40 



eliminated before the true law of ramification could be traced ; but if 

 any one, after such reasonable deductions, should fail to find every- 

 where the same unvarying proportions mentioned, he must have an 

 experience widely differing from his own. 



The President (Mr. J. IJennant), on behalf of those present, 

 heartily thanked Mr. Lomax for his paper, short, but interesting and 

 valuable, being original. 



The discussion on the paper was opened by Mr. WoNFOR pointing 

 out that the subject had been treated from such a novel aspect, that 

 difficulty would be experienced in discussing it, and thanking Mr. 

 Lomax for suggesting ideas which might be considered in the coming 

 spring. 



Mr. G. D. Sawyer and Mr. Haselwood followed, the latter 

 observing that there was a strong tendency to account for biological 

 facts by mechanical laws. This was not new to them -they had that 

 theory promulgated before, though not in so practical a form as that 

 night. But he understood that the gentleman who asserted mechanical 

 laws as an explanation of biological facts went further than Mr. Lomax 

 had gone, and, therefore, he advised those present to be cautious in 

 adopting mechanical laws as accounting for those things, as such an 

 adoption might carry them further than the application of those laws 

 to mere vegetable productions. He also asked if the laws laid down 

 held good to any degree in reference to the downward progress of the 

 tree as well as the upward — to the ramifications of the roots as to those 

 of the branches ? 



Mr, Sawyer gave instances of the continual variation of the 

 growth of trees. 



Mr. Lomax replied to Mr. Haselwood that he looked upon 

 the forces which he had mentioned in his paper as forces of 

 vitality, which had to give way to the ordinary mechanical laws, and 

 that he had not studied the downward progress of the tree. 



Mr. C. F. Dennet also took part in the discussion. 



CURIOUS architectural specimen. 



Mr. T. W. WoNFOR, oneofthe Hon. Secretaries, brought forward 

 a large stone block, which, he pointed out, had on one side ecclesiastical 

 carving common to the thirteenth century, and, on the other, civil 



