Proceedings. cxxiii. 



Dr. Carpenter said he rose for the purpose of moving a 

 vote of thanks to Mr. Geldart for his explicit resume of 

 Aristotle's observations and deductions. He (the speaker) was 

 not competent to criticise these further than to remark upon 

 the fact that Aristotle had no microscope, and none of those 

 means of observation which belong to the present day, and 

 therefore we should not be surprised at the many mistakes he 

 made in his observation of the changes that took place in the 

 development of the chick in the egg. The changes that took 

 place in the egg were of a much more intricate character than 

 laid down by Aristotle. They were very peculiar and very 

 definite. It was quite true as mentioned that the first germ 

 from which the chick appeared always did, in a short period, 

 find its position at the surface of the egg, no matter where they, 

 placed it. But it was not correct that a portion of it was con- 

 tained within the centre of the white. It was not in the centre 

 of the white at all. That which he spoke of also as the eye 

 was not actually the eye. The nervous system, which was 

 of a very minute character at first, was in a somewhat 

 different position from that in which it was placed by 

 Aristotle. He (the speaker) could not explain in a few short 

 words the actual process of development. It was one that 

 was very well worthy of observation, and by the aid of the 

 microscope they were able to trace every step of it. The way 

 in which Mr. Geldart has brought this matter before the notice 

 of the society might perhaps lead some of the younger members 

 to take the subject of chick development in hand. He (Dr. 

 Carpenter) thanked Mr. Geldart for his very capital statement 

 with regard to Aristotle. At the same time there were classifi- 

 cations older than Aristotle's. In reading the Book of Job he 

 had often wondered at the knowledge that was evidently 

 possessed by the writer with regard to natural history. There 

 were some beautiful references there which indicated a know- 

 ledge of things, and an acquaintance with subjects which had 

 really only recently become popularised. 



Mr. ToPLEY said he would second the vote of thanks. It 

 was simply amazing, he considered, to note the great amount 

 of knowledge which Aristotle had of the facts at that early 

 period. It was almost impossible to conceive that he was 

 simply a pioneer. He must have drawn a great deal of 

 knowledge from sources not now known. The great point was 

 Ihe facts he gave, and not so much the deductions from those 

 facts. There was one thing of very great importance, and 

 that was the way in which Aristotle collected facts. For 

 example, he seems to have stated as a fact that animals 

 died as the tide was going out. He did not know whether Mr. 

 Geldart had met with that statement. Pliny examined it and 

 5aid it was true of men, but he did not think it was true of 



