PHILOSOPHICAL INSTITUTE.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 539, 10 March 1876, Page 2

PHILOSOPHICAL INSTITUTE.

A conversazione, to celebrate the opening of the season, was held last Thursday in tbe College Library by the Canterbury Philosophical Institute. The hall, which had been kindly placed at the disposal of the Institute by the authorities of Christ’s College, was very prettily decorated; The lighting was good, and the interesting collection of pictures and photographs which adorned the walla and front of the gallery had a pleasing effect; The tables in the centre of the room were covered with illustrated books, photographs, and curiosities of various kinds, while one was entirely set apart to microscopes. ;• The room in which Professor BicVerton exhibited some of the beautiful effects of electricity,was the centre of attraction. The collection of pot plants and evergreens, kindly lent by Messrs Wilson and Duncan, contributed in no small degree to the pleasing appearance of the room, and in addition, a number of tasteful bouquets, given by a lady, aided greatly the general effect. • .1 During the evening the President, Dr Powell;: delivered the following address. Gentlemen, —By the rules of the Canterbury Philosophical Institute, it is required that tbe President shall deliver an address

at the opening meeting of the session. When, having accepted the honorable office of President, I came to realise what it involved, my courage somewhat failed me. What subject should I choose for my address ? Dry, technical descriptions were out of the questionretrospects of the work of the society have been tolerably exhausted in former addresses and annual reports, and a review of the work of the last session would, I regret to say, be sadly meagre. It is in the power of very few men to be original, and having no very startling theories of my own to propound to you, I must needs content myself with gathering together a few of the observations and generalisations of others, and from the brilliant and many-colored threads weaving a fabric which may possess attractions for those who have not themselves time or inclination for observing the capabilities which lie hidden in the skein. No science has undergone more rapid development of late years than biology, or, as it used to be termed, natural history—the study of life in 411 its phases. I propose to give a brief sketch of the present state of this science, or rather to indicate a few of the problems which are engaging the attention of its students—problems which, from their tranxscendant interest and important bearings upon the social relations, the religious belief, the philosophical conceptions of mankinds have more or less attracted the attention and agitated the minds of most of the educated members of the community. It has been attempted to deprive life of all mystery, to correlate it with the other forces which affect matter. It has been said by an eminent biologist that it would be as absurd to /peak of the aquosity of water, as of the of living matter. As long as it was attempted to investigate the nature of life in so wonderfully complex a machinery as one of the more highly organised living beings, nothing but failure and bewilderment could result; in the words of Pope—- “ Following life through creatures you dissect, You lose it in the moment you detect." It is only by taking the simplest condition—the lowest organisms—the germ or the monera, that we can hope to arrive at any clear ideas. By adopting this method, life has been hunted down to its lair, reduced as it were to its lowest terms. Thus indeed we see that to a mind free from pre-conceived notions, the phenomena of life can be compared to nothing of which we have any experience, and to speak of it as a force, or as a condition of matter, is merely concealing our ignorance by an adroit use of words. Whatever may be our views, however, of the nature of life, there is one point on which physicists and vitalists agree, that life is never seen apart from a material of apparently definite physical and chemical composition, which has been named protoplasm or bioplasm. This bioplasm has wonderful properties, the power of independent movement, of forming matter similar to itself, and possessing similar properties out of dissimilar matter containing the same chemical elements, the power of growth and reproduction. It possesses constructive powers of the most diverse and astonishing nature without any apparent mechanism; and although one particle may be chemically and physically indistinguishable from another, the one may by its inherent powers pass through phases of growth and development which result in the production of the most highly organised animal, even man himself; the other may become a humble mould, or may not ever attain to a higher dignity of form and structure than a mere speck of jelly. Whether we shall ever be nearer to a solution of the mystery of life is at present doubtful; but we have at all events cleared the ground by arriving at these two grand generalisations—that life is inseparable from protoplasm, and that life is the cause, and not the consequence of organisation. Belated to this question—the nature of life—is the enquiry how does life originate ? Can living beings originate de novo, whether from inorganic materials or from the dead material of previously existing living beings; or, bn the other hand, is every living organism generated by a more or less similar organism? The ranks of science are divided into two camps—that of the biogenists, whose motto is “ omne vivum e vivo,” and that of the heterogenists, wh® believe that living beings come into existence independently of previous similar existences, or at least by the transmutation of heterogeneous organic particles. Dr Charlton Bastian, who is one of the leaders