limit to 

 varieties was an open question. 



3. "On the Date of the Extinction of the Moa," by H. C, 

 Field ; read by Mr, Tregear. {Transactions, p. 560.) 



