TRANSACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

ROYAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(INCORPORATED)

VOL. LX.

[Hach Author is responsible for the soundness of the opinions given and for the accuracy of the statements made in his paper.]

PRICE: TWENTY SHILLINGS.

Adelaide: PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY, ROYAL SOCIETY ROOMS, NORTH TERRACE, ADELAIDE, DECEMBER 23, 1936.

{Registered at the General Post Office, Adelaide, for Transmission by Post as a Periodical]

PRINTED BY GILLINGHAM & Co, Limitep, 106 anp 108, Curriz STREET, ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

SSSR eee

Parcels for transmission to the Royal Society of South Australia from the United States of America can be forwarded through the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

TRANSACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

ROYAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(INCORPORATED)

[Each Author is responsible for the soundness of the opinions given and for the accuracy of the statements made in his paper.]

PRICE: TWENTY SHILLINGS.

Adelaide: PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY, ROYAL SOCIETY ROOMS, NORTH TERRACE, ADELAIDE, DECEMBER 23, 1936.

[Registered at the General Post Office, Adelaide, for Transmission by Post as a Periodical]

PRINTED BY GILLINGHAM & Co. LimiTep, 106 ANp 108, Currie STREET, ADELAIDE, SoUTH AUSTRALIA.

Parcels for transmission to the Royal Society of South Australia from the United States of America can be forwarded through the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

ROYAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(INCORPORATED )

Patron: HIS EXCELLENCY MAJOR-GENERAL SIR W. J. DUGAN, K.C.M.G.,, C.B., D.S.O.

OFFICERS FOR 1936-37.

President: HERBERT M. HALE

Vice-Presidents: Cc. T. MADIGAN, M.A., B.E., D.Sc., F.G.S. JAMES DAVIDSON, D.Sc.

Hon. Editor: CHARLES FENNER, D.Sc., Dip.Ed., F.R.G.S.

Hon. Treasurer: Hon. Secretary: W. CHRISTIE, M.B., B.S. HERBERT WOMERSLEY, F.R.E.S., A.L.S.

Members of Council:

H. K. FRY, D.S.O., M.B., B.S., B.Sc. PROFESSOR J. BURTON CLELAND, M.D. ERNEST H. ISING PROFESSOR J. G. WOOD, D.Sc., Ph.D. PROFESSOR J. A. PRESCOTT, D.Sc., A.LC. H. H. FINLAYSON

Hon. Auditors: W. CHAMPION HACKETT O. A. GLASTONBURY, A.A.LS., A.F.LA.

CONTENTS

Manican, Dr. C. T.—Centenary Address: The Past, Present and Future of the Society, and its relation to the Welfare and Progress of the State

Woop, Dr. J. G.: Botany .. _ CAMPBELL, Dr. T. D.: Anthropology ie the Mad Society

CHapMan, Pror. R. W.: The Past Work of the evel ie ovis the isin of Natural Science a

Buiacx, J. M.: One Hundred —— of fide ene Ss in South Siete Davinson, J.: One Hundred Years of Entomology in South Australia ..

Jounston, Pror, T, Harvey: One Hundred Years of Zoology in South suelo. Mawson, Sir Dovuciass Progress in Knowledge of the Geology of South Australia

Howcuin, Pror. W.: Notes on the Geological Sections obtained by several Borings situated on the Plains between Adelaide and Gulf St. Vincent. Part I1]—Cowan- dilla (Government) Bore

Prescott, J. A., and Hosxinc, J.S.: Some Red Basaltic Soils from ait n erate

Fenner, F. J.: Anthropometric Observations on South Australian Aborigines of the Diamantina and Cooper Creek Regions

Tinvae, N. B.: Notes on the Natives of the ened Portion of Yorke Peninsula, South Australia

CooxE, W. TERNENT: ediecn Notes on a eae - ane Coal ae ‘be Balaklava-Inkerman Deposit :

Kieeman, A. W.: The Artracoona Meteorite .. A a Jounston, Pror. T. Harvey: Remarks on the Nematode, aegis ee eo

Davipson, J.: Climate in Relation to Insect Baplome| in Australia. Bioclimatic Zones in Australia

Prescott, J. A.: The Sire ee a the 2 a Eis Beis,

Woop, J. G.: Regeneration of the Vegetation on the Koonamore Vegetation Reserve

Womenrstey, H.: Studies in Australian Pe ie Nie Species é Lenisiatidae from South Australia .. a

Buacx, J. M.: The Botanical Features Sele Geiser, a Ernabella in Mi Musgrave Ranges, with a ce List of Plants from the North-West of South Australia . = :

Sracu, L. W.: South nemamalee canine HrheeELIN I

Davipson, J.: On the Ecology of the Black- pes Locust ie Sunes terminijor Walk.) in South Australia =

Buakety, W. F.: Descriptions of Three New coeds and aa Variety ei seperate of the Elder and Horn Expeditions, the ““White-wash Gum” of Central Australia, and the Re-discovery of Eucalyptus orbifolia F. v. M. 3

Fintayson, H. H.: On Mammals from the Lake Byre Badin Patt II. The Diprotodont Marsupials and Ovrnithodelphia we 3 oi

Brack, J. M.: Additions to the Flora of South Australia, No. 34 SHearp, K.: Amphipods from a South Australian Reef ABSTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS ..

ANNUAL REPoRT =

Str JoseEpH VeErco Mepat ..

BALANCE-SHEETS

ENDOWMENT FuNp

Liprary EXxcHANGES a8

List or FELLows AND MEMBERS ..

INDEX

112

114 127

137

153

157 162 173 180 182 184

. 185-186

187

. 188-194 195-198

199

THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF THE SOCIETY, AND ITS RELATION TO THE WELFARE AND PROGRESS OF THE STATE

BY DR. C. T. MADIGAN

Summary

Introduction.- The Council of the Royal Society was desirous of taking some part in the Centenary celebrations of the State of South Australia, but considered that, owing to the nature of the Society, its contribution could not be otherwise than internal, so that it was decided that the Centenary should be marked by an address by the President in the nature of a review of the progress of the Society and its relation to the progress of the State. This address is to be followed during the year by addresses by other Fellows of the Society dealing in some detail with the work of the more important sections of the Society's sphere of activities.

Transactions

of

The Royal Society of South Australia (Incorporated)

VOL. LX.

ROYAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA CENTENARY ADDRESS

by Tue, Prestpent (Dr. C. T. Madigan). Presented at the Ordinary Mecting on May 14, 1936.

THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF THE SOCIETY, AND ITS RELATION TO THE WELFARE AND PROGRESS OF THE STATE.

Introduction.—The Council of the Royal Society was desirous of taking some part in the Centenary celebrations of the State of South Australia, but con- sidered that, owing to the nature of the Society, its contribution could not be otherwise than internal, so that it was decided that the Centenary should be marked by an address by the President in the nature of a review of the progress of the Society and its relation to the progress of the State. This address is to be followed during the year by addresses by other Fellows of the Society dealing in some detail with the work of the more important sections of the Society’s sphere of activities.

The time is very opportune for a stocktaking of the Society’s position, and a reconsideration of its policy, objects, and future. The Royal Society is really older than the State itself, for though it has had an unbroken existence only since 1853, apart from a mere change of name, yet its origin can be traced back to the South Australian Literary and Scientific Association, initiated among the founders of the Colony in London in 1834. Thus we can feel that we are not only celebrating the Centenary of the State, but if not actually of the Society itself, at least of the first scientific organisation in the Colony, of which we are the direct descendant.

The Presidential address was initiated by Professor Tate in 1878, when he stated that he hoped he had established a precedent. At that time Professor Tate was able to give a bibliography of the whole of the scientific work dealing specifically with the new Colony that had so far been published. Such a task would be practically impossible today. ‘The giving of a Presidential address never became an annual custom, and Tate’s precedent has rarely been followed. In the 57 years since the first Presidential address, 18 such addresses have been given, but no further attempts to prepare a bibliography of scientific work have been made. This year we propose to give a review rather than a bibliography. Of the 18 addresses, 9 have been papers of a purely technical nature read by the Presi- dent, and of the remaining 9, while they were of a more general character, yet only in a few cases did they review the work of the Society or refer to its policy. Tate himself followed his first address by a technical paper, but in 1880 gave a record of current literature relating to the natural history of Australia, and par- ticularly of South Australia.

a

In 1895 his title was ‘Some Work of the Society since 1876.” This was his last Presidential address, and in it, after making brief reference to past achieve- ments in geology, anthropology, and comparative anatomy, he proceeded in greater detail under the sub-heading of “Some Recent Advances to Our Knowledge of Natural History of Australia.”

In 1889 Professor Rennie discussed the present state of South Australian industries in which chemical science is involved; in 1901, agriculture in its relation to biology and chemistry; and in 1903, the fisheries of Australia. In the 1901 address he urged the need of further work in entomology, plant pathology, diseases in wine, the relation of birds to insect life, rural engineering, and diseases in stock, Canon Blackburn gave an address on the ultimate aims of natural science, in 1891. Sir Joseph Verco, in 1906, gave a review of the work of the Society from 1903 to 1906, published in vol. xxx of the Transactions. This was one of the most useful and inspiring Presidential addresses ever presented to the Society. Not only was past work reviewed, but attention was called to the branches of natural science which had hitherto been neglected. The policy of the Society, particularly in respect to the library, was also touched upon,

Dr. R. S. Rogers, in vol. xlvi, 1922, gave “A History of the Society, par- ticularly in its Relation to other Institutions in the State” The evolution of the Society, from its beginnings in London, is here carefully traced, with biographical notes on the outstanding personalities in the foundation and subsequent vicissi- tudes of the various bodies whose successively discarded mantle finally fell upon the Royal Society. This address will long remain the standard work for reference on the foundation of the Society and the chronology of the important events in its history and constitution. The last Presidential address was given in the following year, thirteen years ago, by Dr. Pulleine, on “The Pigmy Races of the World.”

THe Past.

flistorical Review.—The past history of the Society divides itself naturally into three parts, all completely distinct, the period prior to the founding of the Adelaide Philosophical Society in 1853, the Adelaide Philosophical Society from 1853 to 1876, and the Adelaide Philosophical Society, and then the Royal Society from 18/7 to the present. The first period is fully dealt with in the address by Dr. Rogers already referred to. I will merely repeat the salient features.

The South Australian Literary and Scientific Association, formed in London in 1834, collected together a small library and sent it out to the Colony. In the first busy years of landing the Society found no leisure for its anticipated activities at all, and does not appear ever to have functioned in the Colony, but its founders took an active part in subsequent socicties, and its little library passed on through two more such societies and was their focal point and the only lasting thing in them.

In 1838 the Adelaide Mcchanics’ Institution was formed, to which the Literary and Scientific Association handed over its books. This institution had a reading room and circulating library, and evening lectures were delivered. After six years, in 1844, the South Australian Subscription Library rose out of the ashes of the Mechanics’ Institution, and took over its books. In 1847 a rival body, The Mechanics’ Institute, sprang up, but in the following year the two combined as the South Australian Library and Mechanics’ Institute,

The first period of the history of the evolution of the Royal Society closes a few years after the formation of this Institute, with the foundation in 1853 of the Adelaide Philosophical Society, mainly through the initiative of John Howard Clark, who for many years remained the backbone of the Society. This was the

ita

first scientific society founded on a firm and lasting basis, for it has survived to the present day, with only one important revival and a later change of name.

The second period is the history of the 23 years of the Adelaide Philosophical Society, from its beginning to the time of this revival in 1876.

Through the combined efforts of the Adelaide Philosophical Society and the South Australian Library and Mechanics’ Institute, the South Australian Institute was brought into being in 1856. This was to be maintained by the Government, and on the passing of the Institute Act of 1857 the old S.A. Library and Mechanics’ Institute went out of existence. J. H. Clark and B. H. Babbage were the moving spirits in this important advance.

In 1859 the Adelaide Philosophical Society became incorporated with the S.A. Institute, receiving housing in return for a rental, This association con- tinued for 25 years, until the Public Library, Museum, and Art Gallery were brought under one board of management in 1884, replacing the Institute, and the Philosophical Society became affiliated with the new body. This incorporation with the Institute linked the new Philosophical Society with the chain of past events.

The Philosophical Society continued a useful existence, at times handicapped by lack of papers, lack of interest, and lack of funds, and finally getting into rather low water about 1872, until the coming of the University and Professor Tate in 1876, when its whole status was changed, new rules were drawn up, and the Society entered upon the third period of its development, which extends to the present day. For the first time, in 1878, publication was systematically dealt with and the volume of the Transactions has appeared annually ever since. In 1879 the Society was put on the same footing as the Institutes, which by this time had spread through the country, in the matter of Government grants, the Society receiving a pound for pound subsidy on the amount of the annual subscriptions.

In 1880 the Society obtained permission from Her Majesty Queen Victoria to assume the title Royal, and the name was changed from the Adelaide Philo- sophical Society to the Royal Society of South Australia. Her Majesty also accepted the position of Patron of the Society. Up to that time the State Governors had always consented to be Presidents of the Society, and very fre- quently took the chair at the ordinary monthly meetings. Sir E, E. F. Young, Sir R. G. MacDonnell, Sir Dominic Daly, Sir James Ferguson, and Sir Anthony Musgrave all figure prominently in the minute books of the Philosophical Society. With the new rules in 1878, Governor Sir William Jervois became Patron and Professor Tate President. Two years later, with the change of rules on the assumption of the title Royal Society, when the Queen became Patron, the Governors ceased to have any active connection with the Society, until the death of Queen Victoria, since when the King’s representative in South Australia has always accepted the position of Patron, and the President has been elected irom among the Fellows of the Society.

In 1903 the Royal Society was incorporated, for the better management of the newly established endowment fund. Since the beginning of the third period in 1877 to the present the Society has steadily advanced in financial stability and in status in the world of Science.

Objects of the Society—The period prior to the foundation of the Philo- sophical Society in 1853 is now of little more than historic interest. The institutes and societies in that period functioned much as a country institute and literary society does today. Their object was discussion and dissemination of knowledge, not original work, and thus they have leit no permanent records of their activities behind them. The original idea is summed up in the objects of the S.A. Literary and Scientific Association, drawn up in London in 1834, which were “The Cultiva-

a.

iv

tion and Diffusion of Useful Knowledge throughout the Colony.” With these final remarks we will dismiss the pre-Philosophical Society period and deal only in the remainder of this address with the Adelaide Philosophical Society and the Royal Society, which I will refer to indifferently as the Society.

The laws, as they were called, of the Society, on its foundation in 1853, state that the objects are “the discussion of all subjects connected with Science, Litera- ture, or Art.” This would seem to indicate the exclusion of any original work, but that was by no means the intention, for in the first annual report in January, 1854, the objects are more clearly put forth in these words: “The originators of the Society had a two-fold object in establishing it. They were desirous that it should not only afford an agreeable medium of intercommunication to those whose tasks lead them to the pursuit of similar studies, but that it should also present a means of illustrating and recording the many interesting natural phenomena which are altogether peculiar to this colony, and which it is to be feared would be other- wise in a very few years’ time irrecoverably lost to the records of Science.” Thus it is clear that at the outset one of the main objects was the recording of the natural history of the State. However, the old literary society traditions were still strong, and it is curious that in the first 24 years of the Society’s history, in spite of the clear intentions of the founders, the only natural history recorded was by the Rev. Tenison Woods on the Tertiary fossils. The objects remained un- changed in the rules for this period of 24 years, but natural science was greatly neglected. The actual nature of the proceedings at that time will be mentioncd later.

The rules were revised in 1878 under Professor Tate, and the objects were then defined as “the diffusion and advancement of the arts and sciences by the meeting together of the members for the reading and discussion of papers con- necied with the above subjects, and by other approved means.” The “arts”? were still included, but it is not clear just what was meant to be covered by that term.

In his first Presidential address, in the year of the new rules, 1878, Tate enlarges upon the objects, and says there are still, as at the foundation, two funda- mental objects, that the Society should form an agreeable medium of intercom- munication, but that it should also present a means of illustrating and recording the many interesting natural phenomena which are altogether peculiar to this country. From this time onwards the major interests of the Society have undoubtedly been in this direction of natural history. At the change of name to Royal Society in 1880 the “objects” clause in the rules remained unchanged.

In 1880 Tate scemed a little apprehensive that the Society was becoming so technical that it was losing popular support, and he advocated that it might acquire popularity without in any particular impeding the attainment of the higher objects of the Socicty, by delivering poptular expositions af recent advances or of new discoveries in science. This was the last appearance of the ghost of the old traditions, No steps were taken in the direction indicated, but the position was met to some extent by the formation of the more popular sections of the Society a few years later.

In 1889 Professor Rennie remarked in his Presidential address that the subjects dealt with by Fellows were for the most part connected with Natural History, almost an apology for the chemical nature of his address.

In his last Presidential address, in 1895, Professor Tate stated that “facts of identification and distribution are fundamental, and to the accumulation of these the Sociely has almost exclusively given its attention during the last 15 years or more.” Ile remarks that originally the Fellows were of the “good all-round type,” and, therefore, popular expositors, but by then specialization was already far advanced. ‘hat it took the form principally of specialization in natural history was due to the energy and enthusiasm of Tate himself,

Uv

The next reference to the policy and objects of the Society was by Dr. W. L. Cleland in 1898. Ile said: “The object of the Society . . . is to place on record only new facts relating to science as they bear on South Australia.” This seems a narrower view, that does not appear to have been generally held, nor is! held today, though the trend of activities actually has been more and more in that direction. He goes ot to say that “To some of the Fellows it may be a matter of regret that attempts have not been made by the Council to place scientific subjects in a popular form before the meetings. It should be remembered, however, that the functions of a Royal Society are not to popularize science nor to give instruc- tion, but simply to publish results of work done or to discuss the deductions which may legitimately be drawn from ascertained scientific data.” This indicates that the old idea of exposition was quite defunct. Even opportunitics for profitable discussion, he points out, did not often present themselves, owing to specialization and the few workers in each subject. That is even more the case today. At that time the University and other bodies were already having a marked effect in depriving the Society of one of its primary objects, to provide a common meeting ground for the exchange of scientific thought. The popularizing of science also was in more efficient hands in the University, and in the Society’s sections, so the Society could feel free from any obligations in that direction, and its future utility would be measured by the quality of its published memoirs.

The rules were revised in 1902, under Professor Rennie’s Presidency, and the “objects” clause then read: “The objects of the Society are the promotion and diffusion of science by meetings for the reading and discussion of papers and other methods.” ‘The only change was the dropping of the word “arts,” which never seems to have had any bearing on the Society’s activities.

In 1906 Sir Joseph Verco mentioned that medical science was not represented among the subjects which engage the Society’s attention. In his review of the work of the Society he said: “This record . . . indicates assiduous and intelligent endeavour along truly scientific lines, and along many lines. And this variety of subjects dealt with is one of the most satisfactory features. . . . Only by such diversity can this Society be made generally interesting or generally useful, and deserve its name.”

The next revision of rules was in 1923, when “objects” was changed merely by the substitution of the words scientific knowledge for science. The last revision, which gave us the rules of today, was made in 1931, and the clause now reads: “The objects of the Society are the promotion and diffusion of scientific knowledge by meetings for the reading and discussion of papers, and by such other methods as the Council may from time to time determine.” It can thus be seen that the objects of the Society have never really undergone any radical change, and that specialization in natural history has not only been a natural development in a new country, but also has always been a fundamental policy.

Past Achievements—The fore-runners of the Society, in the first seventeen years of the State’s history were, as I have shown, of the Institule type, and though they did good in their way, they had little connection with Science and they left no permanent records. The achievements of the Society itself divide them- selves very definitely inta two groups, those of the pre-Tate and those of the post-Tate periods. The former covers most of the history of the Philosophical Society, for the name was changed only four years after Tate’s arrival. In this first 23 years of the Society’s existence the attendance at meetings was small, often only half-a-dozen members, the publicity for papers was limited, and there were no funds for publication. Very little original work was presented before the Society. An annual report was usually printed, which contained an abstract of the papers read, and in a few cases the papers were printed in full. These

vi

reports were apparently intended for private circulation only, They were printed for the years 1854-1858 and 1865-1872, after which there was no printing till Volume I of the Transactions appeared in 1878, These reports may be found bound together in the Adelaide Public Library under the title Adelaide Philosophical Society Reports, 1853-1871. Though containing much of historical interest, they preserve practically nothing of permanent value except the Rev. T. Woods’ descriptions of new types of South Australian Tertiary fossils, referred to above and begun in 1865. The character of the proccedings may be gauged from the list cf papers read in 1858, which were on “Mesmerism,” “The Goodness of the Deity as Manifested in the Creation of the Animal Kingdom,” “The Relations of Capital to Labour,” “National Education,” “The Fertility of Soils,” “Drying Fruits,” “The Probabilities of Gold in South Australia,” and “The Proposed Expedition into the Interior.” In the eighteenth and last report of the Adelaide Philosophical Society, printed in 1873, and covering the two years 1871 and 1872, the papers mentioned for the two years are “Elementary Education,” “he Flight of Birds considered with reference to Aerial Navigation,” “The Government Bill for promoting Elementary Education in South Australia,” “The Fermentation of Grape Juice,” and “The Theory of Evolution.”

