1921 .] 
University and Scientific News. 
207 
Presentation of Hector and Mueller Medals. 
At a special meeting of the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury 
on the 27th July the Hector medal, awarded for work in geological 
research, was presented to Mr. R. Speight, and the Mueller medal, for 
research work in biology, was presented to Dr. Charles Chilton. Professor 
T. H. Easterfield, Director of the Cawthron Institute, presented the 
first in his capacity as President of the New Zealand Institute, and the 
second as deputy of the President of the Australasian Association for 
the Advancement of Science. 
Fellows of the New Zealand Institute. 
A notification was published in the New Zealand Gazette of 23rd June, 
1921, “ that at the annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the 
New Zealand Institute held 22nd and 24th January, 1921, the following 
were elected to the Fellowship of the Institute :— 
“ Charles Andrew Cotton, D.Sc., A.O.S.M., F.G.S. 
“ Frederick William Hilgendorf, B.A., D.Sc. 
“ Reverend John Ernest Holloway, L.Th., D.Sc. 
“ James Park, M.Am.Inst.M.E., M.Inst.M.M., F.G.S.” 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
Origin of the Upper Waitaki Depression. 
Sir, —In his very useful Notes on a Geological Excursion to Lake 
Tekapo ” [Trans. N.Z. hist., vol. 53, pp. 37-46, 1921) Mr. R. Speight 
suggests that in my “ Block Mountains in New Zealand ” ( Amer . Journ. 
Sci., vol. 44, pp. 249-93, 1917) I accepted an explanation given by Kitson 
and Thiele of the origin of the Upper Waitaki depression which conflicted 
with my own explanation of the features of Central Otago—an explanation, 
I may add, which I extended to the whole surface of New Zealand, and 
which Mr. Speight also adopts for the Southern Alps and states admirably 
on page 37 of his paper. 
I trust that Mr. Speight will forgive my pointing out that his suggestion 
is based on a misconception, due, I have no doubt, to the brevity of my 
statement and the obscurity which is unfortunately so apt to accompany 
brevity. 
As I had not myself visited the Upper Waitaki valley before writing 
the paper referred to, I could not then controvert the explanation of it 
given by Kitson and Thiele, though I suspected that parts of the explana¬ 
tion were not well grounded. I refrained, however, from quoting such 
parts of it as I distrusted ; and a careful reading of page 285 of my paper 
will show that I did not by any means endorse the whole of their explana¬ 
tion, but only that portion of it which has now been shown by Mr. Speight 
to be correct, and which was in harmony with my own explanation of the 
neighbouring district of Central Otago. 