of the heterogenists, has published the results of numerous experiments performed with extreme care, proving to his mind that organisms may arise in tubes containing inorganic or dead organic matter, which have been subjected to conditions as to temperature, &c, which he considers unquestionably destructive of any possibly present germs. On the other hand abundant experiments have been performed by M. Pasteur, Mr Lister, and others, the results of which seem to prove the exact opposite. It is difficult to believe that Dr Bastian and the other eminent scientific men who believe in heterogenesis, can have been guilty of careless experimenting or incorrect observation, and it has been suggested that the conditions on which they rely are not necessarily destructive of the life of organic germs. On the other hand how are we to account for the almost invariably negative results of: the experiments of Messrs Pasteur and Lister ? I would point out too that while scientific men are trifling with this question, heterogenesis is practically denied by the mass of mankind, and experiments are constantly being performed on a vast scale, the results of which prove conclusively to most minds that where pre-existing germs ■> are excluded or destroyed, no living organisms can arise ; were it not so, the preservation of meat and other putrescible organic products by subjection to heat and subsequent sealing, so as to exclude fresh germs, would be impossible ; for this is at least certain, that putrefaction is the direct result of the influence of living organisms, and thus we arrive at another generalisation little suspected formerly, viz., that putrefaction is the result of life and not of death. I need hardly remind you of the speculation of an "eminent philosopher as to the origin of life on this globe, namely, that the first germs were conveyed here on fragments of a preexisting and shattered world., Setting aside the difficulties in the way—difficulties which were no doubt well weighed and considered by Sir William Thompson not insuperable, the question naturally arises whence did they reach that former world. I must confess that such speculations seem to me almost without the. limits of the scientific use of the imagination. Important as Is this question of spontaneous generation from an economical point of view, it is perhaps still more important when regarded under another aspect.' It has long

been known that certain local diseases, especially of the skin, such as the various kinds of ringworm, are caused by minute parasitic fungi, and that at least one disease of considerable gravity owes its origin to a similar cause. I mean the Fungus foot of India, the etiology of which was first worked out some years ago by Dr Carter of Bombay, and Mr Berkeley ; but it has long been suspected that acute diseases of the most serious nature may have their cause in the rapid formation in the tissues of low cryptogamic organisms in immense numbers. The researches of M. Pasteur demonstrated that the silkworm plagues, muscardine and pebrine were caused by minute cryptogamia. The association of those minute organisms called bacteria, with various forms of disease, has long been observed and discussed. These bacteria are probably temporary conditions of several lowly organised plants ; their relation to diseased states, whether casual or consequential, must still be regarded as undetermined. In one disease, relapsing fever, the bacteria present in the blood are of that well-characterised form termed spirillum, and are only found during the paroxysm. Lately Dr Klein has applied the experimental method to the investigation of the cause of ovine small-pox. He selected this disease on account of its close resemblance in its symptoms and pathology to human small-pox and vaccinia. Diseases such close counterparts of one another must without doubt owe their production to similar causes. Dr Klein found that by inoculation he could produce a local affection like vaccination, and that by injection of the virus into the blood a general eruption was caused. Microscopic examination of the lympb demonstrated the presence of minute micrococci, which even out of the body develop a thread like mycelium, which in its turn buds off conidia or spores. Shortly after inoculation he found the minute lymphatics of the skin filled with masses of mycelium, which also invaded the tissues of the skin, giving rise to changes in the cells, which resulted in the production of the characteristic eruption. Dr Klein’s observations appear conclusive that ovine small-pox is caused by the presence and rapid growth of a parasitic coniomycetous fungus, thus rendering it probable that numerous other diseases may have a similar origin. This phenomenon of parasitism is one of the most interesting problems presented to the biologist. Many parasites are so profoundly modified in accordance with their peculiar mode of life as to render it extremely difiicult to trace their affinities; it is only by the most careful study of their life history that we can hope to obtain the clue. One of the most remarkable systems of parasitism on record has been brought to light by the researches of Schwendener. The only character which differentiates the great group of lichens from the fungi is the existence within their structure of numerous green cells which have been termed gonidia. Schwendener has advanced a theory, founded on a series of observations extending over several years, that these gonidia are in reality autonomous organisms, various species of Simple Algae in fact, which act as hosts to parasitic fungi. I have not time to indicate the grounds for this belief; it has, however, received very general acceptation, and if well founded it will necessitate the blotting out from our classification of the lichens as a distinct class. I cannot