Though the attendance at meetings was small in those days, it consisted of very influential people. The Governor was frequently in the chair, and the Bishop, the Chief Justice, the Judges, the Surveyor-General, the Postmaster-Gencral, the leading educationists and the newspaper editors were active members; in fact, it may be said that the Society included the majority of the prominent intellectuals of the young colony. Thus, though its scientific status was originally negligible, its local popular status was very high. It was the only body in the country which could speak with any authority on matters of education or applied science, for both of which there was great need, With ihe prestige of the Governor and the strong support of the Press (Mr. W. W. R. Whitridge, editor of the Register, was for many years a member), its influence, both as a Society and as individuals, was very considerable. Its printed papers are now of no importance, but its deeds, whose authorship is now lost sight of, will live for ever. The Society today is in exactly the reverse position.

The old Society was the fore-runner, and in many respects may be considered to have been the founder, of all the scientific institutions which have arisen since, for its discussions, its resolutions, or its memorials to the Government may he found in connection with the foundation of almost all of them. Its daughters have now grown up, and they have become the authorities in the various branches of science which they represent. Specialization has inevitably led to decentrali- zation, and that essential requirement of scientific work, publication, has become the chief function of the Royal Saciety,

| will give a few examples of this early work of the Society. IT have al ready mentioned the foundation of the Institute, out of which eventually evolved the Public Library, Museum, and Art Gallery. The Society memorialized the Government on this subject of the Institule in 1856, and the Institute Act was passed in 1857. In 1856 the Society advocated the exploration of the North-West Interior, and memorialized the Government on that subject as well, The work was eventually carried out on the lines suggested by Mr. B. H. Babbage, the President. The drainage of the City was also discussed in that year.

One of the first objectives of the Society had been the building up of a Natural History Muscum, but for twenty years, owing to lack of funds and space, the museum remained a small mineralogical collection in a natrow room upstairs in the Institute Building. It had been hoped that on the building of the Institute and the incorporation in it of the Society, proper space would be found for a

uli

museum. One of the objects of the Institute was, at the instigation of the Society, the establishment of a Natural Ilistory Museum, but funds for this were not forthcoming. Most of the expenditure was in the country. However, in due course a separate building was provided and a Museum Director appointed. We undoubtedly owe the Museum to the early efforts of the Society.

There were many papers and discussions on the City Drainage in 1865 and 1866, culminating in a memorial to the City Council on Drainage and Sewers in 1867. As a result a Bill was introduced into the House to enable the Corporation to begin the work of deep drainage, thus initiating the modern system. Railway construction and gauges also occupied the attention of the Society at that time.

In 1868 the Society turned its attention to education, and many papers on the subject were read, ending in a resolution “that this meeting is of opinion that the Government should take some action so as to provide means for the compulsory education of the children of those classes that are either unable or unwilling to pay the usual school fees.”

In 1869 the Society passed a resolution “that this meeting strongly impresses on the Government the necessity of immediately erecting a time-ball at the Semaphore on the plan of the model produced by Mr. Todd for the use of the shipping at Port Adelaide.” ‘The time-ball has just been dismantled in this year of grace 1936. Wireless time signals had rendered it obsolete.

Participation in public affairs did not cease with the reorganisation of the Society in 1877, It is rather that the purely scientific side, hitherto neglected, became much more strongly developed. New Government departments, too, were able to relieve the Society of some of the burden of responsibility which it felt to be upon it. While on the subject of the Society’s part in the development of the State, I will briefly refer to the more important actions taken in the later period. Under the Presidency of Professor Tate, the necessity of a geological survey of the Colony was urged upon the Government in 1877; the teaching of practical mining engineering at the University was advocated in 1879, which was probably the first step towards the establishment of the School of Mines, for Professor’ Tate was a member of the first council of that institution in 1888; reports on artesian water were supplied to the Government in 1881, when there was no Government Geologist to advise on these subjects. In 1890 the Society urged the Royal Society of New South Wales to approach its Government to appoint a geologist for Broken Hill. Professor Tate fired his final shot in 1895, when he said in his last Presidential address: ‘South Australia accepts a degrading position in relation to its agriculture and botany with Victoria and to its geology with New South Wales.”

Professor Rennie, in his Presidential address of 1889, gave much advice of direct value to citizens, For the agriculturalist he discussed the exhaustion of soils and the use of artificial manures, and advocated the institution of experiments on the best methods of farming. In the same address he made helpful suggestions on sulphuric acid manufacture, gold recovery, salt works, and gas retorts.

In 1901 the title of Professor Rennie’s Presidential address was: “Agricul- ture in iis Relation to Biology and Chemistry.” In this address he particularly advocated the promulgation of knowledge of the necessity of nitrogen in soils and of the methods of its production, and pointed out the value of fallowing. The use of phosphates is also discussed. He urged the need of more research work in agriculture, of something more than Roseworthy, and said: “I am plead- ing for scientific investigation, which will inevitably yield almost immediately results of great practical value, and the sooner its importance is recognised the better will it be for South Australia.” Today we have the Waite Institute, which was father long in following such a strong appeal.

vii

In the same address attention is called to the necessity of the control of fisheries, and in 1903 Professor Rennie gave an address on the “Fisheries of Australia.” The Society took an active part in supporting measures then before Parliament for fish protection, but control is still inadequate, and much scientific investigation into the life history of our fish, as advocated by Professor Rennie 33 years ago, is still essential before legislation can cope with the problem of the gradual disappearance of our best edible fish.

In 1898, during the Presidency of Dr. W. L, Cleland, a resolution was passed on the desirability of united action on the part of the Australian Colonies to arrange atid publish an authoritative treatise, as complete as possible, on the Aus- tralian Race. No direct results appear to have followed this resolution, but at last, during recent years, the native races are receiving the attention and study they have long deserved, with Professor J. B. Cleland, Dr. Cleland’s son, as chair- man of the Board of Anthropological Research in the University of Adelaide.

One of the last direct actions of the Society was a joint deputation to the Government in 1906 from the Society and the South Australian Astronomical Society, under the leadership of Professor Howchin, to ask that a seismograph be installed in the Observatory, which project came to a satisfactory conclusion.

In addition, there is the important work of the Native Fauna and Flora Protection Committee during the past 48 years, wiltich will be referred to under the Sections of the Royal Society,

Publications —These deputations, Captus, and addresses show that the Socicty in the past has taken no mean part in matters directly affecting the welfare and progress of the State. Now let us turn to the more purely scientific work of the Society, which has been not only of indirect value to the State, but has had the whole world for its field in the advancement of human knowledge.

Prior to 1877 the scientific work was of small account, and its only publicity was in the South Australian Press, in the form of reports of meetings. In 1876 there arrived the scientific leader the Society had long awaited, Professor Ralph Tate, whose energy, organising ability, and wide range of scientific interests were the inspiration of the Society for the next 25 years of his association with it, until his death in 1901. Original scientific contributions came in abundantly for the first time, and publishing was put on a sound and permanent basis by the appear- ance in 1878 of the first of the subsequent 59 annual volumes of the Transactions. Exchanges were soon arranged with other learned socicties, and before long our Transactions had found their way into the libraries of every civilized country in the world.

I have classified the papers read before the Society for the two periods, 1853- 1876, and 1877-1935, In the first period, the list represents papers read. Abstracts of most of them appeared in the daily paper, and in the annual reports when these were printed, and some were printed in full. ‘Whe first list includes papers on anthropology 7, on astronomy 3, botany 9, chemistry 10, entomology 6, geology 17, mineralogy QO, palueontolugy 5, mathematics 5, zoulugy (other than entomology) 16, physics 7, mcteorology 3, experimental biology 0, medical subjects 5, engineering 25, literature 7, art 5, physiology and anatomy 5, philosophy 17, geography 11, agri- culture 11, education 6, miscellaneous 26; a total of 206.

The second list includes all the papers published in the Transactions from Vol. I, 1878, to Vol. LIX, 1935, a total of exactly 1,100 papers. They are made up of anthropolog y 67, astronomy 6, botany 202, chemistry 28, entomology 249, geology 159, mineralogy 23, palacontology 70, mathematics 3, zoology (excluding entomology ) 233, physics 25, meteorology 13, experimental biology 5, medical subjects 8, miscellaneous 9.

/ | .

1¥

Classification was much simpler for the second list, and only nine papers could not be placed under the headings chosen. Entomology was listed separately from the remaining zoological subjects, as it forms much the largest unit in zoology.

Physiography has been included under geology. It will be noted that literature, art, philosophy, physiology, geography, agriculture and engineering have entirely disappeared. The geographical papers in the first list were mainly descriptions of other lands, and the agricultural papers were on viticulture and such subjects. In the second series, the agricultural papers are of a much more scientific nature, mainly on the properties of soils, and they fall more naturally under the headings of chemistry or meteorology.

The papers may be more broadly classified into five groups, in order to show the chief directions the activities of the Society have taken. The exact or mathe- matical sciences form a group of their own, including astronomy, chemistry, physics, mathematics, meteorology, experimental biology, and medical subjects. Anthropology is a separate unit. The remainder are the natural or descriptive sciences and fall under the three headings, botany, zoology, and geology. For this purpose entomology is included in zoology, and mineralogy and palaeontology in geology. The lists then read :-—

1853-1876, 1877-1935. Anthropology = - - teckel 67 Botany - - - aren) 202 Zoology - - - - 22 482 Geology - - - Free? on Exact Sciences - - - 33 88 Totals - - 93 1,091 Other Papers - - - 113 9 Grand Totals - 206 1,100

The lists for the two periods made up under these headings show the great relative increase in work in the natural sciences, and the gain of the natural over the exact sciences.

The Sections —In spite of his great enthusiasm for, and remarkable success in, promoting original work in the Society, Professor Tate did not lose sight of the need and value of a more popular side to the Society’s activities. In fact, this was encouraged and fostered under his regime, but separated from the more technical side, by the formation of Sections in the Society, membership of which did not necessitate Fellowship of the Society nor the full subscriptions. The first formed and most important of these is the Field Naturalists’ Section, inaugurated in 1883 by a meeting in the Town Hall, at which Professor Tate gave a lecture on the objects of the Section. One of the chief activities of this section has been field excursions of a popular nature. Since 1919 the Section has published a quarterly journal at its own expense, entitled The S.A. Naturalist. The Section holds an annual wildflower show which is always a popular attraction.

The Field Naturalists’ Section formed, in 1888, a very important Sub- section styled the Fauna and Flora Protection Committee, which has had a very useful and active existence. It issued its fortieth annual report in 1928, but no reports have since appeared in the Transactions of the Royal Society. The Government grant ceased in 1930, since when the Royal Society has been unable to publish the annual report of the Field Naturalists’ Section, including that of the Fauna and Flora Protection Committee. Now that the Government assistance

*

has been partially restored, it is to be hoped that future ‘Transactions will continue to include a synopsis of the activities of these important sections.

Much excellent legislation for the protection of our animals and plants has been introduced at the instigation of this committee, Its most outstanding per- formances have been in connection with the National Park at Belair, and Flinders Chase on Kangaroo Island,

It was through the Committee’s persistent efforts that the old Government farm at Belair was placed beyond the control of Parliament and vested in Trustees, at a time when it was already cut up into blocks for sale. That was in 1891. The President of the Royal Society has always been an ex officio Com- missioner of the National Park.

The struggle for a national reserve on Kangaroo Island began two years after the Belair Park was secured. It included a public meeting under the auspices of the Society in 1906, and ended sixteen years later in the Fauna and Flora Reserve Act, 1919, proclaiming ‘Flinders Chase,” an area of 198 square miles, for the protection, preservation, and propagation of fauna and flora. ‘The Com- mittee has always kept an eye on Game Acts, helping in their introduction and calling attention to their abuse.

A Microscopical Section was formed in 1887. It has had a chequered career, It was revived in 1903, but held its last meeting in 1913. Another revival took place in 1928, but under the title of the Microscopic Committee of the Field Naturalists’ Section, which will ensure for it a more permanent status.

The Malacological Section has had a similar history. It was founded in 1895, resumed in 1901, and held its last meeting in 1917. Then the Field Naturalists took it under their wing as the Shell Collectors’ Committee, since when it has continued to do useful work under a much more suitable name,

The Astronomical Section came into being in 1892, under the Presidency of Sir Charles Todd. After eight years it dissociated itself from the Society and has ever since led a separate existence as the South Australian Astronomical Society. Its books are housed in the Royal Society’s premises, where it holds its meetings.

THE PRESENT.

I have endeavoured to trace the history and policy of the Society from its beginnings to the present day. The present position as regards status and activities has been arrived at by a process of natural evolution, though the policy has remained practically unchanged throughout. The Society has never been more flourishing than it is today, in spite of the definite change in the nature of its stalus. This change can be concisely summed up as a change from a condition in which the Society’s activities were largely discussional, when original work was practically negligible, but local popular status was high owing to the Society frequently speaking with one voice on questions of public interest and importance, to the present position, where specialized original work is the main objective. individualism has replaced concerted action, and publication has superseded exposition. Local popular prestige may have fallen, but this loss is far outweighed by the gain of an international reputation for the very considerable additions to human knowledge given to the world through the medium of the Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia. At the present moment our Transactions are sought by 257 learned societies throughout the world.

The interest shown in our work, as well as the publicity available to the workers, is shown by the following list of the number of learned societies in each country which receive our Transactions :—Great Britain, 29; Canada, 7; South Africa, 5; New South Wales, 12; Victoria, 7; Queensland, 6; Western Australia, 4; Tasmania, 4; South Australia, 12; Canberra, 4; New Zealand, 5; Ceylon, 1;

x

Federated Malay States, 1; India, 4 (making a total of 101 within the Empire), United States, 50; Germany, 15; France, 7; lialy, 8; Spain, 2; Portugal, 1; Austria, 4; Hungary, 2; Czecho-Slovakia, 1; Belgium, 7; Holland, 2; Denmark, 4; Finland, 3; Norway, 4; Sweden, 4; Switzerland, 6; Poland, 2; Russia, 6; Esthonia, 1; Latvia, 1; China, 6; Japan, 8; Hawaii, 2; Argentine, 2; Brazil, 2; Uruguay, 2; Mexico, 3; Philippines, 1 (or a total of 156 foreign societies). All these societies send us their publications in return, so that the Royal Society has acquired a very valuable collection of scientific journals, in many cases the com- plete series of publications of the society concerned. The list of exchanges 1s continually being added to.

The Society no longer sees any necessity for attempting to popularize science. The schools, the University, and other scientific and technical institutions have relieved it of that duty. The Field Naturalists’ Section, which is as strong as ever, encourages the study of natural history as a hobby, and fills the need of those who desire some skilled guidance in that direction.

As regards the present trend of the Society’s interests, it has been shown that they are definitely in the direction of Natural History, not only because that has always been a fundamental objective, but also because of the growth of all the highly specialized societies, particularly in the applied sciences, with their own journals. The journals have become specialized, and it has fallen to the Royal Society to specialize in Natural History. I have only to mention the Common- wealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Australian Institute of Engineers, the Australian Chemical Institute, and the State Geological Surveys, to indicate the great range of scientific journals now available for the publication of specialized work. Science has now become so international that leading journals all over the world are also available to Australian workers for the publica- tion of high-grade results of more than local interest.

The specialized institutions have naturally become the authorities in their various branches of science, so that few directions are left in which the Royal Society is naturally looked to for guidance. Leadership in investigation m subjects of national economic importance has naturally passed to the Commonwealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which has established a number of specialized departments. The Royal Society, however, still retains the prestige of its Transactions and their distribution, which is frequently availed of for the publication of the results of investigations by workers in the C.S.LR. laboratories and allied institutions, such as the Waite Agricultural Institute. It is to some extent the publishing body for the institutions it has helped to create, and always it has made no more than the modest claim to specialize in scientific work as it bears particularly on South Australia. This is reflected in the high proportion of Natural History in its accomplished work. The Society has made very valuable contributions in Anthropology by its many papers on the Australian Natives. This work has undergone a strong revival in recent years.

Administration.—The Society has always been governed by its own Council elected by the I'cllows of the Society. It is affiliated with the Public Library, Museum, and Art Gallery. The chiet points in this affiliation are that the Board of Governors of the Public Library, Museum, and Art Gallery find accommoda- tion for the Society and its library. In return, the property of the Society becomes in a sense the property of the Board, in that nothing can be removed from the rooms allotted to the Society except by the consent of the Board. The Society elects onc member to the Board of Governors.

The domestic relations between the Society and the Board of Governors have always been most cordial. The Society’s influence on the Board in matters of the general policy of the Board is confined to that of one member in a large and mixed

att

body. It might be argued that its influence could with advantage be greater. However, I do not think this a proper occasion for me to discuss the affairs of the Board, though I might add that former Presidents have not always been of that opinion. Tate long ago said that the abnormal connection between the Museum and Art Gallery should be severed, as their interests are somewhat antagonistic. More recently one of the Society’s representatives resigned on the grounds that in his opinion the Board did not subscribe to the ideals that must necessarily be those of the Society, and some other of our representative Governors have held similar views.

Finance —The basis of the income of the Society is the subscriptions of members, and almost the whole of the expenditure is ‘in publishing the Trans- actions. From 1879 to 1930 the Government subsidised the Society pound for pound on the amount of the subscriptions. From 1905 to 1930 an additional grant of £150 per annum was made towards the cost of printing. All subsidies ceased in 1930, reducing the Society’s publication, that is to say its value to the community and to the world, in proportion to its reduced income. This year, 1936, the Government has been able to renew the grant, which is now at the rate of 50 per cent. of the cost of printing the Transactions, the amount not to exceed £200. The first payment of this grant, £151, has just been reccived, based on the Transactions for 1935, This is only about half the amount of former grants, but exceedingly welcome to the Society, and it is earnestly hoped that the Government will soon be able to return to the more generous scale of the past, which was in vogue for a quarter of a century, thus enabling the Society to produce its maximum results, and no longer forcing former contributors to seek publication outside Australia, to the loss of our credit. The essential binding of the Society’s paper- covered series of exchange journals is almost hopelessly in arrear.

An endowment fund was founded in 1908 by the late Sir Joseph Verco, who was President of the Society for 18 years. His gift, and that of Mr. Thomas Scarfe, each of £1,000, formed the nucleus of the fund. Bequests from Mr. R. Barr Smith, Sir Joseph Verco and Sir Edwin Smith, and gifts from other generous benefactors, together with life members’ subscriptions and occasional additions from the current account, have brought the fund up to almost £5,000. The intactness of this fund is now protected by by-law. The interest from it has enabled the Society to carry on through the lean years.

The Society is practically unable to give any financial assistance in aid of research. It was recently decided that the Endowment Fund must not be drawn upon, as had occasionally been donc in the past, for this purpose, but that the Society’s main resources should be conserved for publication, as the best means of encouraging research. At the same time a research fund was instituted, to which contributions from general funds of not less than £1 were to be made annually. The fund stands at present at £6, a farcical amount.

The Society makes one award for distinction in scientific work, and that is the Sir Joseph: Verco Medal. The establishment of the medal in 1928 served two purposes, one the filling of a deficiency in the Society’s functions, for it is a usual privilege of all societies of such standing as this to make awards in recognition of outstanding merit, and the other to do honour during his lifetime, and eventually to form a lasting memorial to the greatest benefactor and one of the greatest workers and most outstanding personalities in the history of the Society. The award is made for distinguished scientific work published by a member of the Society, and at such times as the Council considers there is a worthy recipient. Five awards have been made in the past seven years, to Professor Walter Howchin, Mr. J. M. Black, Sir Douglas Mawson,. Professor J. B. Cleland, and Professor T. Harvey Johnston. In the future the Council of the Society will consider

xin

recommendations for the award made by the holders of the medal, to ensure that the standard shall always be kept uniformly at the high level that is intended.

THe Furure.

The Royal Society of South Australia is a very firmly established institution, whose existence seems likely to extend indefinitely into the future. It may be said to have thoroughly adjusted itself to its environment, as is shown by the remarkable stability and uniformity of its history for over half a century. Finan- cially and numerically there has been little change. The membership has varied through the years between 100 and 200. At present it is 165. The policy has remained unchanged. Variety of activities has been its safeguard. There has been no high specialization, which proverbially leads to extinction. The Society cannot be said to encourage any particular science, though Natural History has always been a fundamental objective; yet, true to the traditions of its name, it has received in the past and always will welcome contributions: in all branches of science, descriptive, mathematical or applied. Publication will tend to become even more the chief function of the Society.

As I have pointed out, it is no longer expected that the Royal Society should take a lead in such work as the exact sciences, or the applied sciences such as agriculture or engineering. Other institutions are better equipped to do that. But 1 would suggest that the Society might take a more active part in directing and encouraging original work in the descriptive sciences, which still remain the special province of the Society, by setting forth from time to time the trend of research work in those branches of science, and particularly by pointing out the departments which are suffering from neglect. I hope my colleagues, who have so readily agreed to assist me in this Centenary review, may establish a precedent in this respect.

