664 Proceedings. 



Ninth Meeting: 13th December, 1893. 

 Major-General Schaw, President, in the chair. 



Papers. — 1. "Further Notes on Coccidee," by W. M. 

 MaskelL {Transactions, p. 65.) 



Sir James Hector said that he did not think it was necessary to 

 invoke any mysterious or supernatural action to account for this curious 

 form of gall. It was simply a morbid vegetable growth, whose plant- 

 tissue took an abnormal form under continued irritation by the insect. 



Mr. Harding did not think the author meant that there was anything 

 supernatural in the work. He himself did not think these animals con- 

 structed these galls ; they were a vegetable growth — a deviation of the 

 plant-growth : the vital force of the plant did the work after the insect 

 had perforated the twig. 



Mr. Travers said that in Knoivledge there was a most interesting 

 paper on the construction of galls, by Mr. Butler. It treated of their 

 formation from the earliest stages. He considered the galls changed with 

 the life of the insect. 



Mr. T. Kirk considered that it was fairly established that galls wera 

 the result of morbid vegetable growth, but how formed it was not clear. 

 The dog-rose plant was a good instance, showing the earlier cellular struc- 

 ture, which became changed into a perfect cylinder; but why growth 

 should be fostered in this manner could not be explained. 



Mr. Poyuton : May not the gall be a part of the animal, like the 

 shell of a snail? 



Mr. Maskell, in reply, said that he did not say anything about the 

 supernatural, nor was there any need for it. The gall in question was 

 partly vegetable and partly formed of animal secretion. What Mr. Kirk 

 said was quite correct, and galls of quite different shape were frequently 

 produced by insects seemingly almost identical. But the peculiar and 

 puzzling point about this gall was the position of the insect, which was 

 placed as far as it could possibly get from the food-plant. 



2. " Notes and Observations on M. A. de Quatref ages' Paper 

 on Moas and Moa-hunters," by W. Colenso. {Transactions, 

 p. 498.) 



Sir James Hector said that, with regard to the translation of his 

 paper. Miss Buller was not aware at the time that it had previously been 

 translated, and, moreover, it had been added to by Sir W. Buller, and the 

 Board considered that it would be convenient to have the translation in- 

 cluded in the Transactions. The fact that it had called forth such an 

 able paper from Mr. Colenso was in itself a sufficient proof that it was 

 wise to print it. The question as to whether the moa did exist was not the 

 point, but rather, when was it known _^rsi to exist? 



Mr. Tregear had supported tbe printing of the translation of 

 Quatrefages' paper, althoi;gh he did not agree with the writer. We 

 could not at present settle the question of the age of the moa traditionally. 

 He could not understand why there was no tradition on the subject. It 

 would no doubt be found hereafter. There was really nothing new in 

 Mr. Colenso's notes. 



Mr. Tanner thought it a pity Mr. Colenso had been so personal in 

 his notes on the subject. He had given no additional information. 



Sir James Hector referred briefly to his recent trip to 

 Austraha, and exhibited a number of interesting specimens he 

 had secured during his trip. Referring to Adelaide, he said he 