help thinking that parasitism must prove a stumbling block to the opponent of evolution, even the most ardent believer in the fixity of species can hardly fancy that animals sprang into existence infested with all their various external and'internal parasites; to believe that the hermit crab was created together with his whelk shell, is like the old theory that when the Creator made the rocks he made the fossils in them. Returning from this digression, I think we must give up as inscrutable in the present state of human knowledge the twin questions—what and whence is life. We pass on to the consideration of the genetic relations which living beings hold to one another; and here we have had opened up to us by the genius of Darwin and other master spirits in the domain of biology a field which affords room for endless research. As long as ; it was the accepted belief that every species of organism was independent of the remainder of the living inhabitants of the universe, that it had undergone no change of any importance since it left the hand of the Creator, biology was a science affording comparatively little food for the employment of the intellectual faculties. The naturalist was little more than a collector; he studied the character of an organism, so that he might render it capable of identification ; he dissected it and observed its habits for the same reason that a child dissects its toys, to see how it was made, and to wonder at its ingenious adaptation of means to ends. He was astonished at meeting with many imperfections, occasionally even useless and abortive contrivances. He was reduced to adopt a plausible but narrow ontology tending to lower our conception of the Creator, and to flatter the vanity of mankind, and as the ancients believed that the starry host was designed for the sole purpose of giving a feeble light to this handful of earth, so the naturalists of days gone by, held that the beauty of the organic world was designed for the gratification of man, that the wonderful resemblances and analogies which everywhere meet the eye, are to be ascribed to the existence of an imaginary type in the mind of the Creator, who was pleased to assign such strict limits to the exercise of his powers as to create organs not only useless, but even injurious to their possessor, in order that the type might not be departed from. To surmount this last difficulty, some have been driven to ascribe the immediate work of creation to subordinate and fallible agents. Classification was of necessity artificial, or a natural classification could only be explained by a reference to this theory of types. The idea of, the possibility of evolution, the convertibility of organic upon many great minds, but in the form in which the theory was presented prior to Darwin, the difficulties were so great that it merely met with, incredulity and ridicule ; but though the theory of evolution was not Darwin’s, he was -the first to show how, by variation and natural selection, evolution could really be effected, and one of the greatest of his merits is that he converted disbelievers not only by his arguments —converting them, as it were, against their -will, —but by presenting before them masses of facts, many of them his own observations, with such clearness and so happily grouped as to compel them to reason out the only explanation for themselves. In the light of Darwinism, much that was formerly obscure has become clear, and I have no hesitation in saying that with the publication of the “Origin of Species” biology became a science. Am with so many other discoveries

the age was ripe, an immense mass of facts and observations tended to the one conclusion, and the clue presented itself about the same time to at least one other mind besides Darwin’s, that of Mr Wallace. Consider what interests centre in the humblest weed when we examine it with full faith that every detail of structure has added so much to the chances of its possessor surviving in the struggle for life, or is a record of past changes, that the beauty of the tiny flower is essential to its own existence, and though only a poor relation, yet it is related by a common ancestry to the most gorgeous flowers of the tropics, and even perhaps to organisms far higher in development than the most highly organised plant. A true theory not only explains all known facts to which it may justly be applied, but receives confirmation by harmonising with fresh discoveries. So is it with Darwinianism. The rapidly advancing march of biological science is constantly adding to its forces, and strengthening its defences. All must admit that there are difficulties in the way ; possibly we are blinded by its brilliancy, and try consequently to make its application too universal, Mr Wallace admits certain cases to which in his opinion it does not appear applicable ; such as the great development of the human brain in savages, and St George Mivart advances the perfection cfj the human ear as another difficulty. I am not clear that there is much in these objections. Although the brain of the savage admits of application to far higher purposes than its ordinary use, I think it altogether not proven that it is more than sufficient for his preservation. Mr Wallace heads his chapter on this subject, “ The brain of the savage shown to be larger than he needs it to be." I think that any one who reads that chapter calmly will admit that his logic is defective, and that he does not prove his position. For instance, he lays it down as an axiom that “ size of brain is one of the most important elements which determine mental power or capacity.” He then gives as the average capacity of the Teutonic cranium ninety-four cubic inches. That of the orang outan, which he admits to be quite as bulky as a small sized man only 28 inches. Bearing these facts in