The Library.—Our library, accumulated through the 83 years of our unbroken exchanges with other learned societies, now contains a very large and varied collection of scientific journals, complete in the case of many journals and unique in some, Both its intrinsic and scientific values are high. Yet this library has never been the asset to scientific workers that it should be. It has never properly fulfilled its purpose, and has been a source of worry to the Society throughout its whole history. Accommodation has been one of the troubles, supervision the other. The plain fact is that the Society has never been able to afford the library it set out to provide. The accommodation is sufficient at present, with the main part of the library in the room in which meetings are held, and the overflow, consisting chiefly of spare copies of our Transactions, in a room kindly put at our disposal by the University in the old police barracks buildings at the rear of the Museum, and cut through by the line separating University property from that under the control of the Public Library, Museum, and Art Gallery. The whole library has been re-arranged during the year, mainly by our Secretary, Mr. N. B. Tindale. However, the question of availability is no further advanced than it has ever been. The library is only open on one afternoon each weck, in addition to the half-hour preceding the monthly evening mecting. A scientific library that can only be entered once a week is suffering under a tremendous handicap. The worker will search anywhere else sooner than wait for the day on which our librarian is in attendance, ‘The result is that the only books used are the ones that cannot be obtained elsewhere, and then the users may have to wait a week to get them.

Until the Society was housed where it is today, in 1907, the library was nothing but a burden to it. The Annual Report of 1890 states: “Your Council is far from satisfied with the present conditions under which the books have to be kept. It had hoped that by this time arrangements might have been made to have

xiv

had them so placed in some portion of the Public Library that members could have had access to them at any time during the day, The Council feels that the present unsatisfactory condition cannot be allowed to continue, but that every effort must be made to place at the disposal of the Fellows the library in a more efficient way.” This report was quoted by Dr. Rogers in 1922, and reappears today. The situation has not been met during the past 50 years. In 1901 a special committee recommended that the only solution was to transfer the books to the Public Library, which was not acted upon. In 1906 Sir Joseph Vereo said, “In order to be useful they (the books) must be accessible and convenient for reference, This they have not been for many years, if they have ever been.” Will the same report be made 50 years hence?

At all times the Fellows of the Society have been very much against handing the library over to any other body, so that its identity should be lost. The con. tinuity of the journals reccived through our system of exchanges must never be broken. Another fact which deserves attention is that the value of the library lies almost entirely in the journals. No text books have been purchased for many years, and what we have are of little more than archaeological interest. The general scientific literature has never been anything like complete in any section. We would save space, at no real loss to ourselves, by getting rid of all our books except the journals, and I would recommend that they be presented to the Public Library forthwith. This would leave our library with a definite character, a con- tinuous series of certain scientific periodicals, always increasing in number and diversity. I would further suggest two alternative ways in which this recon- structed library could satisfactorily be dealt with. The first is that it should become a section of some existing library, where its books would be separately housed, and distinctively marked as part of the library of the Royal Society of South Australia, yet available to a larger section of the community. Fellows of the Society would enjoy the privilege of taking books out of its section. Either the Public Library or the University Library could very satisfactorily carry this out, and owing to our relations to the Public Library, Museum, and Art Gallery, the Public Library would appear more suitable.

The second alternative is that the Society should sever its connection altogether with the Public Library, Museum, and Art Gallery and seek new accommodation. This would seem at: first sight impossible on the score of expense. It would certainly require the consent of the Board of Governors, How- ever, I believe this to be the solution to aim at.

A Science House,

We should have in Adelaide a building similar to Science Elause in Sydney, There the majority of scientific institutions are housed in one building. The land was presented by the Government, and the building was erected at a cost of £43,000 by the three owner bodies, the Royal Society of New South Wales, the Linnean Society of New South Wales, and the Institution of Engineers, Australia. Fach bore one-third of the cost, and at the present time they are getting a return of 4 to 44% on their capital outlay. Eleven societies have their headquarters in Science House, Sydney. The advantages of such a building are too obvious to detail in this address, but I will refer especially to the library, a small matter in a much larger field. The libraries of all the tenant societies could be grouped together and one librarian, with probably other secretarial duties as well, could be constantly in attendance and take charge of them all,

Adelaide could begin in a more modest way than Sydney with its six-storey building, and the cost might well be raised by a group of societies. I have good reason to believe that the University would take a very sympathetic view of a

XU

suggestion that such a building should be erected on the University grounds, which would be a most happy and excellent solution of the problem of a site and its purchase.

I would recommend that this Science House project should be pursued before any further steps are taken about our library, for it is a much bigger thing, and carries the library with it.

CoNCLUSION,

This address has been of a general character and has made little reference to the progress of work in particular branches of science.

In my analysis of the papers presented before the Society during its whole existence, I classified them under the five headings: zoology, geology, botany, exact sciences and anthropology. I mention them in the order of abundance of papers submitted in each group. It was the Council’s desire that addresses on each group should be given during the year by leading authorities in each, to which my address would be introductory. These addresses will be in the nature of reviews of past work in each subject, particularly as it affects South Australia, and with special reference to the part the Royal Society has played, and will, I hope, make suggestions for the guidance of future work. I have suggested such titles as One Hundred Years of Botany in South Australia. Zoology has been divided into two sections, separating entomology from the remainder, and botany will be dealt with from two aspects, systematic, which represents the side which has mainly occupied the attention of our workers, and physiological. I am very pleased to be able to announce that the future addresses will be given, at dates to be arranged, by Professor T. Harvey Johnston on general zoology, by Dr. James Davidson on entomology, by Sir Douglas Mawson on geology, by Professor J. G. Wood on botany, by Mr. J. M. Black on systematic botany, by Professor R. W. Chapman on the exact sciences, and by Dr. T. D. Campbell on anthropology. They are each very distinguished Fellows of the Society in their particular subject; three are Verco Medallists, and four are Past Presidents of the Society.

CENTENNIAL ADDRESS-NO. 1. BOTANY.

BY J. G. WooD, PH.D., D.SC.

Summary

The story of Botany in South Australia since its foundation has been a relatively simple one. It has been concerned almost entirely with the accumulation of a complete flora of the State; that is to say, of descriptions with reference keys to the species which make up the plant covering. Such a procedure is a natural and an essential one in a new country. But from the point of view of the science of Botany it is only a preliminary, not an end in itself, though it provides a means to an end. It is convenient to distinguish plants by names just as it is convenient to distinguish Bill Jones from Tom Smith. The collection and naming of angiospermous plants in South Australia is now almost complete. Its history may be adequately written, and this will be done at a later date by one more competent to speak of this aspect than I.

TUL

CENTENNIAL ADDRESS—No. 1.

BOTANY. By J. G. Woop, Ph.D., D.Sc.

The story of Botany in South Australia since its foundation has been a rela- tively simple one. It has been concerned almost entirely with the accumulation of a complete flora of the State; that is to say, of descriptions with reference keys to the species which make up the plant covering. Such a procedure is a natural and an essential one in a new country. But from the point of view of the science of Botany it is only a preliminary, not an end in itself, though it provides a means to an end, It is convenient to distinguish plants by names just as it is convenient to distinguish Bill Jones from Tom Smith. The collection and naming of angiospermous plants in South Australia is now almost complete. Its history may be adequately written, and this will be done at a later date by one more competent to speak of this aspect than I.

The history of the other branches of Botany, and which constitute the bulk of the subject, may be dismissed in few words so far as South Australia is con- cerned. For one thing, their histories have been largely the history of the science itself, which is not local, and, for another, professional botanists in Australia are so few, Consequently, it is something in the nature of a stocktaking that I shall make tonight, and consider not so much the past as those outstanding gaps in our knowledge which seem to me to require filling in the future,

The divisions of Botany fall into two groups—the descriptive and the experi- mental branches. To the former belong morphology, anatomy both gross and minute, cytology and palaeontology ; to the latter physiology, genetics and ecology. These subdivisions of Botany are often studied separately, often for convenience, sometimes from lack of a broad vision. In this way the essential unity of the science and the broad generalisations which shall form the basis of the science are apt to be lost sight of.

I do not wish to consider the various subdivisions separately, but to view them from another angle. We can picture any living organism as an equilateral triangle, having its being and maintained by three things. One side of the triangle we can label “What it is,” another “What it has,” and the third side “What it does.”

First let 1s consider what plants are in themselves; obviously a species is more than a name. The coming years will doubtless see the dead bones of classi- fication revivified. I do not mean by the addition of new species. Biological classification has the merit of resting on one broad generalisation—the idea of evalution or change. We think that the doctrine of descent gives the key to a perfect system; and an arrangement of plants is more or less natural according as it brings out relationships. Our present sysierms are far from perfect ones mainly because they are based on external morphology alone. Not until we study the minute anatomy and cytology of plants and especially use the experimental breeding methods of Mendel, will we be able to devise the perfect system which will be no mere convenient device for finding the name of a plant, but a definite achievement embodying two of the greatest generalisations made with respect to living organisms—the idea of change and the idea that heritable characters act as units which segregate on breeding.

Hit

In South Australia the anatomy of only a few native plants is perfectly known, the cytology of none and the genetics of one or two native grasses. In other parts of the world beginnings have been made, but much remains to be done. It is hack work, but interesting to some types of minds, and its synthesis will reap a rich reward. I would not wish to see one branch studied alone, but in conjunc- tion with the others. I have considered here only the scientific aspects, although the economic ones are not negligible—the varieties of some native grasses and common saltbush species spring to my mind—for the more one studies the flora the more complex becomes the mixture of biospccies, hybrids and ecotypes, which all masquerade under the name of “species.”

Our system must consider not only the present but the past. The Tertiary floras of Australia as a whole are practically unknown to us, Yet it is from these that we shall learn most, since it is the Angiosperms, the plants of modern times, which concern us particularly. The great group of the Pteridophyta is one which might serve as ati example to us and in which phylogeny, palaeontology and anatomy have been carefully studied.

The other groups of plants lag far behind. Let me state that not even a census exists of the freshwater algae, of the mosses and liverworts, of the lichens or of the bacteria. Nor are the saltwater unicellular algae known.

Yet these are interesting plants, and they lead us at once to my second group- ing of what the organism has—the effect of environment upon it. The lower plants appear to be practically cosmopolitan in their distribution. It is the environ- ment which selects. From a handful of garden soil one can, by suitable cultures, obtain bacteria and algae listed only, say, from Tanganyika or Burmah. Our future studies of the lower plants of South Australia which I have mentioned must be accompanied by careful quantitative studies of the factors of the habitat, if they are to be of any use.

The higher plants—the Gymnosperms and Angiosperms—which are not reproduced from light and easily carried spores are obviously more restricted ; otherwise there would be no need for local floras. Nevertheless, they also occur in definite groups or communities which live naturally together. The study of these communities is termed Ecology or Plant Sociology. It attempts to find out the laws which determine the maintenance and change of these communities, for the communities act as units. ‘The factors which determine the presence of any particular community are mainly environmental—especially meteorological factors, soil factors and biotic factors such as the influence of other plants, or animals or man. Partly, also, the physiological make-up of the plant is important, especially in extreme climates. The environment here has exerted a sifting effect and only plants with specialized mechanisms, either structural or metabolic, can survive when a migrating population of species invades such a habitat. The background required for these studies is a broad one, embracing, as it does, several sister sciences.

In this State, so far the only one in the Commonwealth, the chief communities have been described, and these will shortly be published. The work is, however, mainly descriptive, as such reconnaisance work must necessarily be. Only in a few cases has the environment been described adequately. ‘lhe task will be a long one.

From a scientific point of view, the major interests are the broad generalisa- tions concerning the direction of change and the nature of the conditioning cnviron- ment; but again the economic aspects are not to be neglected. A topical example is the problem of drift and soil erosion in the northern areas of this State, which is now distressing many people. The problem is mainly one of the management of grazing animals on a plant community which is nicely balanced with its environ- ment. Robert Bridges in that great biological poem, “The Testament of Beauty,”

rvitt

adequately describes the relation of organisms to their environment and metabolism :— “All Life's self-propagating organisms exist

only within a few degrees of the long scale

rangeing from measured sero to unimagiwd heat,

a little oasis of Life in Nature’s desert,

and ev'n therein are our soft bodies vext and harmed

by their own small distemperature, nor could they endure

wert not that by a secret miracle of chemistry

they hold mternal poise upon a razor edge

that may not ev'n be blunted, lest we sicken and die.”

In the North the razor edge has been blunted—by wool. In Queensland, as also in other parts of the world, indiscriminate burning of plant communitics, especially grasslands, without understanding their nature and the laws that govern them, has resulted in complete deterioration of the communities. In South Africa there is a Government Department of Plant Survey which is making a complete vegetation survey before utilizing any new country.

Finally, we come to the question of what plants do—the realm of Plant Physiology. This is an exact quantitative science, utilizing the methods of physics and chemistry. It attempts at present to trace the course of metabolism and explain the behaviour of plants in terms of physico-chemical laws. It is a young and vigorous subdivision of Botany and has been limited in the past by lack of adequate analytical methods, and also of adequate statistical methods for dealing with the material.

Already we know a great deal about some fundamental processes like photo- synthesis and respiration, It is paradoxical, however, that the best known practical application of economic importance—that of manuring—has been least studied from the point of view of utilization and metabolism in the plant itself. Already in this State beginnings have been made with such problems of nutrition and their effect on development which should lead to important conclusions. Beginnings have been made also on the problems of drought resistance, a question of the greatest importance to an arid State like South Australia. Problems in this field are legion, and will be fruitful of results.

For ordinary practical purposes in physiology, as in physics and chemistry, the old physical conceptions as developed along the direct lines from Newton and Galileo will continue to be employed. But the science of Biology, of which Botany is a part, will grow as the science of Physics grows. The living plant is not like inorganic matter- -it lives, it grows, it reproduces itself, Tt is an expression of ceaseless co-ordinated activity. On the Newtonian concept the physical universe consists of essentially inert and unco-ordinated units of matter; but to the new Physics an atom, or an electron, is also an expression of ceaseless co-ordinated activity, and incapable of interpretation in mechanical terms as a mere particle. The boundaries between the living and the non-living are slowly breaking down.

I have finished my all too brief survey. The achievements of the last one hundred years have been amazing—in fact, they constitute the whole history of the science of Botany. The things to be done in the future are also bewildering in their number, but we have this consolation: we are standing on the margin of a rich and fertile field. The future will be the Age of Biology.

CENTENNIAL ADDRESS-NO. 2. ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY.

BY T. D. CAMPBELL

Summary

Everyone is aware that the occupation and settlement of this country necessarily meant the taking of the aborigines’ homelands, and perhaps the ultimate elimination of the natives themselves. Thus the founders of this Colony and its settlers were, and its present inhabitants are, charged with a grave moral and national responsibility. One may perhaps be excused for stressing again that the founders of the Colony of South Australia were not ignorant of the problems involved in settling territory occupied by a primitive native race. The British had long since been colonizers in native lands, and by 1836 other parts of this continent had already been occupied for a number of years. Moreover, it is obvious that the British Government was aware of this particular responsibility of settling South Australia and the possible clash of peoples; for, as has elsewhere been pointed out, the Government was so acutely aware of the grave responsibility involved that more than half of the proclamation which Governor Hindmarsh issued at Holdfast Bay, one hundred years ago, consisted of an exhortation and warning to the settlers concerning the friendly and just treatment they were to adopt towards the aborigines.

RIX

CENTENNIAL ADDRESS—No. 2.

ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY. Dr. T. D. CAMPBELL, [Read July 9, 1936.]

Everyone is aware that the occupation and settlement of this country necessarily meant the taking of the aborigines’ homelands, and perhaps the ultimate elimination of the natives themselves. Thus the founders of this Colony and its settlers were, and its present inhabitants are, charged with a grave moral and national responsibility. One may perhaps be excused for stressing again that the founders of the Colony of South Australia were not ignorant of the problems involved in settling territory occupied by a primitive native race. The British had long since been colonizers in native lands, and by 1836 other parts of this con- tinent had already been occupied for a number of years. Morcover, it is obvious that the British Government was aware of this particular responsibility of settling South Australia and the possible clash of peoples; for, as has elsewhere been pointed out, the Government was so acutely aware of the grave responsibility involved that more than half of the proclamation which Governor Hindmarsh issued at Holdfast Bay, one hundred years ago, consisted of an exhortation and warning to the settlers concerning the friendly and just treatment they were to adopt towards the aborigines.

Clashes followed and problems arose; and present-day interest and discussion shows that the same problems are still with us.

What bearing has the science of anthropology on this matter of our aborigines and the problems arising out of our occupation of their country? Anthropology as a purely academic study has been mainly concerned with investigations on the physical and cultural history of the various types of mankind, and in particular the more primitive races. For a long time it remained so. But in more recent years the occupation of native territory has ceased to be merely oversea adventure with spasmodic trading; it has become what we now hear described as empire expansion, demanded by the pressure of social economics and national pride. The closer study of native races has become something more than scientific curiosity. We now have what is sometimes termed “applied anthropology,” occupying an important place in the training of colonisers, administrators, officials and missionaries, whose work takes them into native territories, And so we must look on our own anthropology as a study which concerns not only the serious- faced individuals who read papers before this Society, but something which can and doves become closely associated with certain important problems of our State.

Let us now briefly review the study of the indigenous inhabitants of our own territory. On account of the geographical association and the fact that for a long time it was part of this State, [ shall include that portion of the Northern Terri- tory now spoken of as Central Australia, For convenicnce we may roughly divide our survey into four arbitrary periods.

Until about the middle of last century,’much of the data recorded on the aborigines was merely incidental observation appearing in historical writings and Government reports. Not that their occurrence in this manner lessens their value as anthropological records; for they help towards our far too meagre fund of information on the aborigines as they were at the early stages of settlement. And while this form of record may not have attained the importance of a scientific

ar

anthropological treatise, many of them are the impressions of shrewd observers and careful writers, and they are, therefore, eagerly studied and highly valued by present-day workers. Ilowever, let it not be thought that in those early days there was none sufficiently interested and capable to record with scientific detail data on the natives. Only a few years after the foundation of the State, in the forties, some extremely valuable publications were produced on native life and customs. A number of these were on the languages of various groups; no doubt the outcome of serious attempts to master speech with the natives. We shall ever remain thankful for the works of Williams, Tieckelmann, Schurmann, Eyre, Meyer, Moorehouse, and Angas.

By the time the second half of the century was on its way, mission stations and aboriginal reserves of varying size and importance had been established to preserve and look after the remnants of the rapidly diminishing aboriginal race. With the close contact these means provided, a number of workers, either asso- ciated with mission work, or as observant police officers in outback stations, wrote up their notes and have Ieft an extensive and valuable fund of information. Chief among these, one might mention some names which readily come to mind; such as Taplin, Wilhemi, Cawthorne, Wyatt, and Wood; Gason and Willshire in the far North; Mrs. Smith in the far South-East.

Then towards the close of the century was commenced that remarkable asso- ciation of two outstanding workers, Spencer and Gillen, leaving for us that classic legacy of tremendously detailed information on the aborigines of the Macdonnell Range region, It is probably owing to the brilliance of Sir Baldwin Spencer as a scholar, a teacher and a writer that the importance of Gillen’s place in that remarkable partnership is apt to be overshadowed and underestimated. Gillen not only conversed with the natives in their own tongue, but his observations were so detailed and illuminating that his original notcbooks reveal the fact that much in the famous volumes consists of a straight-out transcription of Gillen’s own notes.

About the same time the late Sir Edward Stirling, on the Horn Expedition, laid the foundation of his fine anthropological work; and he set out to collect and preserve for all time objects associated with the cultural and industrial life of the natives. The exhibits in the Stirling Gallery of our Museum, and the mass of material not on display, are not only a wonderful monument to his name, but’ probably the finest collection in the world of ethnological material of the Central Australian Aborigines.

And from then onwards to the close of last century, and during the first twenty years of this century, research and collection of data became more intensive and more specialized. It was possibly owing to the fact that the social organisa- tion of our aborigines was becoming mure appreciated as an extraordinary, complex and specialized business that sociological studies were attacked with such vigour.

‘To the names of Spencer, Gillen and Stirling must be added those of others who devoted considerable time to the study of the native; men like Strehlow, senr., Reuter, Krause, and Howitt. But, in addition, we have others who have added valuably to our knowledge: Ramsay Smith, Mrs. Bates, Herbert Basedow, and our present member, Mr. J. M. Black.

We come now to more recent years. The methods of anthropological research have undergone rapid improvement, refinement, and specialization. The advent of Professor Wood Jones was an important factor in making the early twenties another outstanding time mark in anthropological interest in this State. It was largely due ta Wood Jones’ infectious enthusiasm and methods of critical observa- tion that he was such a stimulating influence on workers about him. There arose a recrudescence of anthropological interest in and from Adelaide. The Anthro-

KI

pological Society of South Australia was founded. The University Council established a Board for Anthropological Research, and gave anthropology an official standing in the University. The South Australian Government was persuaded to contribute its quota towards the establishment of the Chair of Anthropology in Sydney. The post of Ethnologist was created at the South Aus- tralian Museum.

