MEETINGS OF SOCIETIES. 279 



might have expected, Mr. Hudson had recorded only two instances of 

 remarkable instinct in New Zealand insects, the rest being quoted from 

 English authors. The paper appeared to him a little crude, but ho felt 

 sure that Mr. Hudson was on the right track. It seemed to him 

 impossible to reject this theory of hereditary instinct with such evidences 

 before us. Take, for example, the hexagonal cell of the common honey 

 bee. What the first bee may have done it was impossible of course to 

 know, but within the memory of man this bee had constructed its cell 

 on exactly the same model, as the result of hereditary instinct. 



Sir James Hector said that the paper was evidently an attempt to 



meet statements, attacking the theory of evolution, that were made at 



previous meetings. He held there was nothing about first causes in 



that theory, and that it was a powerful aid to the working naturalist in 



unravelling and unfolding the various steps in the scheme of creation. 



He recommended members to read some interesting anecdotes bearing 



... ° 



on the question of modification of instincts into individual reasoning 



powers, which are related in " Good Words " by Dr. Gunther. He 



referred especially to the nesting habits, in confinement, of the magpie 



and house sparrow, which showed that inherited memory or instinct, 



though very potent, could be overruled by individual effort. 



Mr. Harding called attention to what he had said at the last 

 meeting, on Mr. Carlile's paper. He did not think we could have both 

 reason and instinct. He related how a beaver in captivity showed 

 instinct but very little reason. There was a communal instinct which 

 enabled savages to construct bridges and such things without the aid of 

 architects or surveyors. Mr. Hudson's paper, as a clue to the mystery 

 of nature, was worthless ; but it was a good working theory for a 

 naturalist. It was a mistake to put forward such statements as Mr. 

 Hudson had done as if they were actual facts. 



Mr. Travers described how the gull carried the shell-fish to a 

 height and then dropped it, when it broke and disclosed the fish inside 

 which it fed upon. This was probably the result of an accident in the 

 first instance, followed by reason in repeating the action. The bird 

 could not acquire this from any created habit. Mr. Wallace seemed 

 inclined to abandon the idea of instinct. Dr. Gunther's example of the 

 magpie is remarkable. He did not think Mr. Hudson intended, as Mr. 

 Maskell inferred, to dogmatise. The paper is valuable and contains 

 most interesting facts. We must enquire into all facts of this kind if 

 we wish to add to our knowledge in natural history. 



Sir Walter Buller said he wished to supplement Mr. Traverse 

 account of this instinct displayed by Larus dominicanus in breaking 

 shell-fish. During his travels, he had, thousands of times, watched the 

 operations described by Mr. Travers, the bird ascending obliquely to a 

 certain height in the air, then dropping the shell, and coming down to 

 feast on the contents. But what had specially struck him was this : 

 the sagacious bird never dropped the shell on soft sand or ooze, but 

 always selected the hard portion of the beach where the impact of the 

 falling shell would produce the desired result. Th it fact alone exhibited 