mind, what are we to say to this statement—" We might doubt whether the size of brain is in any way an index of mental power. Had we not the most conclusive evidence that it is so in the fact that whenever an adult male European has a skull less than 19 inches in circumference, or has less than 65 cubic inches of brain he is invariably idiotic.” We will put these three statements together. Average Teutonic skull, 94 cubic | pjg erence inches... ... ... ) 29 cubic in, European idiot, 65 cubic inches { European idiot, 65 cubic inches ( Difference Orang outan, 28 cubic inches ... | 37 cubic in. Gentlemen, accepting the premises, the conclusion is absurd. The conclusion is this—that there is far less difference between the intellect of an idiot and an average European than between the intellect of an idiot and an ourang outan. Those who have been accustomed to deal with idiots will scout such a conclusion. Can we accept, too, the statement that the savage certainly does not exhibit more mind in using weapons and implements than do many lower animals. The muscles which enable a Paganini or a Thaiberg to perform such miracles of dexterity are present in the arm of the gorilla, yet I hardly think that for that reason it is endowed above its necessities. With regard to the kindred objection, the perfection of the human ear, I imagine (I do not know) that precisely similar structures are present in the higher apes, and knowing how dependent wild animals are on their hearing for their preservation, we can easily understand the production of an organ as perfect as the human ear without any reference to the enjoyment derived by civilised man from the subtle combination of musical sounds. I have said that in the earliest stage _ of development it is impossible to distinguish whether the germ will become an animal or a plant; but there are some fully developed organisms which seem to bridge over the gap between these two kingdoms, such as the myxomycetes, organisms which, if seen only in one phase of their existence, would be unhesitatingly pronounced by any biologist to be animal, but which having regard to their whole life history are by a kind of begging the question placed amongst the fungi by most classifiers. So impressed, however, is Haeckel by the great difficulty of deciding the true nature of this and many similar indeterminate organisms, that he has formed a third kingdom, the Protista —a kind of biological neutral ground—for the reception of these homeless vagrants, which float between the two great kingdoms, like Mahomet’s coffin, between heaven and earth. It is in part to the investigation of this eminent naturalist, Professor Haeckel, of Jena, that we owe our knowledge of the true position of the sponges. These organisms, once called zoophytes from their appearing to embrace characters, some animal, others vegetable, at last found a resting place amongst the protozoa, together with such humble beings as the g regarina and amseba, The poor animals have, however, been again torn from their bed. A careful study of their embryology has revealed the fact that they, unlike the undergo a segmentation of the ovum, and that they are not, as was formerly believed, mere colonies of unicellular organisms. The animal kingdom has therefore been divided into two great subdivisions, the unicellular organisms, Protozoa , and animals which undergo segmentation of the ovum, the sponges being placed with these last. It is well known that the young of animals exhibit a more general structure than the adult, and that the earlier the stage of development, the more marked are the resemblances ; accepting the course of development to be an index of descent, Professor Haeckel has built up a theory of descent, which he calls the Gastroea Theory, He has arrived at a generalisation that all animals, with the exception of the protozoa, pass through a well defined stage of development called the gastrula stage. The gastrula is a minute sac or pouch, consisting of two laiyers, ectoderm and endoderm, the cavity of the endoderm communicating with the exterior. The sponges can hardly be said to proceed much further than the gastrula stage in development. Amongst other [animals, however, this phase is transitory, but though sometimes masked, can be recognised even in the vertebrata. Professor Haeckel, believing that a stage so universally present, must be a safe index of descent, makes the typical gastrula—the gastroea—the original ancestor of all the metazoa, and has endeavored to sketch out the lines of descent or genealogy of the arfimal kingdom. This he terms phylogeny, the line of descent the phylum. In doing this, he has been guided by no super-

ficial resemblances, but chiefly by embryological and palaeontological considerations. It is a very bold attempt, and though of course, in the present state of biological science, it must necessarily be very imperfect, it is the details, and not the general method, which will require modification. Gentlemen, I have touched very superficially on many points. You will believe me that my reason has been a desire to awaken an interest in your minds on these questions, to serve as an index to the present state of biology rather than to write a treatise on that immense subject. Those whose knowledge of the various subjects indicated is deeper than my own will bear with me, and remember the object I have in view. I will now say a few words on biological science as it is represented in our transactions. A considerable proportion of the volumes of transactions, published by the New Zealand Institute, is taken up by papers on biological subjects. Naturally the greater number of these are of a descriptive nature. I frequently hear it said what is the good of it all ? Why should we go to a meeting to hear so and so describe a butterfly, or some one else a whale’s