During the later twenties were inaugurated field expeditions to Central Aus- tralia and various parts of South Australia. These expeditions, under the direc- tion of the Adelaide University—with whom the $.A, Museum readily co- operated—have for the last ten years been an annual event, and have been the means of amassing and collecting a considerable amount of valuable and original scientific data and material in the form of ethnological objects, photographs, cinemi films, and phonograph records, This expeditionary work has received its: chief financial support from American funds provided by the Rockefeller Founda- tion and administered by the Australian National Research Council. But we are fortunate in this State, probably alone among all the States, in that we have also received private financial support towards this research work.

This hurried survey of anthropological studies during the hundred years of the State’s history shows that, from the commencement of the Colony, its original possessors have been of considerable interest not only to scientific enquirers, but also to those observant folk who were so keenly interested in happenings about them that they took the trouble to record what now is to us very valuable data. And even if we are forced to admit almost complete ignorance of the life and customs of natives who lived in many parts of our State, we can at least feel thankful for all that has been done.

Let us now turn for a few minutes and see in what way our Society has interested itself in matters aboriginal. Although this Society dates back only to 1879, actually it existed under other names for many years prior to that time. In fact, an ancestral line can be traced back to the very beginning of the State. Whether or not the Statistical Society of South Australia was connected with our Society’s ancestry, it is interesting to note that as far back as 1842 there was a Statistical Society here, and it actually published in its transactions a report on the “Physical appearance, habits of life, ceremonies, superstitions, numbers and language, etc., of the aborigines of South Australia.” This is probably the first record of a local society publishing data on the aborigines.

So far I have not been able to trace other anthropological papers in our records prior to the Philosophical Society, which was the immediate forerunner of this Society. But in the Transactions of the Philosophical Society there are seven papers on anthropological matters, After this Society had become the Royal Society, there was an average of about one anthropological paper a year for the remainder of the century.

During the first twenty years of this century, we find only about seven or eight papers were printed. But it is interesting to note that in 1915 a long and important paper by the now well-known Malinowski was published by our Society. In the early twenties commenced the modern outburst of interest. During the last twelve years, an average of about three anthropological papers a year have been published. Since the Society has been publishing its journal, a total of 74 papers of anthropological type have been printed. This includes several short articles of interest and two Presidential addresses which were definitely anthropological.

We can safely say that while this Society has not had the financial means for directly supporting anthropological work in the field and on living natives, it has, by its continued policy of publishing almost without exception every anthro-

xxit

pological paper presented to the Council, shown a keen sympathy towards this aspect of its activities,

We are now brought to the question which is doubtless asked by some: Of what use is this century of observation and publication on the aboriginal inhabitants of this country?

I will remark firstly on the purely academic viewpoint, not because it is necessarily the most important. In the Australian aboriginal people we have, still existing in some parts of our country, a modern living example of stone-age man —a primitive race which to anthropologists is one of the most interesting groups of mankind on the eatth. With the spread of civilization to almost all parts of the globe, some of these interesting primitive peoples have passed away with little or no written record of their life and habits having been made. These are the unwritten chapters in the history of mankind, pages on which the moving finger has written nothing, or at the most has paused to enter but a word or two. For the most part these pages must remain for ever blank, Thus the anxiety of anthropologists in Australia, and even visiting workers irom overseas, to place on record as much as possible concerning our Australian natives, and avoid for example, the stigma and regret which remains concerning the long since extinct Tasmanian race.

But this is not the only purpose in studying their life and habits. 1 have already referred to what might be termed applied anthropology. Clashes between settlers and indigenous inhabitants, unfortunately, seem to be inevitable. But a closer understanding and sympathy towards the natives’ life and viewpoint surely helps to soften and lessen these clashes. It is only by a careful and intelligent, study of the native, his mode of living, his social organisation and mental make-up that the correct sympathetic and reasonable outlook can be acquired, and the necessary compromises and adjustments effected.

After a hundred years, we have at our disposal accounts of the earliest contacts with native life and the difficulties encountered. We have the records of mission activities, of attempts at civilizing and educating the natives; we have the reports of protectors, of police officers, and a wealth of publications on native life and customs. And yet today, knowing all these things, we still seem to be floundering with precisely the same problems which confronted South Australians one hundred years ago. Australian soil was once occupied by these dark-skinned folk who, by our standards, are exceedingly primitive and crude; yet they at any rate carried on a completely successful economic and possibly happy existence in this country. Their homeland was, and still is, being filched from them, and im returti they have received, for the most part, only our villainics and vices. It would be a bold opinion that would assert that a fair deal had been given them. Governments, inissionary efforts, so-called protection, national pride (if any) and even the oft-proclaimed Australian spirit of good sportsmanship and fair play all seem to have failed. It is high time that we Australians faced up squarely to the simple and obvious question, Is the lingering remnant of this interesting and simple people to be preserved, or is its present rapid and deplorable elimination to proceed on its way? Any straightout answer to such a statement seems to be one which we as a State and a Commonwealth have avoided with a disconcerting persistence. Occasional voices are raised in protest, but apparently they might just as well cry out in the sandy wildernesses which we have allotted to the natives, for there they might possibly arouse the curiosity of some aboriginal nomad,

Reserves in the full scnse of the term should be established and controlled solely for the benefit and preservation of the aborigines. We know definitely that in those regions where the native is still alone and not interfered with he thrives and gets along quite happily. Or, on the other hand, if his rapid passing is to be tacitly accepted, at least some adequate method should be adopted to make his

wxtit

passing a respectable and comfortable one. Neither of these courses has yet been seriously attempted. Some foll are aware that a large so-called reserve does exist on the map; a few know that little serious attempt has becn made to, make the reserve a genuine controlled preservation. In fairness, one is forced to mention the recent gesture of the Commonwealth in appointing our own Strehlow, junr. to the post of patrol officer.

To conclude these remarks, I will summarize by saying that concerning our aborigines we still find ourselves with two important unfinished jobs. Firstly, the one of pushing on apace with studying and recording as much as possible the life and customs of the natives in a careful, broad and scientific manner, not only out of scientific curiosity, but also for the practical value of the work. The other, is a more honest endeavour to ensure the preservation of this interesting, racc. The Royal Society is not expected to solve all the problems involved. But these remarks are an endeavour to indicate what the Society has done and what it might further do. I have already outlined the excellent service the Society has performed in the publication of anthropological papers. For a moment I want to revert to the year 1898. At the ordinary meeting of this Society on July 5, 1898, Dr. Stirling moved, and Professor Tate seconded :-—

“That whereas the aborigines of Australia are rapidly disappearing it is desirable, in the interests of science and of our successors, that a comprehensible and enduring record of the Australian race, in the fullest anthropological and ethnological significance, should be undertaken before it is too late; that this Society communicates with the Royal Societies of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia and the Linnean Society of New South Wales with the object of asking whether those societies will join in a com- bined movement, together with such other scientific bodies as may be interested, to induce the Governments of their respective colonies to promise contributions of say £500 from each colony, payable in such annual instalments as may be necessary to defray the expenses of such work; that contingent upon the approval by this Society of the above resolution, the Council be requested to put it into effect by forwarding copies to the bodies mentioned.”

At the Annual Meeting, October 4, of the same year, the Presidential Address was given by Dr. W. I. Cleland. This address referred to the important resolution passed at the July meeting, and was almost entirely concerned with remarks on the Australian aboriginal race and the desirability for vigorous and co-ordinated research. Dr. Cleland stated that:—“There is every reason to hope that material assistance will be obtained from the various Governments for effectively carrying out this national work, and it will also be conceded by all that no time should be lost in setting about the collecting of all available information,”

Since that time our Society has certainly done some uscful work in attempt- ing to fulfil the hopes of our predecessors. What reply the Society received from the circularising of the important resolution | have not so far been able to ascer- tain. Nor do | know whether the optimistic hopes of Dr. Cleland concerning Government assistance were realized, Perhaps the assistance extended towards the Sydney Chair of Anthropology was a belated move in this matter.

This Society is associated with the University Board for Anthropological Research, for at present four of its Council members are also members of that Board. Jet us hope that this association will continue; and I feel sure that if the matter were taken up the University Council would readily agree to the Royal Society being officially represented on its Research Board.

Another point. The importance of a thorough knowledge of aboriginal life and customs, and an appreciation of his mentality and viewpoint is so well recog- nised that it seems to me desirable in the light of the interest this Society takes

xxIV

in these matters, that it should be officially represented on the Government Advisory Council on Aborigines.

My next point is perhaps not so much a constructive suggestion as a criticism. It seems peculiar that that fine institution, the South Australian Museum, which possesses such a wealih of anthropological and natural history material, should have on its governing committee such inadequate numerical representation of these sciences. At present there is definite provision for only one member likely to be expert in natural history and scientific questions.

Our President pointed out that in days past and before this age of marked specialization, this Society often acted in an advisory capacity and deputised the Government on various State problems. The matter of really awakening to our national responsibilities regarding the aborigines seems to involve the problem of generally arousing and cducating public and Government sentiment.

I want to make a brief interpolation. Recently a young archaeologist, Mr. Movius, was in Adelaide on a visit, and one evening gave at an Anthropological Society meeting a very fascinating little lecture on his archaeological work in Palestine, where he was associated with some excavatory research in which some Neandertaloid skulls of great interest were unearthed. The remark which stood out among his very interesting statements was to the effect that in that country, as soon as any excavatory work, quarrying or digging of any sort, brought to light any finds of archaeological interest, the Government immediatcly proclaimed the spot a national reserve and it was properly controlled and protected.

Perhaps this Society, as one of the few institutions interested in anthropology, could, with benefit, occasionally raise its authoritative voice in an endeavour to stir up the conscience of the people of this State on the matter of its respon- sibilities towards the remaining aborigines and their interesting relics.

CENTENARY ADDRESS-NO. 3. THE PAST WORK OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OUTSIDE THE DOMAIN OF NATURAL SCIENCE

BY PROFESSOR R. W. CHAPMAN, C.M.G.

Summary

A review of the work of this Society in those branches of Science which lie outside the domain of what are commonly known as the "Natural Sciences" appears at first glance to be an easy task. For a perusal of the tables of contents of the published volumes of the Royal Society shows that the number of papers coming under this category is very few indeed. One seeks to collect the flowers to press and preserve in the herbarium, only to find that these particular plants have almost refused to flower. The total number of papers published in the Transactions since the first volume was issued in 1878 is roughly 900, and out of these only 65 deal with Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy or Engineering. The reason for this is not that there has been any marked shortage in South Australia of able and enthusiastic workers in these departments, but that most of the important research contributions in these sciences are naturally sent to those more specialized papers or societies which devote themselves to the particular interests of one of these branches of knowledge. Such an eminent mathematician as the late Sir Horace Lamb, for example, who wrote his classical work on "The Motion of Fluids” while he was a Professor at the Adelaide University, is represented in the annals of this Society by only two small contributions, one on "The Persistency of Electric Currents in Masses of Iron," and the other on "The Causes of Luminosity in Flame," both on Physics. The great field of Mathematics is represented by a single paper by Prof. Wilton on "Certain Diophantine Problems,” contributed in 1920. The chemists and the physicists and the engineers have obviously preferred, for the most part, to send the records of their researches to periodicals with a wider circulation amongst those interested in their own branch of work and where their fellow-workers in similar fields in other parts of the world will be most likely to seek in order to find the latest contributions to knowledge in those domains. Thus it has come about that our S.A. Royal Society has become more and more the repository for new knowledge in the Natural Sciences, particularly as displayed by the rocks, the flora and fauna, and the natural phenomena of South Australia. However much this may be regretted by those who would like our own Royal Society to emulate the catholic sympathies of the parent Royal Society of London, which encourages contributions from every department of human knowledge, it does not seem at all likely that this measure of specialization can be avoided. Modern knowledge is developing so complex a growth that more and more it becomes essential to have specialization not only among’ scientific workers but in the literature and the societies which provide the means of intercourse between those labouring in any single field.

HRY

CENTENARY ADDRESS—No., 3. THE PAST WORK OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

OUTSIDE THE DOMAIN OF NATURAL SCIENCE By Proressor R. W. Cuarman, C.M.G,

A review of the work of this Society in those branches of Science which lie outside the domain of what are commonly known as the “Natural Sciences” appears at first glance to be an easy task. Vor a perusal of the tables of contents of the published volumes of the Royal Socicty shows that the number of papers coming under this category is very few indeed. One seeks to collect the flowers to press and preserve in the herbarium, only to find that these particular plants have almost refused to flower. The total number of papers published in the Trans- actions since the first volume was issued in 1878 is roughly 900, and out of these only 65 deal with Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy or Engineering. The reason for this is not that there has been any marked shortage in South Aus- tralia of able and enthusiastic workers in these departments, but that most of the important research contributions in these sciences are naturally sent to those more specialized papers or societies which devote themselves to the particular interests of one of these branches of knowledge. Such an eminent mathematician as the late Sir Horace Lamb, for example, who wrote his classical work on “The Motion of Fluids” while he was a Professor at the Adelaide University, is represented in the annals of this Society by only two small contributions, one on “The Persistency of Electric Currents in Masses of Iron,” and the other on “The Causes of Luminosity in Flame,” both on Physics. The great field of Mathematics is repre- sented by a single paper by Prof. Wilton on “Certain Diophantine Problems,” contributed in 1920. The chemists and the physicists and the engineers have obviously preferred, for the most part, to send the records of their researches to periodicals with a wider circulation amongst those interested in their own branch of work and where their fellow-workers in similar fields in other parts of the world will be most likely to seek in order to find the latest contributions to know- ledge in those domains. Thus it has come about that our S.A. Royal Society has become more and more the repository for new knowledge in the Natural Sciences, particularly as displayed by the rocks, the flora and fauna, and the natural phenomena of South Australia. However much this may be regretted by those who would like our own Royal Society to emulate the catholic sympathies of the parent Royal Society of London, which encourages contributions from every department of human knowledge, it does not seem at all likely that this measure of specialization can be avoided. Modern knowledge is developing so complex a growth that more and more it becomes essential to have specialization not only among scientific workers but in the literature and the societies which provide the means of intercourse between those labouring in any single field,

The Reports of the Adelaide Philosophical Society, before the days of the publication of an annual volume of Transactions and of its blossoming out to become the Royal Society of South Australia, show that in those early days there was no such bias towards the Natural Sciences as the Royal Society has since developed. Its papers and discussions ranged over the whole field of human thought, from literature to science, from philosophy to problems of practical engineering. The Rev. J. Maughan, in a paper which he contributed on August 15, 1865, on “The Drainage of Adelaide, Considered in its Scientific Aspects,” remarked in his introduction that “Ilowever important it may be to explore the

BRUM

various ramifications of natural phenomena, it is still more important to bring the teachings of science to bear upon questions of public utility. To deal amply and elaborately with things theoretical, and sparingly, or not at all, with those that are practical, would be as little accordant with the spirit of true philosophy as with the characteristic tendencies of the age in which we live.” And the Society seems to have lived up to the ideals thus eloquently expounded, Taking the first six papers read before the Society, in 1853, the first was on Meteorology, the second on “The Theory of the Arch,” the third dealt with “The Mathematical Theory of Musical Harmony,” the fourth with “The Rise of English Comedy,” the subject of the fifth was “The Structure and Uses of the Hand,” and the sixth “The Structure of the Aboriginal Dialects of New Holland.” The menu provided certainly did not lack variety, and there was little danger of the members suffering from a lack of some particular vitamins because of the monotony of their fare. But at that stage in the colony’s history it was not to be expected that much original scientific research could be done. The population of the whole of South Australia in 1853 was only about 75,000, most of them actively engaged in the pioneer work necessary in a new country, and there were few people with either the training, facilities or opportunities for much in the way of scientific investiga- tion, On the other hand, the Socicty was undoubtedly from the first a helpful mental stimulant to the community, and its influence in the moulding of public opinion and public policy was strong. Important public questions were frequently discussed. Before Mr. B. Herschel Babbage set out in 1858 on an exploring expedition past the western side of Lake Torrens, he discussed with the Society what he proposed to do. In 1870 Mr. Charles Todd brought before the Society his plans for the building of a telegraph line across the continent, from south to north. “the Drainage of Adelaide” was a subject to which attention was first called by a paper from Mr. Babbage in 1856, The Rev. J. Maughan brought it up again in 1865. In 1866 there were three papers on the subject by Messrs. J. Macgeorge, J. Allen and B. H. Babbage. And in the Report for 1867, it is stated that at the close of the discussion on the subject of Drainage the following resolu- tions were adopted :—‘That this Society desires to impress upon the authorities of the City of Adelaide the importance of taking prompt measures for: Ist, An organised system of scavenging for the removal oi the solid refuse of the City; 2nd, The absolute prohibition of cesspools in those portions of the City which are supplied with sewers; 3rd, The construction of sewers in the centres of streets, in place of under the footpaths, of sufficient depth to drain the cellars of the City; 4th, The arrangement of such a system in the construction of all sewers as will enable the sewage to be ultimately conducted to a distance from the City, and as far as practicable utilized by some process of irrigation or otherwise.” A memorial embodying the resolutions was consequently prepared and forwarded to the City Council, It was but a few months later that a Bill was introduced into the T.egis- lature to enable the Corporation to commence a system of deep drainage. On such questions amongst the contributors to discussion in the Society were leading public men, and the Socicty was thus enabled to exert a wholesome influence on matters of great importance to the community. In the sixties the question as to whether a sparsely populated country should be developed by building the more solid but more expensive railway lines on the 5 ft. 3 in. gauge or lighter and cheaper lines on the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge was one on which engineers themselves were divided, It was one on which South Australia had to come to a decision for carrying the rail- way out into new areas on which only a small population was to be expected for many years. Four papers read before the Society, with appropriate discussions, show the interest that was taken in this big question. There were two papers on this subject in 1867, one by Mr. J. Macgeorge and the other by Mr. W. Hanson, and two more in 1870 by Messrs R. C, Patterson and A. F, Lindsay. These were

revit

apparently backed up by vigorous discussion which has, unfortunately, not been recorded, but three out of the four papers advocated the construction of narrow gauge lines on the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge. Whether the discussions had any direct influence upon the Government policy it is impossible to say, but during the next few years, in the seventies, a change was made from the broad gauge of the earlier lines, and isolated light railways on the 3 [t. 6 in. gauge were pushed out from Port Augusta, Port Wakefield, Port Pirie, Beachport and Kingston to bring the products of the country to the seaboard. ‘These formed the basis of our present narrow-gatige system.

During the lifetime of the Adelaide Philosophical Society education in South Australia was compulsory but not free. The Central Board of Education had power to grant licenses to teachers, and to pay them out of State revenues salaries ranging from £40 to £100 per annum in addition to the fees paid by the parents of the children. The system of public education was one that we should regard now as totally inadequate, and it was not until 1875 that a big forward move was made by giving over the management of public schools to a Council of Education under the presidency of a competent paid Inspector-General. Education was, therefore, naturally a subject that interested members. There were two papers dealing with the subject in 1868, one by Mr. T. S, Reed on “Education of the Working Classes,” and the other by Mr. James Hosking, entitled “Education in South Australia.” In both of these papers the establishment of free schools was advocated. It was stated that enquiries had shown that there were then at least 1,000 children in the City of Adelaide who were not attending any school because of the inability of the parents to pay the necessary fees. Mr. Reed, in his paper, said that one man had told him, “I have ten children who can’t read or write. I can’t read or write myself; why should they?” No wonder that the subject aroused the interest of the Society. There were two more papers in 1871, both by Mr. Hosking, on “Educational Legislation,” which, judging from the abstracts which are preserved in the records, promoted a vigorous discussion. The dis- cussion was, however, severly hampered by the fact that according to the rules of the Society any debate on either political or religious subjects was forbidden, and speakers were continually brought to order by the Chairman for transgressing the law. .

The last report of the Society, before the advent of the present form of the Transactions, at the end of 1871, winds up on a very familiar note, “The Council,” it says, “would take this opportunity of urging upon members the necessity of paying their subscriptions punctually. During the past year, out of 62 ordinary members only 34 have paid their annual subscriptions.”

Coming now to the published Transactions in their present form, which in the third volume became the Transactions of the Royal Society of South Aus- tralia, we find two papers contributed in 1887, one by Dr. Jamicson and the other by Dr, H. Whittell, dealing with the ‘Drainage of Adelaide and its Influence on the Death Rate,” which form a very satisfactory conclusion to the discussions on Drainage, that we have previously noted, of the old Philosophical Society. A careful examination of statistics shows that the death rate in the city for the year 1883-84, just before deep drainage was installed, was 20°4 per 1,000, and that for the two years since the deep drainage had been completed it was 17°6 per 1,000. And Dr. Whittell concludes his paper in these words:—‘Meanwhile, we may fairly assume that the abatement of city nuisances, the speedy removal of filth from our premises, and the blessing of pure air, have produced the beneficial results we arc entitled to expect from them, and that a large part of the remarkable reduction of mortality in Adelaide is due to the completion of our new system of drainage.”

B

aaxvin

Between the years 1904 and 1907 a most important series of papers, seventeen in all, was communicated to the Society by W. H. Bragg, Elder Professor of Mathe- matics and Physics in the University of Adelaide, now Sir William Bragg, O.M., F.R.S., President of the Royal Institution of London. Bragg had previously contributed a paper in 1891 on the “Energy of the Electro-Magnetic Field,” but in this series of papers he described the methods and results of the experiments in which he, with the later collaboration of Kleeman, Madsen, Dr. W. T. Cooke, and Glasson, first clearly established the specific character of the alpha rays emitted by radium and other radio-active elements in the process of disintegration. In particular he showed that each species of radio-active atom, if it emitted an alpha ray at all, ejected this particle with one and the same initial velocity and energy, so that the rays from this element had, unlike other kinds of radiation, a definite range in air of a few inches alt most, coming to an abrupt stop when their energy was exhausted by interaction with the atoms encountered on their path. These experiments furnished the basis of a new and valuable technique of investigation into problems of radio-activity and threw much new light on the nature of the obscure process of radio-active disintegration. In his later papers Bragg turned his attention to other kinds of radiation, such as the beta and gamma rays from radio-active elements and X-rays. In regard to the latter he put forward an interesting speculation as to their nature, at that time unknown, and although this has not been confirmed by subsequent development, its fundamental concept, viz., an elementary particle. devoid of electric charge—now termed a “neutron”—has recently been shown to have a real existence and to be an important constituent of all atomic nuclei. In this early work on X-rays we miay see the basis of the sub- sequent great work of Bragg’s life, for which he, jointly with his son (Professor W. L. Bragg, of Manchester), received the award of the Nobel Prize in Physics, vig., the application of X-rays to the experimental analysis of the structure of crystals. This series of papers represents a most fundamental and important contribution to the physical science of the day and, apart from any ieeling of Joyalty to the Royal Society of South Australia that there may have been with a South Australian research worker, these papers were sent to the Society mainly because in that way prompt publication could be sectired in comparison with that obtainable by sending the papers overseas. That is an advantage that may’ still hold good under similar circumstances.

Of other papers on Physics, one by Prof. Kerr Grant and Mr. G. E. M. Jauncey, in 1912, demonstrated that ionisation is a general consequence of the collision of solid bodies in air, and Messrs. R. C. Mitton and E. G. H. Gibson contributed papers dealing with research work phenomena of surface tension,

About half of the papers of the kind under review, in the published Procced- ings of the Society deal with subjects in the domain of Chemistry, Of these the majority apply the principles of inorganic chemistry to investigate the rocks and minerals, the waters and sands of South Australia. In the seventies the late Mr. J. T. Cloud, Metallurgist of the Wallaroo Smelting Works, called attention to the occurrence of various rare minerals. Professor EF, II, Rennie, in 1887, made a chemical examination of the so-called rubies of the Macdonald Ranges and found that in all cases they proved to consist of silicates of alumina and iron, with small quantities of oxide of manganese, lime and magnesia, and hence were undoubtedly garnets. Mr. G. A. Goyder, at that time in charge of the Govern- ment Assay Department, investigated the composition of new minerals which he named Stibiotantalite and Sulvanite. Mr. A. J. Higgins dealt with tellurides from Wortupa in 1899. Qur radio-active ores have been examined from the chemical standpoint by Messrs. Radcliffe, Prof. Rennie, Dr. Cooke and Mr. A. C. Broughton. Mr. R. G. Thomas discussed the gem sands of Encounter Bay in 1922, and Mr. A. R. Alderman the “Vanadium Content of Certain ‘Titaniferous

eae

Ores” in 1925. Dr. W. T. Cooke made a chemical examination of Davidite from Olary in 1916, showing that it gave off helium in quantity when heated to a red heat, 100 grammes yielding 15 c.c. of helium, and he completes the list with two papers recording chemical investigations into the nature of the brown coal at Noarlunga, published in 1932 and 1934.

In the field of organic chemistry, Professor E. H. Rennie devoted his spare time for many years to the examination of natural products of South Australian plants, and in particular he investigated the colouring matters of the insectivorous plant Drosera Whittakeri, which occurs abundantly in our hills, The colouring matters he thought to be hydroxy-methyl naphihaquinone, a conclusion which has since been confirmed, and colouring matters of similar composition have been found in more recent years in Bacillus Tuberculosis and in the green husk of the walnut. He contributed a paper on this subject in 1887. Since then other papers on natural plant products, especially essential oils, have been contributed by Messrs. H. H. Finlayson and P. A. Berry.

There are one or two other chemical papers of a more general and less local character, such as one on the “Toning of Photographic Silver Images,” but by far the greater majority of the papers invalving chemical investigation that have been contributed to the Society have dealt with the composition of materials, whether organic or inorganic, found in South Australia, and have been in the nature of a careful examination of the natural products of the country in which we live. They have thus been particularly appropriate to the Royal Society of South Aus- tralia. Apparently our chemists have sent their contributions to knowledge of a more general character to the Chemical Societies of Great Britain and have given to this Society chiefly the result of work on local products.

Apart from Chemistry and Physics, there are a few odd papers which may best perhaps be classified under Astronomy and Engineering. The astronomical papers begin with a discussion by Mr. C. Todd of the comet of February, 1880. Then follow papers on “The Variations of the Compass in South Australia,” “Weather Forecasting in South Australia,” “Observations on Jupiter,” and finally a paper on “Circum-elongation Observations for Azimath,” in which formulae are deduced for the reduction of a number of observations made on a circum-polar star near its elongation with the object of getting an accurate measure of the direction of the true meridian. These are of so varied a character that one can hardly discuss them, but obviously two of them at least are essentially South Aus- tralian. As associated with Engineering we might class two papers by Mr, G. Goyder, dealing with the “Cyanide Process for Gold Extraction,” a paper dealing with the results of physical tests of South Australian timbers, another one on British Standards, and two dealing with the theory of columns and beams.

It is hardly to be expected that there will be any change in the tendency for papers, conveying the results of investigations made in this State into subjects dealt with in this review, to be diverted from the Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia to periodicals and records of the more specialized big societies where they will be brought more directly under the notice of those specially interested in the subject considered, But there are many phases of these subjects which have a direct bearing upon South Australian problems, research upon which would be fittingly recorded in our Transactions. We cannot separate the different branches of Science into water-tight compartments. Many of the most difficult problems in Geology, Botany and Zoology depend for their solution upon the collaboration of the physicist and the chemist, and many of the special problems presented by these subjects in this State must probably be solved in the same way. The papers on Chemistry that are preserved in our records are for the most part fitting illustrations of the application of that science to the furthering of a know- ledge of the products of our own State, but they are by no means the only contribu-

URX

tions that involve the use of chemical analysis, which enters into many of the papers presented, especially those on Geology and Mineralogy. But Physics and Mechanics may be also very essential to the progress of knowledge of our environ- ment. Such matters as climate, magnetic surveys, investigations into the strength and physical properties of our timbers and of our building stones, tidal and other natural physical phenomena, gravity, geodetic and geo-physical surveys, the flow of underground water, and many others obviously require the mathematical appli- cation of the principles of Physics and Mechanics. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the present policy of the Society of encouraging the contribution of such papers will be continued, because the Royal Society of South Australia seems to be the most fitting repository for all work advancing our knowledge of the State and its resources, and to make this knowledge complete it must be viewed from every aspect.

CENTENARY ADDRESS-NO. 4. ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SYSTEMATIC BOTANY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

BY J. M. BLACK, A.L.S.

Summary

Although this paper deals with systematic botany in South Australia during the last 100 years, it would be impossible to ignore entirely the initial point in the collection and description of our plants-the visit of the celebrated botanist, Robert Brown, in Captain Flinders’ ship, the "Investigator," in the year 1802. This voyage meant not only the discovery and survey of almost the whole coastal area of our State, but also the discovery of its flora. Brown began his work at Fowler's Bay and ended it near Mount Gambler. The result of his collection during a voyage round the greater part of the Australian coast was published in London in 1810 in a work, which established his fame.

NET

CENTENARY ADDRESS—No. 4. ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SYSTEMATIC BOTANY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. By J. M. Brack, A.L.S.

Although this paper deals with systematic botany in South Australia during the last 100 years, it would be impossible to ignore entirely the initial point in the collection and description of our plants—the visit of the celebrated botanist, Robert Brown, in Captain Flinders’ ship, the “Investigator,” in the year 1802. This voyage meant not only the discovery and survey of almost the whole coastal area of our State, but also the discovery of its flora. Brown began his work at Fowler’s Bay and ended it near Mount Gambier. The result of his collection during a voyage round the greater part of the Australian coast was published in London in 1810 in a work which established his fame.

After the proclamation of the Province of South Australia in 1836, the first expedition on which botanical specimens were successfully collected was that of Captain Sturt in South and Central Australia, in the years 1844 to 1846. From this arduous journey the great explorer brought back about 100 plant specimens, which were dealt with in a botanical appendix from the pen of Robert Brown. Previous to this date Eyre made a collection of plants during his daring overland journey along the Great Bight to King George’s Sound in 1840-41, but they were lost in transit to Adelaide.

In 1847 Dr. Ferdinand Mueller (later Baron Sir Ferdinand von Mueller) landed in South Australia and at once began collecting in various parts of the State. His first paper on our flora was published in Hooker’s Journal of Botany in 1852. Subsequently, with his headquarters in Melbourne, he became the acknowledged leader in botanical science throughout Australia, identifying numbers of plants collected by himself and other explorers during the latter half of the nineteenth century and describing many new species. Among the collec- tions with which he dealt, and which are of special interest to South Australians, may be mentioned those of David Hergolt in the country west of Port Augusta (Babbage’s expedition of 1858), of J. McDouall Stuart in the same districts during 1858-59, of Ernest Giles and his assistant (W. H. Tietkens) in the country near Ooldea and in the Musgrave Ranges in 1875 and 1876, of Sir John Forrest in his journey from Perth to Adelaide in 1870, and of William C. Gosse (later Deputy Surveyor-General of South Australia) in that part of Central Australia which lies immediately north of our border during 1873.

Among the local collectors who have done excellent work should be men- tioned Dr. Hermann Behr, whose plants, collected near Gawler about the middle of last century, were described by Schlechtendal in the twentieth volume of Lannaea (1847); Carl Wilhelmi in the Port Lincoln district from 1851 to 1854, and the Rev. J. E. Tenison Woods in our Tatiara district. J. GO. Tepper, an active member of this Society, contributed several papers to our Transactions on the flora of Yorke Peninsula and of the Adclaide plains and hills.

One of the finest collections of South Australian and Western Australian plants was that of R. Helms, who acted as collector of Lindsay’s Expedition in 1891-92, the expenses of which were defrayed by Sir Thomas Elder. The botanical results were published by Mueller and Tate in our Transactions of 1896. Helms’s specimens were distributed between the University Herbarium of Adelaide and the National Herbarium of Melbourne, and have been re-studied by many subsequent botanists, Australian, English and German.

XX

The safety and effectiveness of exploring expeditions, and incidentally their ability to collect botanical treasures, was greatly increased by the substitution of camels for horses in sandhills and desert country. Tested experimentally by John McKinley during his journey to Cooper’s Creek in 1861 for the relief of the Burke and Wills expedition, the use of camels became general on most of the great traverses in the seventies and in subsequent years. The Elder Expedition of 1891 had 44 camels, 10 riding and 34 pack animals.

Professor Ralph Tate published in 1890 his Handbook of the Flora of Extra- tropical South Australia and divided the State, for botanical purposes, into two regions—the Eremian, or dry and desert lands of the North, and the Euronotian, comprising the districts with better rainfall, from about the latitude of Port Augusta to Mount Gambier. He was the botanist, as well as the geologist, of the Burke and Wills Expedition, the use of camels became general on most of the numerous botanical papers to the Transactions of this Society, among them the first florula of Kangaroo Island. He was active in founding the Field Naturalists’ Section of the Society and became its first chairman.

During recent years several of our members have distinguished themselves as diligent plant collectors in our Far North and in Central Australia, among whom should be mentioned Professor J. B. Cleland, H. H. Finlayson and N. B. Tindale. Professor Cleland has published several florulas of districts extending from Kangaroo Island to the Far North, as well as his Handbook of the Toad- stools and Mushrooms of South Australia. Mr. E. H, Ising has made extensive collections in the Ooldea districts, the Nullarbor Plain, the Far North and Central Australia, and has published four papers in our Transactions dealing with his discoveries. The author of the present address produced the Naturalised Flora of South Australia in 1909 and the Flora of South Australia between 1922 and 1929, besides a series of botanical papers appearing in our Transactions sincq 1909. Our orchids have always been in the able hands of Dr. R. S. Rogers, who described all our local species in the Flora of South Australia. Professor J. G. Wood published in our Transactions of 1930 an exhaustive paper on the Vegetation of Kangaroo Island and the adjacent peninsula.“

Many distinguished botanists outside South Australia have assisted in the elucidation of our flora during the present century. Foremost among these stands J. H. Maiden with his revision of the Eucalypts, an illustrated work con- tinued after the death of the great Sydney botanist by his assistant, W. F. Blakely, who in 1934 published his valuable Key to the Eucalypts, with shorter descriptions of all the species. The genus Pultenaea was revised by the Vic- torian botanist, H. B. Williamson,, and a similar service was performed for Bassia by R. IL. Anderson, of the Sydney National Herbarium. ‘The experts of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew have done much for Australian systematic. botany by the publication in recent years of the following’ revisions :—Lilacopsis by Sir Arthur Hill, the Panicum of Bentham’s Flora and Stipa by Miss D. K. Ilughes, Prankenia by V. 5. Summerhayes, Dentella by H. K. Airy-Shaw, and several genera of Australian grasses by C. F, Hubbard. Dr. K. Domin, of Prague, who travelled widely in Queensland, has published, during the last 20 years, a series of papers revising a great portion of the Australian flora. Dr. J. Th. Henrard, of Leiden, has issued a monograph on the genus Aristide, throwing much new light on our Australian species. Dr, Wheeler, of the University of California, has quite recently done a great service to Australian taxonomy by

Om) Among the toted systematic botanists not mentioned in this article is Mr. J. M. Black, A.L.S. Mr. Black has published “The Naturalized Flora of South Australia’ (1909), and a 4-volume “Flora of South Australia” (1922-1929), together with a large number of botanical papers, of which “Additions to the Flora of South Australia, No. 34,” is published m this volume of the Royal Society’s Jotrrnal—Ed.

eeEUIL

her revision of our Nicotianas, based largely on living specimens of our tobaccos grown from seed.

One word as to the broad basis of systematic botany—the classification of families and genera. The arrangement of Linnaeus, which was based chiefly on the number of stamens and styles, was greatly improved by Jussieu, who, in 1779, was the first botanist to co-ordinate the genera of plants into families more or less as we know ,them today. His work was elaborated by De Candolle in 1818, and later in the century by Bentham and Hooker in their Genera Plantarum, and by Bentham in the Flora Australiensis. All these systems were based on the idea of the fixity of species. The first phylogenetic system proposed, subsequent to the general acceptance of the theory of descent, was that of Engler and Prantl, which was published about the end of last century and which has been followed by most botanists up to the present day. During the last ten years a Kew botanist, Mr. |. Hutchinson, has published two volumes making certain changes in Engler’s classification, and doubtless the last word has not been written on this difficult subject. Hutchinson’s system shows a tendency, in regard to the sequence of some of the larger groups, to revert to that of Bentham and Hooker. For instance, he places the Dicotyledons before the Monocotyledons on the ground that certain monocotyledonous families, such as the Alismataceae and Scheuch- geriaceae are closely allied to the Ranunculaceae or Buttercup Family, which he considers to be the most primitive of herbaceous Dicotyledons.

There have always existed among botanists two opposite tendencies with regard to the treatment of genera. Some prefer large comprehensive genera, divided into few or many sections, while others consider it better to treat each of these sections as a distinct genus. In botanical slang these two classes of botanists are termed “lumpers” and “splitters,” and, of course, there are the same two diverse tendencies in regard to the treatment of some species. Of recent years the division of large and sometimes unwieldy genera has become very popular. Let me give one example. When the illustrious English botanist, George Bentham, wrote some 60 years ago that great and indispensable classic, the Flora Australiensis, he maintained Panicum as a comprehensive genus of grasses. When Miss Hughes, in 1923, revised Bentham’s Panicum, she divided it into 14 different genera, following the example set by the great agrostologist, Dr. Stapf, in the Flora of Tropical Africa, Another grass genus, Andropogon, has also undergone considerable division. All this work leads to changes in nomenclature, puzzling at least for a time, the argument of the revisionists being that the final result will be additional clarity and an increase in scientific exactness.

During the last few years a plea has been voiced, chiefly in forestry circles, for the creation of a list of certain well-known specific names to be conserved, although they are not the earliest names given to the species in question. he list of generic names which it has been determined to conserve (nomuna generica conservanda) is pointed to as an example which should be followed in regard to species. .Rut the two cases are scarcely analogous. In 1891 a German botanist, Dr. O, Kuntze, published a revision of genera, in which the law of priority was rigorously applied. The result was chaotic—about 30,000 names of plants were changed. To overcome the confusion thus caused, the Botanical Congress of Vienna (1905) agrecd upon a list of generic names to be conserved, and this list was extended by the Congresses of Brussels (1910) and of Cambridge (1930). But genera are comparatively few, while the number of species is enormous. The majority of systematic botanists has always been opposed to a system by which certain specific names would be arbitrarily conserved although they are not the earliest under which a description was published. The proposal for a list of specific names to be conserved was first raised and rejected at Cambridge, and at the Congress of Amsterdam (1935) the motion came to a division and

xaerxiv

was defeated by 208 votes to 61. Subsequently it was decided “that an inter- national committee be appointed to draw up a list of names of economic plants according to the international rules, and that this list may remain in use for a period of 10 years.” The publication of this list will be awaited with much interest.

As two examples of the changes in specific names under the law of priority to which objection has been raised in Australia may be mentioned the substitu- tion of Eucalyptus gumamifera for E. corymbosa as the name of the Bloodwood of New South Wales and Queensland, and the change in the name of our well- known Redgum from Eucalyptus rostrata to E, camaldulensis. On the other hand, it may be noted that the name of the Remarkable or Monterey Pine, which has been extensively planted in Australia as a timber tree, has been altered from Pinus insignis to the earlier name of P, radiata, and that this change appears to have been accepted by foresters and dealers without any difficulty.

Turning now to the future, it may be said at once that there is plenty of work ahead for Australian botanists and collectors in searching our vast territory for new species and for further research in regard to species which are still imperfectly known. Even in the comparatively well investigated area of the Adelaide Plains and the Mount Lofty Range new species have been discovered in recent years, and other native plants previously only known from distant localities have been found to exist. There are also the introduced aliens, sometimes beneficial and sometimes mischievous, increasing in number with every year, to be studied and recorded. Among the cellular plants the larger fungi have been recently described by Professor Cleland in one of the science handbooks, but other forms, such as the seaweeds, mosses, liverworts and stoneworts have received little, if any, attention. In addition to this there are many important genera of our flowering plants still awaiting a revision by careful and enthusiastic botanists, whose researches will add notably to our present knowledge of a great flora.

CENTENARY ADDRESS-NO. 5. ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF ENTOMOLOGY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

BY J. DAVIDSON, D.SC.

Summary

At the time of the foundation of the Province of South Australia in 1836, several well-known naturalists in Europe were interested in collecting and describing insects. As a branch of natural history, however, insects were generally regarded with indifference. This may have been due to their abundance and relatively insignificant size compared with other animals.

With the appearance of the first volume of the classical work, "An Introduction to Entomology," by W. Kirby and W. Spence, in 1815, followed in 1839 by Westwood's "Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects," an increasing interest in entomology developed in England. The Royal Entomological Society of London was founded in 1832.

HAV

CENTENARY ADDRESS—No. 5. ONE HUNDRED ‘YEARS OF ENTOMOLOGY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

By J. Davipson, D.5Sc., Waite Agricultural Research Institute, University of Adelaide.

At the time of the foundation of the Province of South Australia in 1836, several well-known naturalists in Europe were interested in collecting and describ- ing insects. As a branch of natural history, however, insects were generally regarded with indifference. This may have been due to their abundance and rela- tively insignificant size compared with other animals.

With the appearance of the first volume of the classical work, “An Introduc- tion to Entomology,” by W. Kirby and W. Spence, in 1815, followed in 1839 by Westwood’s ‘Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects,” an increasing interest in entomology developed in England. ‘The Royal Entomological Society of London was founded in 1832.