bone, but the scoffers forget that we are but pioneers. Great theories, such as Darwin’s, are built upon the foundation of a stratum of facts, each one taken separately being of no value whatever. It seems to me that fault should not be found with our work because of its small value, but rather with those who do not work at all. A fine field of research lies open to the biologist in New Zealand. We have a climate ranging from sub-tropical to the rigours of an Alpine region of perpetual snow, spreading plains, a sea coast of great extent, and all the varied conditions of lofty mountain ranges, with their sheltered valleys, bleak hill sides, naked rocks, and mountain lakes and streams. With all this we should expect to find an abundant and varied fauna and flora, including most branches of the organised kingdom. In some points our, a priori, expectations are fully realised, while the disappointments are even more calculated to awaken interest. We have a fauna and flora amongst the most peculiar in the world, peculiar yet with widely extended affinities ; as in other oceanic islands we have few species belonging to comparatively many genera, and of these species and genera a large proportion are strictly endemic, In Hooker’s hand book it is stated that 677 out of 935 species of plants, and 81 genera out of 303, are peculiar to New Zealand. These numbers will of course, with the advance of research, require modification, but they may be accepted as approximating to the truth. The remainder, with few exceptions, are found in Australia or South America, the Australian representatives being to the American as 2 to 1. Similar facts may be stated of our fauna ; it exhibits a marked relationship with Australia, and a less decided one with South America, embracing, however, a very large proportion of endemic forms. Then we have a remarkable extinct avifauna, comprising the numerous species of dinornithes, cnemiornis, aptornis, harpagornis, pakceudyptes, and others. How are we to account for the peculiar and restricted nature of the organic inhabitants of these islands ? Captain Hutton has attempted to work the problem out in a very interesting paper “ On the Geographical Relations of the New Zealand Fauna,” in the fifth volume of the Transactions ; but I am inclined to think that our knowledge of the facts, especially as regards the invertebrata and the palaeontology of these islands, is insufficient to justify us in drawing decided deductions. We want facts. It is to be desired that the various groups should be thoroughly worked out —in fact, we come round again to my former statement, that we are but pioneers, who can at present do little more than describe butterflies and whale bones. I fear, gentlemen, that the Canterbury Institute would figure very indifferently in the pages of the Transactions were we not fortunately represented by my friend, our former president, Dr v. Haast, to whom biological science in New Zealand is greatly indebted. Were he now occupying his right position, you would be entertained this evening with something far more worthy of your kind attention. In addition to the strictly descriptive papers, we have a few papers on biological subjects of more general interest, such as those by Potts and Buller on the habits of our native birds, The various papers on the spread of naturalised plants by Kirk, Armstrong, and Travers, are well worthy of attention, as illustrating a phase of the struggle for life, and showing what a disturbing influence man exerts upon the order of nature. As examples of research more limited as to the objects investigated I would point to Hutton’s description of the “modifications in the capsules of mosses,” and Cheeseman’s short papers on the fertilisation of New Zealand orchids. I would wish any who have a leaning towards biological investigation, but are deterred by a difficulty in finding subjects, to study that model work of Darwin’s, “ Insectivorous Plants.” They will find the investigation of the habits, structure, and physiology of a minute plant extending over some 280 pages, a record of years of painstaking obgervation and experiment. The results of all this trouble have been the discovery of a true process of digestion in plants, and a hitherto unobserved behaviour of the protoplasm contained in the cells of certain plants, consequent upon the absorption of nitrogenous principles. Several other interesting facts were elicited in the course of the investigation, and I would point out that no very peculiar qualifications were necessary for the work, little more than thoughtfulness, patience, and perseverance. New Zealand is known to contain six species of Drosera, most of them far finer and better adapted for experimentation than the little English sun-dew, and it is in the power of any persevering naturalist to supplement Mr Darwin’s researches, Gentlemen, I have endeavoured to show you this evening what a great science biology is. It presents problems worthy to engage the attention of some of the greatest minds the world has seen. On the other hand, a mould, an aphis, a' bacterium, is as worthy of study when illuminated by the light of science as the beautiful and curiously formed orchis, the extinct bird giant, or the huge whale. I will conclude this sketch of biological science with an aphorism of the great poet and biologist Goethe, who rested his claims to be remembered by posterity not on his Faust or his Wilhelm Meister, but on his discovery of the homologies of the floral organs, and his vertebral theory of the skull ;—“ The intellect occupies itself with the noblest objects in endeavouring to know and to analyse life in its innermost aspects.” jrhe rooms, though not uncomfortably crowded, were well filled, and altogether the cofaversazione was so successful that we hope to see it become an annual institution.