Owing to the abundance of insect life compared with other animals, it was inevitable that workers of this period would be engaged chiefly in recording, describing and classifying the different kinds of insects, according to the accepted binomial system of nomenclature. Entomology gradually developed along these lines, as a special branch of zoology, due largely to the enthusiasm of a number of amateur workers who devoted their leisure to the study of insects. It is perhaps difficult for us to appreciate now, that the conception of the cellular structure of animals was unknown until the work of Schwann about 1839.

Prior to the foundation of the Province, Francois Péron and C, A. Leseur, naturalists to Baudin’s expedition, had collected insects on Kangaroo Island; some of these were described by Latreille of the Paris Museum, who became Professor in 1829 following the death of Lamarck.

In the early Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, the Rev. W. Hope described new species of insects collected at Adelaide by Mr. C. D. E. Fortnum, who appears to have resided in the colony during 1840 to 1845.

Charles Algernon Wilson, one of the original members of the Adelaide Philosophical Society, merits the title of being the first entomologist in South Australia. Wilson arrived here in 1839, and was an officer of the Supreme Court. A cousin of Alfred Russell Wallace, he had a naturalist’s interest in insect life, and paid particular attention to insects which were troublesome to the colonists. From i840 onwards Wilson contributed numerous articles on entomology to “The Register,” and later to the “Garden and Field,” under the pen name of “Naturae amator.”’ In 1856 he read a paper to the Society entitled “Wood-eating Insects,” which contained observations he had made on the collapse of a wooden bridge on the Adelaide main road, due to damage caused by boring beetles. Wilson also contributed observations on South Australian insects to the Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,

In 1867 F. G. Waterhouse, first Curator of the South Australian Museum, read a short paper on a parasite of the order “Strepsiptera,” which had been collected near Gawler by Mrs. Kreusler; it is the first record of this interesting order for Australia.

Prior to 1878 there appears to have been little advance in our knowledge of the insect fauna of the State. In the anniversary address to the Society in that year, Professor Tate remarked ttpon the lack of interest shown in the natural history

NUVI

of South Australia. This address apparently stimulated J. G. O. Tepper to com- municate a paper to the Society in 1879, entitled “The Insects of South Australia: An Attempt at a Census.” Tepper pointed out that Tate had stated that only 782 species of insects had been recorded from South Australia, whereas Tepper had 2,655 species represented in his collection; he had been collecting insects in the State for some 20 years. About 1883 Tepper became associated officially with the South Australian Muscum. He communicated several papers on insects to the Society as well as observations on many cxhibits; he added considerably to the insect collections of the Museum.

The Rev. T. Blackburn, a resident of Adelaide, began publishing on Aus- tralian Coleoptera in the Transactions for 1886-1887; from that date until his death in 1912 he regularly communicated papers to the Society; he also con- tributed papers to outside journals. An obituary notice of this distinguished Coleopterist states that his entomological publications reached a total of 3,696 pages, and that he described or named 3,069 species of Australian Coleoptera,

Arthur M. Lea, who came to Adelaide in 1911 as entomologist at the Museum, in succession to Tepper, had communicated a paper on Australian Coleoptera to the Society in 1879, ‘After his arrival in Adelaide, Lea was a regular contributor to the Transactions on Australian beetles, until his death in 1932, An obituary notice states that |.ea presented 43 papers to the Society, which occupied 2,378 pages in the Transactions; he described nearly 6,000 species, of which 2,329 were described as new. An enthusiastic collector, he greatly enriched the collection of insects of the Muscum during his period of office.

Of other workers on Coleoptera, E. W. Ferguson, who died in 1927, com- municated papers to the Society in 1914 and 1915; H. J. Carter contributed several papers to the Transactions during 1913 to 1919, and Albert H. Elston during 1919 to 1929,

In the order Lepidoptera, Edward Meyrick, a world famous authority of this order, collected in South Australia during 1882; he published a list of South Australian species in the Transactions for the following year. In 1890 he com- menced a long series of papers on Australian Lepidoptera, which appeared in the Transactions at intervals until 1907.

Dr, Alfred Jefferis Turner, another authority of the Lepidoptera, began com- mutiicating papers on Australian species to the Society in 1894; his papers appeared in the Transactions at intervals until 1933.

Oswald b. Lower, a resident of Adelaide, worked particularly on the Lepidoptera of South Australia. A number of papers under his name appear in the Transactions during 1892 to 1923. Lower died in 1925,

Other contributors to the Transactions, on Lepidoptera, were C. A. Wilson (1865), W. H. Gaze (1881), M. E. Guest (1882-1887), and N. B. Tindale (1922- 1923), Tepper refers to several collectors in the State, but they do not appear to have published their observations. These names include Bathurst, Behr, Odewahn, Jung and Waterhouse.

In the remaining orders of insects, our knowledge of the South Australian fauna is small. ‘epper was interested in all the orders, but gave particular attention to the Orthoptera; in recent years N, B. Tindale has dealt with certain of the families. H. Womersley, who succeeded Lea in 1932 as entomologist at the South Australian Museum, has contributed papers dealing with the apterygota of Australia; in 1932 he established species of the order Protura, for Australia, on specimens collected by D, C. Swan. In the Hymenoptera there are five papers in the Transactions by A. P. Dodd, one by AA. Girault, and two by W. M. Wheeler. It is interesting to recall that the “honey pot att,” Camponotus inflatus, was described by Sir John Lubbock in the Journ. Linn. Soc. London, from specimens sent from Adelaide in 1880. Specimens taken at Barrow’s Creek were exhibited

aX EVI

at a meeting of the Society in November of that year; this appears to be the first record for Australia, and it was stated at the meeting that only one other species of “honey pot ant” was known (from Mexico).

In the Hemiptera there are two small papers by W. M. Maskell on Coccidae, and one by J. H. Ashton on the cicadas in the South Australian Museum. During recent years W. IJ. Hale has contributed studies on aquatic Hemiptera; J. W. Evans, two papers on the Eurymelinae and Ipoinae; R. J. Tillyard, two small papers on wing venation and new species of “stone flies.” In the Presidential address to the Society in 1895, Professor Tate was able to show that 1,559 new species of insects had been described in ithe Transactions.

During the nineteenth century there was a marked development of agricul- ture in Europe and North America. Associated with this development was a definite realization of the damage to forest trees, crops and stored products, caused by the activitics of insects. Moreover, about the end of the century, it was demon- strated that certain insects were vectors of particular diseases of man and domestic animals. Beijerinck had discovered the presence of virus diseases in plants in 1889. These developments created a demand for specific information about economic species, which resulted in the appointment of official entomologists in several countries, whose duties were to study injurious insects and recommend measures for their control. In his address to the Society in 1878 Professor Tate referred to the increasing importance of entomology in this respect. In the Annual Report of the Society for 1885-1886, it is stated that the Council had made a recommendation to the Board of Governors of the Museum with regard to the formation of a collection illustrative of economic entomology in the State.

Here we have the beginnings in South Australia of what is now widely known as “Economic Entomology.” The term is a useful one, since it fixes the attention on the practical aims. Kescarch on injurious insects, however, embraces studies in all departments of entomology. The real objective is to establish exact knowledge which may be employed in the control of insects. This aspect of entomology is referred to in Europe as “applied entomology.” The development of all branches of entomology during the past half century is closely bound up with the history of applied entomology.

Locusts and other insects affected the crops of the early settlers. Fortunately, insects were not troublesome as vectors of disease to man or to his domestic animals. The numerous articles on injurious insects written by C. A. Wilson in “The Register” and “Garden and Field” show that there was a demand for this kind of information.

In 1870 Mr. T. S. Reed read a paper before the Society entitled “The Import- ance of Silk Culture as a Branch of Colonial Industry.” Successful attempts to cultivate silkworms had been made in New South Wales, and the paper discussed the possibilities of doing so in South Australia. In the following year Dr. Schomburgk gave a paper on “The Causes of the Disease of Silkworms’’; the paper dealt particularly with the discase of the caterpillars, which swept through- out silk-producing countries about 1853.

In April, 1882, C. A. Wilson presented at a meeting of the Society a copy of the important French publication on Phyllovera of the vine, by Maxime Cornu, This subject was of importance to vignerons, owing to the severe losses m vine- yards caused by this pest in Europe, and its discovery in Australia some time in the 1870's.

The Agricultural Bureau was formed in 1888. About this time Mr. Frazer Crawtord, a photolithographer in the Surveyor-General’s office, was widely known in the State for his interest in economic insects. Crawford was clected a Fellow of the Society in 1865; but his interests in entomology lay more with the habits of injurious insects. In 1886 Crawford had reported on the apple pests of the

LEV

State, and in 1890 he presented a report to the Agricultural Bureau dealing with the insect and fungus pests of the State. He was an inspector under the Vine, Fruit and Vegetable Protection Act.

Crawford’s name will live in the history of applied entomology for the part he played in the successful introduction into California, in 1889, of the ladybird, Novius cardinalis. At that time the citrus-growing industry in California was threatened owing to the cottony cushion scale (Iceryva purchasi) pest, a species which arrived there from the Australasian region. Crawford discovered a parasite fly (Lestephonus) attacking this scale insect near Adelaide. As a direct result of this, the United States Department of Agriculture sent A. Koebele to investigate the position. Koebele arrived in Adelaide in October, 1889, and together with Crawford and Tepper, visited a garden in North Adelaide where the ladybird, Novius cardinalis, was found feeding on the scale insect. Some of these beetles were sent to California, the first consignment being collected at Mannum. The predator multiplied rapidly in California, and within six months they had controlled the scale insect. When Crawford died in 1890, the Department of Agriculture of the U.S.A. paid a tribute to his help in this classical example of successful biological control.

This striking success stimulated greater interest in applied entomology in Australia. Within the next few years government entomologists were appointed to the Departments of Agriculture in the various States. In South Australia the official entomologist at the South Australian Museum determined specimens for the Department of Agriculture, and gave information and advice on injurious insects. ‘[his service appears to have been adequate for the requirements of the department, since a definite post as government entomologist was not created in this State.

In 1894 Geo. Quinn became associated with the horticultural branch of the Department of Agriculture. He published observations on various economic insects of the State in the “Journal of the Department of Agriculture,” which made its first appearance in 1897. Some years later a service of agricultural and horticultural instructors was established. These officers advise the farmer and orchardist on matters relating to the control of insect pests.

In 1924, and again in 1926, the woolly apple aphis parasite (Aphelinus mali) was introduced into South Australia from New Zealand by Mr. Quinn. This parasite became established in the apple-growing districts and now exerts a partial control over the aphis.

In 1923 T, Harvey Johnston communicated a paper to the Society dealing with the blowfly problem in Australia.

In 1929 a Department of Entomology was established at the Waite Agri- cultural Research Institute, of the University of Adelaide. Courses in entomology are given to degree students, and research is carried out on various entomological problems. In addition, an advisory service to the Department of Agriculture is provided on entomological matters, Since its inception in 1929 certain insect problems of pastures, cereals, orchard and market garden crops have been investi- gated, In addition, experimental work on the effect of climate and weather on insect abundance, including systematic field observations, has been carried on, with a view to obtaining more definite information relating to the ecology of insects in Australia.

We have seen that the entomological papers communicated to the Society have been mainly concerned with the description and classification of insects. Very little attention has been given to their structure and habits. In 1922 O. W. Tiegs communicated a comprehensive paper dealing with the structure and post-embryonic development of the Pteromalid wasp, “Nasonia,” and the physio- logy of insect metamorphosis. During recent years papers relating to the ecology

UNIS

of insects, particularly with reference to the influence of climate, have appeared in the Transactions.

With the commencement of the annual publication of the Records of the South Australian Museum in 1918, certain entomological papers by the Museum staff are now placed in that Journal. A few papers dealing with experimental work on insects have been published in recent years in the “Australian Journal of Experimental Biology and Medical Science,” an Adelaide University publication.

Although few papers dealing with the applied aspect of entomology have been published in the Transactions, the Society appears to have been kept informed of such matters affecting the State through the varied exhibits presented at its meetings. Certain of the exhibits are of interest in relation to the spread of particular insects. In 1903 Tepper exhibited specimens of “Chermes,” an aphis pest on Pinus halepensis; this insect was doubtless Pineus pint, a European species now commonly occurring on Pinus radiata, At the May meeting in 1915, Lea exhibited living pupae of Macleay’s orange butterfly (Papilio anactus), taken on citrus at Berri; this was the first record for South Australia. The species is now frequently seen in summer on the Adelaide plains, presumably having made its way down the Murray from New South Wales.

One of the important aims of natural history in a new country is that of placing on record the fauna and flora of the country. Therefore, considering the wealth of insect forms, the descriptive character of the earlier papers presented to the Society is understandable. Amateur enthusiasts have assisted greatly in the collection and recording of the insect fauna in many countries. The workers have been relatively few in South Australia and many groups of our insects remain unexplored.

There are many difficulties associated with a practical and rational system of classification of insects. Many of the earlier papers in the Transactions may appear to be a monotonous descriptive catalogue of a collection of inanimate objects. Taxonomy, however, is a useful and practical method of arranging insects. It is a valuable aid in the study of other branches of entomology; but it cannot be considered as an end in itself. Post-Darwinian developments in biology, particularly in genetics, show that the modern concept of a species embodies much more than a consideration of its external characters.

A species has been defined as a community of individuals having distinctive morphological features and habits which separate them from related communities ; they are fertile within themselves. In the absence of knowledge about habits and biology, errors in classification may readily arise: we are familiar, for instance, with examples of seasonal variation and sexual demorphism. The effect of environment on external characters in insects is often difficult to assess; in general, insects are plastic and adaptable, and the range of variation may be large. Variations due to discontinuous mutations, and the problem of convergence, all add to the difficulties of establishing the correct placing and phylogenetic relation- ship of many “species.” There is also the question of physiological races.

In order that systematic studies may be carried out efficiently today, the worker must have access to adequate collections and complete literature on the subject. The South Australian Museum has one of the richest collections of insects in Australia; it includes a large number of types. The value of the collection will be increased when the various groups have been worked out by specialists. The publication of comprehensive revisions of particular groups of insects might well be considered as an important function of a natural history museum. Research of this kind would be helpful to workers engaged more in the applied branches of entomology. Biological surveys, and the grouping of insects of the State according to their habits and environment, would enable us to understand more clearly the inter-relationship of insects in an ecological sense.

xl

An accurate record of the parasites and predators of our insects would be a valuable contribution to South Australian entomology.

During the past 20 years or so our knowledge of the biology of insects has been advanced considerably ; this is largely due to the demand for exact informa- tion about species of economic importance. There has been a big development of experimental work relating to the physiology of particular insects and their reactions to changes in the temperature and moisture in their physical environ- ment. Attempts are being made to understand the precise conditions in the physical and biotic environment which cause irregular fluctuations in insect numbers and lead to insect plagues. Investigations at the Waite Institute include experimental work relating to the effect of temperature, moisture and food on the seasonal occurrence and rate of multiplication of several species of insects of economic importance in South Australia. A knowledge of the exact conditions in the physical environment of these species, in relation to the influence of climate and weather, is an important consideration in this respect. A knowledge of the influence of competition for food, and the effect of parasites and predators is equally important.

For research in these branches of entomology more extensive equipment and laboratory facilities are required than is the case with studies in taxonomy and the natural history of insects. However, our knowledge of the insect fauna of South Australia, from the aspect of taxonomy and natural history, is still very far from complete. ‘The amateur naturalist, who is interested in insects as a hobby, can do much to extend this knowledge if he has the equipment of enthusiasm and accurate powers of observation. It was these qualities which appear to have been mainly responsible for the outstanding contributions of Charles Darwin to Biology, and of Henri Fabre to Entomology.

CENTENARY ADDRESS-NO. 6. A HUNDRED YEARS OF ZOOLOGY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

BY PROFESSOR T. HARVEY JOHNSTON

Summary

It has been a difficult task to select a suitable title for this address, which forms one of the series intended to represent our Society's contribution to the celebration of the Centenary of the State of South Australia. An attempt to survey the growth of our knowledge of the local zoology during the past century would have been too ambitious; would have necessitated far too great an amount of research; and would have been far too lengthy for the time allotted and the printing space allowed for similar addresses. It has been deemed more satisfactory to adopt the above title, as it permits one to take into account zoological work published in South Australia, whether it relates to our State or not. Excepting early references to our zoology, it excludes work relating to our fauna published elsewhere. It thus indicates more particularly what part the local organizations have played in the publication of scientific information concerning the chosen subject; and it indicates especially the important part played by our Royal Society in such work. The address is, then, largely concerned with the zoological activities of our Society and of its parent, the Adelaide Philosophical Society. It also takes into account the work of the various organisations which have directly or indirectly arisen from it-such as the Field Naturalists’ Section, the South Australian Museum, and the Ornithological Society.

whi

CENTENARY ADDRESS—No. 6. A HUNDRED YEARS OF ZOOLOGY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. By Proressor T. IlArvey Jonnston, University of Adelaide.

It has been a difficult task to select a suitable title for this address, which forms one of the series intended to represent our Society’s contribution 1o the celebration of the Centenary of the State of South Austraha. An attempt to survey the growth of our knowledge of the local zoology during the past century would have been too ambitious; would have necessitated far too great an amount of research; and would have been far too lengthy for the time allotted and the printing space allowed for similar addresses. It has been deemed more satis- factory to adopt the above title, as it permits one to take into account zoological work published in South Australia, whether it relates to our State or not. Except- ing early references to our zoology, it excludes work relating to our fauna pub- lished elsewhere. It thus indicates more particularly what part the local organisa- tions have played in the publication of scientific information concerning the chosen subject ; and it indicates especially the important part played by our Royal Society in such work, The address is, then, largely concerned with the zoological activities of our Society and of its parent, the Adelaide Philosophical Society. It also takes into account the work of the various organisations which have directly or indirectly arisen from it—such as the Field Naturalists’ Section, the South Aus- tralian Museum, and the Ornithological Society.

The title is not quite correct, because by arrangement with the Council of the Society, entomology has been excluded almost entirely and has already been dealt with by a fellow-member. Anthropology has been excluded for a similar reason, but animal (including human) physiology has been included, though only very brief notice is given to this important portion of experimental zoology. It has been difficult to draw the line when one has attempted to review the activities of such a publication as the Australian Journal of Experimental Biology and Medical Science, since Physiology, Serology, Pathology, and some aspects of Biochemistry and Bacteriology may be interrelated. Palaeontology has been taken into account in the case of Tertiary and Post-tertiary forms, which are chiefly molluses, brachiopods, polyzoa, echinoids, corals, and foraminifera. The papers relating to marsupials found in Post-tertiary deposits are mentioned.

Various short references and identifications of zoological interest, by Tate and others, contained in the earlier volumes of our Transactions, are not con- sidered in this address, nor are records and notes contained in the Abstract of | Proceedings of the various meetings of our Society.

Though the State’s history did not begin until late in 1836, some of its zoology was then already known, and brief references may now be made to some of these early records, Flinders discovered Kangaroo Island in March 1802, and in his account, “Voyage to Terra Australis,” published in 1814, he referred to the abundance of kangaroos, some of which furnished fresh meat for his men, and on that account he gave the island its present name, This animal is usually regarded as Macropus (or Thylogale) eugeniu, which Desmarest described, in 1817, from a specimen taken on St. Peter Island, Nuyt’s Archipelago. Wood Jones, though accepting and applying the name, thought the specific identity of the wallabies from these two isolated insular localities, to be unlikely. Flinders, in 1802, collected on Flinders Island, Investigator Group, specimens of a very small wallaby, regarded by Wood Jones in 1924 as a distinct form, Thylogale

lit

flindersi. He reported the presence at one or more of the localities visited by him—Fowler’s Bay, St. Peter Island (Nuyt’s Archipelago), Denial Bay, Thistle Island, Port Lincoln district, Gulf St. Vincent, and Kangaroo Island—of the following animals:—teal and other ducks, kangaroos, seals, emu or cassowary, pelicans, pied shags, sea-eagle, gulls, sea pie (? Daption), snakes, rays, oysters and winged freshwater insects. He recorded seeing the tracks of dogs (dingo, probably) and of the emu or cassowary on the mainland (Fowler’s Bay). The extraordinary tameness of kangaroos and seals on Kangaroo Island was regarded as evidence that iC was uninhabited by man. He published an illustration of a beach on the island near Kangaroo Head, showing seals of two different sizes, several wallabies or kangaroos, and two emus.

Very soon after Flinders’ visit to these regions, which subsequently became part of the colony of South Australia, Baudin, with the French ships “Gceographe” and ‘“Naturaliste,” arrived at Kangaroo Island (which he renamed Ile Decrés) in April, 1802; and again in January, 1803. Accompanying him as zoologist was Peron, who made extensive collections during a month’s sojourn there, and wrote an account of his experiences in his “Voyage de Decouvertes aux Terres Aus- trales,” vol. ii (1816). Peron reported the occurrence on Kangaroo Island of parrakcets, cockatoos, titmouse (with a collar of ultramarine blue), fly-catchers, bullfinch (with red tail feathers), thrushes, golden-winged pigeons, owl, white vulture, yellow-throated pelicans with black and white wings, terns, oyster catchers, sea eagle, teal, Procellaria spp., and great flocks of emus. He referred to the presence of two kinds of kangaroos, Dasyurus, hair and fur seals (Otaria), and various lizards, and stated that Kangaroo Island had enriched his collection by 336 different species of crustacea, spiders, Julus, centipedes, insects, worms and zoophytes; there being 54 new species of insects in 33 different gencra, 26 species of sponges, two of scorpions, etc. Sotme of these organisms were designated generically. Pina, the oyster, and Haliotis were also mentioned. Fish were referred to and included Labrus, Scomber, Scombresox, Coryphaena, barracouta, trumpet fish, Balistes, etc.; and he mentioned the abundance of a large species of shark, 15 to 20 fcet in length, in Nepean Bay, where it probably fed on seals. The collection was studied by various investigators, amongst whom were Latreille (1817, insects), Dumeril and Bibron (reptiles) and Lamarck (1818, molluscs). Mr. B, Cotton has shown me a specimen of a chiton, Ischno- chiton lineolatus (Blainv.), now the property of the South Australian Museum, bearing in Peron’s handwriting the locality “Ile King,” this shell being actually on board when Baudin and Flinders (accompanied by the celebrated botanist, Robert Brown) met on the French vessel, “Le Geographe,” in Encounter Hay, April 8, 1802. This interesting and historic specimen was obtained through the kind offices of Mons. Dupuis (formerly Conchologist at the Brussels Museum) and of Mr. i”. Ashby, one of our members.

Peron recorded seeing numerous emus (“casoars”) and published an illustra- tian showing a group of them. Baudin named a locality near Cape Borda, Ravine de Casoars. Three living specimens of this small emu were taken to France and, ultimately, two reached the Paris Museum, while the third, according to Giglioli (“Nature,” May 31, 1900), is now in the Zoological Museum in Florence. The species, which soon became extinct through the activities of the sealers and their aboriginal consorts some years prior to the official settlement of the island in 1836 (according to Moore in 1924), was regarded as Dromaeus ater Vieillot. But this term was really a renaming of 2), novdehollandiac, the larger form inhabiting the mainland ; consequently, Rothschild in 1907 designated it D. peroni, and separated it specifically from the small emus (also now extinct) which occurred on King Island (D. minor Spencer, or D, spenceri Mathews) and in Tasmania (D.

wliti

diemensis LeSouef). The literature regarding the Kangaroo Island emu was summarised by Howchin in 1926. Mathews, in 1912, suggested that D. peront was generically distinct from the mainland form and erected Peronista to receive it. It is represented in Australian collections by skeletal fragments taken mainly from caves,

An American whaling vessel visited Kangaroo Island in 1803, and a few sealers and escaped convicts took up their abode there soon afterwards, and supplied salt, seal skins and kangaroo skins to small ships from Sydney and else- where, which called there occasionally for cargo and fresh water. Captain Dillon, in 1832, reported that he had visited Kangaroo Island in 1815, and had taken away a cargo of seal skins, 500 from the island and 100 from Althorpe Island; he also recorded the presence of abundance of kangaroos, emus and porcupines (7.e., Echidna), Captain G, Sutherland gave a brief report on his stay of about seven months in the island in 1819, and mentioned the presence of abundant kangaroos and emus, hair and fur seals, whales, porcupines, parrots, wild pigeons, black swans, ducks, snakes, guanas (apparently Varanus), snapper, sharks, and oysters; but his report was not published till 1831. Captain Goold was there in 1827 for seals and recorded the presence of kangaroos and turtles resembling hawksbills. Wootton visited the island in 1823 and referred to the kangaroos. Though sealing played an important part in the early history of the island, a critical examination of our seals was not undertaken until 1925, when Wood Jones endeavoured to remove the confusion associated with their identification. Whaling operations were carried on in the vicinity of Kangaroo Island by Pemberton as early as 1803. Hudson (1832) recorded seeing numerous whales there and mentioned that 160 were observed in one day in Encounter Bay—chiefly the black whale (7.¢., Balaena australis), but the sperm whale was also represented. Hamborg visited Port Lincoln in May, 1832, and reported that whaling had been in operation during the preceding three seasons (1.¢., 1829-31) and that the black whale was common, but that sperm whales were rarely met with. Ie referred to the abundance of seals and fish, mentioning amongst the latter, grey mullet, red mullet, soles, mackerel, herrings, snapper, jewfish, salmon, trumpeters, parrot fish, rock cod, and sting-ray; in addition to turtles, oysters, mussels and cockles. Hart visited Kangaroo Island in 1831, and obtained 150 seal skins and 12,000 wallaby skins from the islanders.

Sturt, in volume 2 of his work, “Two Expeditions into the Interior of Southern Australia during 1828, 1831,” etc., published in 1833, referred to the abundance of swans, pelicans, ducks and geese (p. 171), as well as cockles (p. 170) in the Encounter Bay district, and also to a kind of salmon entering Lake Alexandrina, apparently from the sea (p. 236). In an Appendix, he gave a list of fossils (molluscs, echinoids and polyzoa) from the Murray cliffs. In an Appendix to his later work, “Narrative of an Expedition into Central Australia, 1844-5-6” (vol. 2, 1849), he published a list of the “animals and birds of Central Australia,” and referred to fossils, fish, etc.

In the “Hobart Town Gazette,” of June 12, 1826, there is an article on “Kangaroo Island and the Runaways (i.¢., escaped convicts) in the Straits,” in which reference is made to kangaroos, seals and scaling, cockatoos, etc. This short account was republished by T. Gill in 1909, together with a letter dated September 14, 1836, from one of the earliest of the new settlers on Kangaroo Island, also referring to sealers and scaling, Fisher visited the island in 1836 and mentioned seeing parrots, black cockatoos, gulls, black snake, and periwinkles.

This State was founded as a British Province in 1836, and whaling stations were established in Encounter Bay (1837), Sleaford Bay (1839), Thistle Island (1839), and Hog Bay (1841). The difficulty of indicating a locality for many

aliv

of the earlier-described South Australian animals is due to the former use of the term “New Ilolland” for the eastern half of Australia, and of “South Australia” for any locality along the southern coast of the continent. Then again, because the Northern Territory was for so long a part of South Australia, and its main collections were lodged in the Museum in Adelaide, some specimens from the north of Australia came to be indicated as having been collected in South Australia, :

W. H. Leigh, in “Reconnoitering Voyages and Travels in South Australia” (London, 1840), mentioned various forms of animal life met with in Kangaroo Island during his visit in 1837—opossum, kangaroo, wallaby, Norway rat (which had overrun the island), birds (including mutton birds), guano (= goanna—his account suggesting Varanus sp), snakes, ants, blowflies, spider, scorpion, cray- fish and oysters. T. H. James, in ‘Six Months in South Australia” (London, 1838), mentioned seeing “sooty petrels” and “barnacle geese” at Petrel Bay, near St, Francis Island, and stated that Port Lincoln was a resort for black whales during June, July and August.

Capper, in 1838 and 1839, refcrred to many forms of animal life, mention- ing the native dog, five kinds of kangaroos, two or three kinds of flying squirrel, two opossums, bandicoot, emu, black swan, two or three kinds of ducks, several pigeons, snipes, plovers, quails, wild turkey, parrots, cockatoos ; also fish such as snappers, bream, mullet, whiting; rock and bed oysters, and prawns. Whales were abundant. Various arthropods were also mentioned— scorpions, centipedes, tarantulas, flies (stated to be very troublesome and abundant), mosquitoes and locusts.

W. H. Selway, one of the oldest members, in his jubilee address to the Field Naturalists’ Section of our Society, drew attention to the following ttem of interest. J. Blacket, in his “History of South Australia,’ stated that in December, 1838, there was formed, in Adelaide, the Natural History Society of South Australia, the chief worker being an entomologist, C, A. Wilson, who con- tributed under the pen-name of “Naturae amator” weekly notes on natural history subjects to the “South Australian Register.”

Dr. Litchfield gave a lecture on the natural history of South Australia, and this appeared in the local Press in 1839, being republished in London in 1840, He referred to the outstanding characters of marsupials and mentioned the kangaroo, Phascolomys, “potaro” (ie., rat kangaroo), “peramle” (2.¢., Perameles, bandi- coot), “phalangers, Dasyurus or native dog |the description being apparently that of the Tasmanian wolf and not the dingo], vulture, cream-bellied falcon, orange- speckled hawk, milk-white hawk, owls (his description applying to the boobook owl), parrots, cockatoos, paraquets, cassowary or emu, black swan, heron, wild turkey, bronzewing pigeon, enormous whales, seals, dolphins, sea serpents, huge cuttle fish, and Nautilus.”

On November 26, 1839, there was exhibited at a meeting of the Zoological Society of London (P.Z.S., 1839, 172) a collection of marine specimens from Kangaroo Island, forwarded by Dr. J. B. Harvey, In the following year the latter (1841) wrote “A Sketch of the Natural History of Port Lincoln” in the South Australian Magazine, vol. 1, and referred to various mammals generically as Sorex, Mustela, Nasira (apparently meant for Nasua), Myorus (all of these obviously in error); and to others as Phascolomys, Macropus, Dasyurus, etc.; also to three species of Phoca, two of them being hair seals and one a fur seal; and to various Cetaceans (Delphinus, Physeter, Balaena, Grampus, finback, and thresher). The house mouse, Mus musculus, and the brown rat, Mus decumanus, were stated to occur there. The wild dog (ie., dingo) was referred to as Hyaena viatica, These various identifications were reviewed in 1909 by Zietz.

aly

In addition to Harvey’s article, several others of a zoological nature appeared in the South Australian Magazine, vols. 1 (1841-2) and 2 (1842). There is a review of Gould’s Birds of Australia, Part 1 (1841) and his descriptions of two South Australian birds, Trichoglossus porplyriocephalus and Pedionomus torquatus, are republished. Hart referred incidentally to the whale fishery at Encounter Bay. Bentham described Port Lincoln and its neighbourhood, referring to the oysters; the abundance of Cape geese (i.e., Cape Barren geese), kangaroos, wild ducks and seals; the mutton birds (z.e., Puffinus spp.), whose eggs were used as food; and the prevalence of whales and whalers (1841). Wilson, under the name “Naturae amator,” published a series of “Notes on the Natural History of South Australia’; Nos. 1 and 2 in 1841 and Nos. 3 to 7 in 1842, but most of them dealt with insects, the remainder referring to native birds, seashore shells, whales and porpoises. As already mentioned, Wilson contributed a number of articles on the local entomology to “The South Australian Register” in 1841. This active entomologist published in the “Farm and Garden” (an Adelaide monthly) vols. ii to v (1859 to 1863), a number of articles on injurious insects; and in Proc. Ent. Soc., London, 1864, “Notes on the Entomology of South Australia.”

In the Adelaide Miscellany, vol. i (1848), Davis published three entomological articles, and in vol. 1 (1849) others dealing with snakes, fish and scashore molluses, as well as a “Naturalist’s Calendar,” giving the date of appearance of various birds, insects and blossoms.

In 1845 there appeared Eyre’s “Journal of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia, etc., 1840-41.” Tt contained appendices (vol. 1) by Gray deal- ing with a bat, reptiles, frog, crayfish, a mollusc and a Spatangoid; Richardson on fish; White on insects; Gould on birds; and Doubleday on Lepidoptera,

In 1846, G. R. Waterhouse published his “(Natural History of Mammalia,” vol. i, “Marsupiata,” and in it referred to various South Australian species, including Macropus fuliginosus (Desmarest, 1820), whose locality is quoted (?) Kangaroo Island; Lagorchestes leporoides, described by Gould (P.Z.S., 1840) from the plains of the Lower Murray (South Australia), and Macropus greyi Gray (List of Mammals Brit. Mus., 1843), based on a specimen sent by Governor Grey. In 1847 Angas published figures of local kangaroos and insects in his “South Australia [ustrated.”

Francis wrote a series of articles on Australian mammals and birds in “The Farm and Field,” vols. iv and v, published in Adelaide, 1861-1863. Gould referred to some South Australian birds in his great Monograph (1848) and Handbook (1865), and to some mammals in his work on the “Mammals of Australia” (1863). Ile had previously described marsupials in 1840, and a rodent (Leporillus apicalis) in 1851. Krefft dealt with some vertebrates from the Lower Murray in Tr. Phil. Soc., N.S.W., 1865; and with our snakes in his book “On oF Snakes of Australia” (1869). Sclater referred to some of our mammals in 1865. '

An account of McDouall Stuart’s ‘Explorations across the Continent of Australia, 1861--2,” was published in Melbourne in 1863; and his “Explorations in Australia . . .” (1858 to 1862), published in London in 1864. ‘The latter work contains appendices by Gould on the birds (the account appearing also in P.Z.S., 1861) ; Angas and Adams on Molluscs (also in P.Z.S., 1863) ; and Pfeiffer on a land snail. A report by F. G. Waterhouse on the fauna and flora of the region traversed by the expedition appeared as a South Australian Parliamentary Paper in 1863.

Angas published a number of papers relating to South Australian mollusca in P.Z.S., 1865, 1868, 1871, 1873, 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1878; Baird referred to some of our polychaetes in his papers in the Jour. Linn, Soc. (Zool.), London, 1864-1870; Milne-Edwards to Crustacea in 1840; C. S. Bate to amphipods in

alvi

1862; Duncan to Tertiary corals and echinoderms (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 1864, 1865, and Q. J. Geol. Soc., 1877); Laube to Tertiary echinoids (S.B. Akad., Wien, 1869). Parker and Jones wrote on Foraminifera from the Mount Gambier Polyzoal limestones (Q.J., Geol. Soc., 1860); Tenison Woods on various Ter- tiary deposits (T. Phil. Inst. Vict., 1859; Q.J., Geol. Soc., 1860; T.R.S., Vict., 1865), molluscs (T.R.S., Vict., 1877), Polyzoa (J.R.S., N.S.W., 1877), Echinoids (P.L.S., N.S.W., 1877), and Corals (P.L.S., N.S.W., 1878); Busk on Polyzoa from Mount Gambier (1860); Etheridge on our Tertiary Brachiopods (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 1876), Post-tertiary Foraminifera and Ostracoda (Geol, Mag., 1876), as well as Tertiary Polyzoa (J.R.S., N.S.W., 1877); Gray on lizards (1867); Cox on land shells (1868), and on Volutes (1872); and Brazier on molluscs (1872, 1875).

Waterhouse’s “Classified Catalogue of mammals and birds met with in South Australia” appeared in W. Harcus’ “South Australia” in 1876. Castelnau described many of our fishes in Pr. Zool. Acclim. Soc., Victoria, vols. 1 (1872) and ii (1873). Andrews contributed a report on the fauna, fossils, etc., of Lewis’s Exploring Expedition (appearing as a S.A. Parliamentary Paper in 1876) ; and published a series of ten articles entitled ‘‘Notes on the Zoology of South Australia” in the South Australian Chronicle (1877). Tate wrote on our Ter- tiary Belmnites (Q.J., Geol. Soc., 1877) and our Tertiary Ostracods and Foram- inifera (Geol. Mag., 1877).

These dates bring us forward to the time when the Royal Society of South Australia began its career, but it would now be advisable to consider the contribu- tions to zoological knowledge made through its predecessor, the Adelaide Philo- sophical Society, which was founded in January, 1853. Its first Report (January, 1854) stated that “matters directly relating to the natural history of the colony have been the subject of occasional discussions at the meetings . . . Intimately connected . . . is the formation of a Museum for the preservation of specimens illustrative of the natural history of the colony.” Of the ten papers read in 1853 and published in abstract, three were zoological—one by Hammond dealing with the structure and uses of the hand; one by Wilson on the saltatorial motions of animals; and one by Bompas on the nervous system of invertebrates. Of the nine papers abstracted in the second Report (January, 1855), three were zoo- logical—by Wilson, on the saltatorial power of animals (Part 2); by Gosse, on respiration; and by Bompas on the circulation of blood. The third Report (1856) stated that the Council had most unwillingly been forced to decline natural history specimens because of the delay in establishing a Public Institute on account of the financial state of the Colony. Two of the nine papers abstracted were—one by Davis on human spontaneous combustion; and one by Little on the supposed footprints of a gigantic saurian. ‘The fourth Report (1857) referred to the estab- lishment of the South Australian Institute and contained abstracts of two zoo- lagical papers—both by Wilson, one dealing with the raptorial power of animals, and the other with wood boring insects of the State. In the fifth Report (1858) referetice was made again to the need for a Museum, and the hope was expressed that the governors of the South Australian Institute would obtain parliamentary authority to proceed with its establishment. The report contained an abstract of two papers on mesmerism. Reports from the seventh to the eleventh, inclusive, are not available to me, and it seems probable that these were not published; but in 1862 Francis read before the Society a paper on the acclimatisation of plants and animals, this being published in the same year. The twelfth Report (1865) mentioned the titles of several zoological papers read, but of the nine published three, written by Tenison Woods, were zoological and dealt with the molluscs atid brachiopods of the Tertiary rocks of the State; while the next Report (1866) included a paper on the Tertiary echinoids, by the same author. In the fourteenth

sly

Report (1867) there is a short paper by Waterhouse on Stylops; while the fifteenth (1869) and sixteenth (1870) contain no articles of zoological interest. The seventeenth (1871) included a paper by Lloyd on the camel in South Aus- tralia; and two papers relating to silkworm culture, one by Reed, and the other by Schomburgk. ‘The eighteenth Report (1872) covered the work of two years (1871, 1872) and included a paper by Rutt om the flight of birds, considered with reference to aerial navigation; and one by the Chief Justice, Sir R, Hanson, on the theory of evolution.

As far as known to me, the Philosophical Society did not add much original research work in Zoology apart from that of Tenison Woods. It was the appoint- meut of Ralph Tate to the newly-established chair of Natural Science in the University of Adelaide, which led to the founding of the Royal Society on the foundation of the moribund Philosophical Society, and to a greatly awakened interest in scientific research.

Tate was especially interested in Botany and in the Mollusca, and also devoted much attention to Geology and Palaeontology. He was elected to be the first President of the reorganised Philosophical Society, which two years later altered its natne to Royal Society, and his presidential address was of a very high order and appears as the first paper in our Transactions. That address referred, in part, to Australian Zoology generally, but made special reference to South Australia where possible, mentioning Waterhouse’s Classified Catalogue of our mammals and birds (1876) Krefft’s book on Australian snakes (1869); Angas’ list of all known South Australian species of marine mollusca (1865); Bednall’s list of our marine shells (1874) ; as well as others. The various groups of our insects were also reviewed, ‘Tate’s address made an excellent beginning for the new publica- tion and set a very high standard, which was reflected in the other papers which comprise Volume I of our Transactions. Tate also took a leading part in found- ing the Field Naturalists’ Section of our Society.

The other name which stands in the forefront of scientific activity on the zoological side in South Australia is that of Sir Joseph Verco, a pillar and benefactor of our Society, and for eighteen consecutive years its active President. His obituary notice appears in our volume for 1933. To him we owe largely our endowment fund, which has been of such assistance to the Society in publishing scientific work, Verco was himself an ardent worker in Conchology, especially after Tate’s death, and carried out extensive dredging along the continental shelf from Beachport to Fremantle, his material (other than molluscs) being distributed to other investigators for study and report. His work on behalf of our Society was recognised by the institution of the Verco Medal for Research. He took a very important part in the medical life and in medical education in this State, and by his generous gift to the University of Adelaide was instrumental in placing on a sound financial footing the Australian Journal of Experimental Biology and Medical Science. This serial, issued in four parts annually by the University, is an avenue for the publication of high-class papers on experimental work in physiology, zoology, botany, bacteriology, etc.

Tt is not proposed to enter into any detail regarding the various zoological papers appearing in our Transactions, but rather to group them and to indicate after the author’s names the years (in abbreviated form) in which the volumes containing their contributions appeared. This arrangement will provide ready reference to the papers dealing with any particular group of organisms. Figures in parenthesis following the year indicate the number of papers on the subject published by the author in our volume in that year,

The Presidential Addresses appearing in our Transactions and having a definitely zoological interest are those given by Tate (78, 80, 95), Stirling (90,

xlotit

on Weissmann’s theory of heredity), Rennie (03, on the Fisheries of Australia), and Howchin (97, on Foraminifera).

As would be expected, the mammalia have received considerable attention. Stirling published a number of papers relating to the marsupial mole, Notoryctes typhlops [89, 91 (2), 94]; while Wilson (94) and Elliot Smith (95) described the myology and brain, respectively. Wood Jones contributed a series of short papers dealing with the external features of the pouch embryos of marsupials [20, 21, 22, 23 (3), 24 (2)], as well as many others relating to the morphology and classification of marsupials, rodents, seals, dingo, ete, [21, 22, 23, 24 (2), 25, 27]. Finlayson has taken up the study of the Australian mammalian fauna and has published a number of papers on structure and especially habits |27, 30 (2), 31 (2), 32 (2), 33 (3), 34, 35 (2)]. His rediscovery of the long-lost Caloprymnus campestris Gould, is noteworthy (31, 32). Other contributors are Zietz (90, List of South Australian Cetacea; 92, List of our wallabies and kan- garoos; 06), Stirling (99, Phascolonus), Stirling and Zietz (93, Elder Expedi- tion, mammals), Haacke (84), and Waite (14, 15, 17).

Information regarding birds was published by Stirling and Zietz [93, Elder Expedition; 96 (2), fossil Struthious bird from Lake Callabonna], Zietz (00, 11), White (14, 15, 17), Morgan (97, 98), North (98), Hall (00), Andrews [83 (2)], Ashby (01, 29), Cleland (23), and Wood Jones (26). Lea examined the stomach contents of birds (14, 15, 17, 23) and his work has been continued by Gray, but the results have been published in the “Emu.”

Reptiles have received attention from Zietz [88 (2), 99, 14, 15, 17], Stirling and Zietz (93), Stirling (12), Tepper (82), Proctor (23), and Waite (97, 14, 15, 17, 23, 27). Waite wrote on amphibians (14, 27). Papers dealing with fish were published by Zietz [02, 08 (3), 09], Waite (14, 15, 16, 23), and McCulloch and Waite [15 (2), 16, 17]; while Rennie (1903) discussed Australian fisherics. The only paper on Tunicata is that by Whittell (83),

The Mollusca have received a great deal of space in our Transactions—due largely to the energy and particular interest of Tate, Verco and Ashby. The following list includes papers on Tertiary as well as Recent molluscs, and in some casts Brachiopoda are also included. Tate’s contributions number about 43, dis- tributed between 1878 and 1900. They were published as follows :—78 (2), 79, 80 (3), 81, 82 (2), 86, 87 (5), 88, 89 (4), 90, 91 (2), 92 (2), 93 (3), 94 (3), 95, 98 (3), 99 (5), 00 (2). Tate and May (00). Verco’s twenty-four papers on Mollusca appeared in 95 (2), 96, 04, 05, 06 (2), 07 (3), 08 (2), 09 (3), 10, 11 (2), 12 (3), 13 (2), 18. Ashby published twenty-six papers on the Polyplacophora (Loricata) in our volumes, as follows :—00, 18 (3), 19 (3), 20 (3), 21 (2), 22 (2), 23 (4), 24 (3), 26, 28 (2), 29, 30, as well as one in collaboration with Torr (98). Torr also published papers on the same group in 1911 and 1912. Other papers on Mollusca were those of Dennant (89, 94), Matthews (14), Riddle (15, 20), Woods (31), Bednall (78, 86, 93), Brazier (87), Cossmann (97), Torr (14), Basedow (02, 05), Basedow and Hedley (05), Hedley (05), and Maughan (00—on chitons).

Brachiopods received attention from Tate (80, 86, 87), Dennant (89), and Verco (10), The Polyzoa (Bryozoa) were studied by Tenison Woods (80), MacGillivray (89, 90), and Stach (36).

The arthropods occupy a preponderating part of our Transactions, largely because of the work of such entomologists as Blackburn, Lea, Tepper, Lower, Turner and many others, but these have been dealt with by Dr. Davidson (1936) in his address. There are no papers in our voltines dealing with Myriapoda; only one on scorpions (Glauert, 25); five on acarincs—Planks (16), Holdaway (26), Hirst (29) and Womersley [33 (2)]+ and six on spiders—Hogge (10), Rainbow (15, 17) and Pulleine (14, 19, 22), The lower Crustacea have received

awlix

no attention in our Transactions, except in part of a paper by Chilton (17). The higher forms have been studied more especially by Baker and by Hale. Baker’s papers appeared in 04, 05 (2), 06, 07, 08, 10, 11, 13, 14, 26 and 28: and those of Hale in 24 (2), 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 (2). Other contributions are those of Zietz (88), Tate (83), Rathbun (29), and Chilton [17 (2), 22 (2)).

The Annulata received little attention in our volumes, there being two papers on Hirudinea, viz: by Leigh Sharpe (16) and Mrs, Best (31) ; and one on Poly- chaeta by Ashworth (16).

Helminthology was responsible for several papers, as follows :—Haematozoa of birds, by Cleland and Johnston (10), and by Cleland (15); Linguatula by Johnston (10), Trematoda by Johnston (27, 29, 34) ; Cestoda by Davies Thomas (83, hydatid disease), and Johnston (35) ; parasitic Nematoda by Johnston (21, 36), and Bull (19); Acanthocephala by Johnston and Deland [29 (2)]. The various endoparasites of Trachysaurus were discussed by Johnston (32). The life-history of the nematode, Habronema, was studied experimentally by Bull (19). Cleland (22) published a list of ecto- and endoparasites recorded from Australian birds.

The Echinodermata have formed the subject of papers by Tenison Woods (79, Echinoids), Tate (82, 91, 92, Echinoids), Joshua and Creed (15, Holothu- rians), and Mortensen (29, Echinoids)..

The Coelenterata, apart from Corals, have not received attention in our Transactions. The chief worker was Dennant, who published between 1899 and 1906 his papers on Tertiary and recent corals—99 (2), 01, 02 (2), 03, 04 (2), 06. Others were Tenison Woods (78, 80), Tate (78), and Howchin (09), the last- named giving a bibliography for each of the twenty-four recent species recorded as occurring in South Australian waters. The Porifera are not represented by any papers in our volumes.

The Protozoa, apart from the Foraminifera and a few parasitic species, have also failed to secure representation. The Foraminifera have been specially studied by Howchin whose papers relate chiefly to Tertiary and Post-tertiary forms, but one of them deals with the estuarine species identified from the Port River (90). Howchin’s papers were published in 86, 89, 90, 91 (2), 92, 93, 95 (2), 97, 99, and 15. Schlumberger contributed one in 1891. The parasitic protozoa are represented in papers on Haematozoa of birds, by Cleland and Johnston (10), and by Cleland (15); and on the protozoon entozoa of the stumpy-tailed lizard, Trachysaurus, by Johnston (32).

Ecological papers, based on entomological problems, have been published by Johnston (23, 26) and Davidson [34 (2), 35, 36]; Tiegs (22) contributed an excellent account of the embryology of an insect.

Amongst miscellaneous papers which might be classed satisfactorily under animal physiology, are those by Tiegs [22, 23 (2)]; and Robertson (05) on muscular action ; Cleland on blood grouping (27) and on the sizes of the red blood cells of Australian vertebrates (15); and Robertson (20) on the physiology of the fly’s intestine. The last-named author also published, in 1910, an address on recent experiments in chemical fertilization of animal eggs.

Zoological reports relating to the Elder Expedition appeared in 1892-96. Those of Captain White’s Expedition to Central Australia to the east of the present railway to Alice Springs (1914), White's Expedition (with R. L. Jack) to the Musgrave and Everard Ranges (1915), and the South Australian Museum’s Expedition (under Waite) to the east of lake Eyre (1917) appeared in the volumes indicated by the dates mentioned, The fauna of the Nuyts and Investi- gator Groups has been studied by Wood Jones and colleagues (19-23). Tate investigated the natural history of the region around the head of the Great Aus- tralian Bight (1879), and of Kangaroo Island (1883).

I

The Memoirs of our Society contain important papers dealing with fossil animals from Lake Callabonna:—Stirling and Zietz on Diprotodon (99), Phas- colomys or Phascolonus (13) and Genyornis (00, 05, 13). Cretaceous molluscs and brachiopods were reported on by Etheridge (02) ; and the Cambrian Archaeo- cyathinae by Taylor (10).

The Records of the South Australian Museum appeared first in 1918 and contain many zoological articles, but in the following account those on Entomology are omitted.

Cetacea were responsible for reports by Waite (19, 26, 22) and Hale [31 (3), 32]. Wood Jones contributed papers on rabbit bandicoots (23), jerboa mice (25) and the eared seals (25). Reptiles received attention from Waite [18 (2), 25]. Waite and Longman (20), Zictz (20), and Kinghorn (35), the last-named referr- ing also to Amphibia (35). Fish were described or recorded by Waite [21 (2), 22 (2), 24, 27], McCulloch and Waite [18 (2)], Whitley (35), and Hale (35). One of Waite’s papers is a very important onc, being an illustrated catalogue of South Australian fish, this report becoming the basis of his Handbook on our Fishes, published later for the British Science Guild.

The Crustacea are represented in papers by Hale [24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 36 (2)], Baker (26), Tattersall (27, 28), and Sheard [36 (3)|. Rainbow (2) contributed a paper on spiders; atid Womersley two on Acarina (34, 35).

The various groups of Mollusca are responsible for many papers :—Verco (22, 24), Verco and Cotton (28), Berry (21), Ashby and Cotton (35, 36), Cotton [30 (3), 31, 32, 34, 35, 36 (2)], Cotton and Woods (33, 35), Howchin and Whitehouse (28, Crioceras).

Other phyla represented are the Echinodermata by an important paper by Lyman Clark on Crinoids, Asteroids, Ophiuroids, and Echinoids (28); the Bryozoa, by Livingstone (28) ; and the Trematoda by Johnston (28).

Crawford published a number of short entomological articles in “Garden and Field,” vols. vi to xi, as well as in P.R. Agr. Hort. Soc. S. Aust., 1881-1884. In the latter journal there were also articles written by him on car-cockle of wheat, due to the Nematode, Anguillula tritici (1881) ; and on the Mite, Phytoptus pyri (1882).

The Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science held three meetings in Adelaide—in 1893, 1907 and 1924, the respective volumes being published there in 1894 (vol. v), 1908 (vol. xi) and 1926 (vol. xvii). They all contain papers of zoological interest. The volume for 1893 includes two papers by Howchin on fossil Foraminifera, one of them being a census of those known from Australia, the list beng composed mainly of species from the Tertiary and Post-tertiary. Both Hedley and Blackburn dealt with aspects of the distribution of the Australian fauna; Campbell gave an account of the eggs of Australian Charadriid birds; and Dendy contributed a short paper on the land Planarians of Tasmania and South Australia. Barnard and Park drew attention to worm tumours, due to Spiroptera (now known as Onchocerca gibsoni), occurring in Queensland cattle. The presidential address to the Biology Section was given by De Vis and entitled “Life.” Tn the Handbook issued in Adelaide in connection with this meeting, Waterhouse published (1893) “The Fauna of South Australia,” which was a list of the mammals and birds.

The report for 1907 includes a paper by Hedley and Taylor dealing with Queensland Coral Reefs, and one by the latter on the Archaeocyathinae. Brails- ford Robertson gave an account of recent advances in our knowledge of protein salts and of their role in biological phenomena. Berry described a teratological lamb and offered a developmental explanation of the monstrosity. Cleland made

hi

remarks on the natural history and diseases of rats from the vicinity of Perth and Fremantle, The presidential address by Maiden to the Biology Section, though not concerned with Zoology, may be mentioned because it is of special interest to this State; it was entitled “A Century of Botanical Endeavour in South Australia.”

The volume for 1924 contains a presidential address by Agar on some problems of evolution and genetics; a paper by Chapman and Crespin dealing with Miocene fossils (chiefly Mollusca) from Western Australia; an entomological one by Froggatt ; one by Longman on the uniqueness of the Australian fossil mar- supials; and one by Ashby dealing with the regional distribution of Australian chitons, The Handbook published in Adelaide for the use of members at this Adelaide meeting (1924) contains brief articles on the marsupials by Wood Jones ; reptiles and batrachians by Waite; birds by Morgan; insects by Lea; marine fauna and fishes by Waite; Crustacea by Hale; and Mollusca by Verco.

The Field Naturalists’ Section of our Society was founded in 1883, largely through the influence of Tate, who became its first Chairman, with Whittell and Howchin as the two Vice-chairmen. In 1919 the South Australian Naturalist began its career. The history of the Section during the first fifty years of its existence was published in it (1933) by W. Selway, one of the few surviving members. As one might expect, the scope of the publication zoologically is largely limited to local notes and observations, and consequently most of the articles appearing in it do not call for comment in an address like the present one, but there are a few which should be mentioned. Hale, Brenn, Elston, Tindale, Holdaway and others contributed papers on entomological subjects; Hale on Crustacea (25, 30); Blewett on fish (29); Hale and Blewett on the parasitic infusorian, Ichthyophthirius (31); Walton on Mollusca from Outer Harbour —an ecological paper (24); Trigg (Shell Collectors’ Club) on Mollusca (1926, etc.) ; Cotton on Mollusca (31, 33, 34) ; and especially Cotton and Godfrey who published, between 1931 and 1935, a series of fifteen well-illustrated articles con- taining descriptions of South Australian shells, Vhe forthcoming booklet, to be issued by the Section, on the fauna and flora of the National Park, Belair, contains brief reference to its animal life.

The South Australian Ornithologist commenced publication in 1914. It contains numerous papers, most of them short, and many of them giving lists of birds seen in various districts. As one would expect, the volumes consist largely of observations on bird life, but there are occasional papers by Morgan (1932, etc.) which contain some physiological or anatomical data. A few papers call for special notice. Amongst these are Sutton’s List of South Australian Birds (23); Ilowchin’s (26) interesting survey of the literature relating to the extinct emu of Kangaroo Island; Parsons’ article on the flight of birds (30); McGilp’s account of South Australian hawks (34); Condon’s identification of the albatrosses collected from our coasts (36); and Wood Jones’ record of the breeding of Puffinus gravis in Tasmania (36).

The Medical and Scientific Archives of the Adelaide Hospital, volumes 1 to xv, published annually between 1922 and 1936, all contain one or more papers relating to cases of hydatid disease met with in that institution.

The pages of the Australian Journal of Experimental Biology and Medical Science are occupied mainly by papers on some phase of Animal Physiology, but other phases of Zoology are also represented. Papers have been published relat- ing to parasitic Protozoa by Turner and Murnane [30 (2), trypanosomes; 32, Giardia]; Rickettsiatike bodies by Gordon (33); Piroplasmosis by Legg (26);

lit

cytology of certain Infusoria by Horning [25, 26 (2), 27 (3), 28, 29]; growth of Infusoria in certain culture media by Robertson [24 (2), 25,27]. The presence of Golgi bodics in Hydra was reported by Horning (28). Helminthology is represented by papers on Trematoda by Johnston [30 (2), 31, 34], and Kellaway (28, anaphylaxis and Fasciola extracts); on Cestoda by Johnston (31), Clunies Ross (27 Hydatid toxicity), Cameron (26, Hydatid enzymes), Kellaway and Williams (24, 28, Hydatid antigens); on Nematoda by Walker (24, Filarial life history), Fielding (26, 27, 28, Oayspirura life history), Heydon (27, Onchocerca), Woodruff (27, Onchocerca), Clunies Ross (31, Haemonchus), and Gordon (33, Trichostrongyles). Ecological studies based on certain insects were pub- lished by Davidson [31 (2), 32, 33 (2)]. Sex ratio in certain insects was dis- cussed by Holdaway and Smith (32, 33); and sex determination in Thrips, by Davidson and Bald (31). Mutation was observed in Lucilia by MacKerras (33). Australian snakes or their venoms were studied by Kellaway either alone or in collaboration with other workers [29 (2), 30, 31, 32 (4), 33 (2), 34 (2), 35, 36], by Holden (32, 33, 34, 35, 36), and by Thomson (30). Kellaway also investigated poisoning by mussels (35) and (with LeMessurier) the venom of the platypus (35). Duhig and Jones (28) dealt with the venom of a fish, Synanceia, Agar contributed a paper on experimental behaviour in some acarines and crustaceans (25), and also a review of the experiments relating to the inheritance of acquired characters (32). Papers on cytology were published by Horning [25, 26, 27 (3), 28, 29, 30], and Bourne (35); on tissue culture by Horning and his colleagues [29 (3)], and by Bourne (35) ; and on transplantation of tissues of chick embryos by Murray (28), and by Selby and Murray (28). Certain aspects of the physiology of aquatic organisms were studied by Dakin and Edmonds (31). Cleland dealt with blood grouping (26, 30).

Papers relating to some aspect of animal (including human) physiology, published by the following investigators singly or in collaboration with others, have appeared in the Journal. Anderson (24), Arden [34 (2)], Bollinger (32, 34, 35), Bourne [30, 34, 35 (4), 36], Cameron and Amies (26), Coates and Tiegs (28, 30, 31), Cotton [28 (2), 31, 32 (3), 35], Cox and Hicks [33 (3)], Dunn (33), Dawbarn [24, 28, 29, 32 (2)], Dickinson and Bull (31), Faul and Osborne (36), Freeman (34), Gay (32), Harker and Moppett (36), Hicks (26, 27, 31, 35), Hicks and colleagues [26, 31 32 (2), 33 (2), 34 (2), 35 (2)], [ind- marsh (27), Holden and others [28 (2), 32, 33 (2), 35], Horning (25), Hunter and Royle (24), Kellaway and colleagues [25 (2), 27], Lennox (35), Lines (32), Loeb (32), MacCallum (32), McLeod (32), Matters and others [29 (2), 34 (2)], Marston [32 (2)], Mitchell (24, 31, 36), Nord (36), Norris and others (29, 30), Osborne [24, 26, 28, 29, 30 (2), 31], Pierce (34), Robertson [26 (2), 28 (2), 29], Robertson and others [25 (2), 27, 29, 32, 33 (3), 34] Shaw [35 (2), Splatt (27), Thomas (33), Tiegs [24 (3), 25 (2), 26 (4), 27 (3), 29, 30, 32, 341, Underwood and Shier (36), Wardlaw and others [26, 28, 32 (2), 34, 35], Watson [33 (3)], Whetham (27), and Woollard (32). Papers which seem to be essentially biochemical have been omitted.

Experimental pathology is represented by papers hy Albiston (27), Burnet (28), Hill (28), Kneebone and Cleland (26), Platt (36), and Turner (35).

The Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia, South Australian Branch, contain a number of papers of greater or less zoological interest, and these may be indicated thus:—Phillipson (95, Camel in Australia), Reed [40 (2), Occonography, but the papers do not refer to Australian condi- tions], Dobbie (07, Coral islands and reefs), Mellor (09, Birds), Etheridge (18, Fossils, chiefly Brachiopoda), Hedley (18, Molluscs), Rainbow (18, Insects and arachnids), McCulloch (18, Fish and Crustacea), Briggs (18, Corals and

litt

Polyzoa)—the last five authors dealing with material collected by Basedow in North-west Australia; Mawson (21, Fauna of Macquarie Island), Mrs. Bates (21, Animal Life at Ooldea), Newland (23, Whaling at Encounter Bay), White (24, Birds of the Finke River), Hodge (32, Whaling at Encounter Bay). Gill (1909) contributed an interesting article in vol. x on his visit to historic localities in the vicinity of the entrances to our two great Gulfs. In it he republished information from Flinders’ and Peron’s accounts, as well as from various authors, including Harvey’s sketch of the natural history of Port Lincoln (1841), Zietz adding comments on the identifications. Moore, in 1924, published “Notes on the Early Settlers in South Australia Prior to 1836,” and included many references to early sealers and whalers who visited Kangaroo Island and the adjacent regions from 1803 onwards.

The volumes of the Journal of the Department of Agriculture of South Australia, i to xxxix (1897 to 1936) have been searched and the following papers (after excluding those dealing with entomology) may be noted because of their zoological interest:—On Sarcosporidiosis, by Place (17); bee disease (due to Nosema), by de Crespigny and Bull (13); plant parasitic Nematoda, by Editor (97, 99), Spafford (22), Davidson (30), Hickinbotham (30), and Garrett (34) ; endoparasites (chiefly Nematodes) affecting domesticated animals and stock, by Desmond [05 (2)], Place (12, 15, 18), Murray-Jones (14), Robin (26, 29), and McKenna (26, 33) ; Nematodes from fowls, by Laurie (10); Acarida, by Laurie (99, 13), Johnson (30), Lea (12), and Swan [34 (2)]; a series of illustrated articles on insectivorous birds, by Edquist (13); report on the distribution, migra- tory movement and control of starlings in South Australia, by Kinghorn (33) ; and on the pathology of the condition in eggs known as floating yolk, by Anderson and Platt (36).

The series of Handbooks of the Flora and Fauna of South Australia, issued by the Ilandbooks Committee of the British Science Guild (South Australian Branch) and published by the Government of this State, occupy a very important place in the record of local biological work. The various authors have prepared the manuscripts for these handbooks gratuitously, the Government setting aside a sum each year to allow of their printing and publishing by the Government Printer. Hence these books have been made available to the public at a very low cost. The committee controlling the preparation of these excellently illustrated books is a small one and its members (J. B. Cleland, J. M. Black, H. M, Hale (Editor), and T. Harvey Johnston) are all actively associated with our Royal Society.

Wood Jones dealt with the Mammals of this State, in a work issued in three parts, in 1923, 1924 and 1925, respectively, the whole account being authoritatively and interestingly written. Waite contributed the volume on fishes (1923), and (posthumously) that on reptiles and amphibia (1929). The higher crustacea have been handled in an excellent manner by Hale, whose account appeared in two parts (1927, 1929). All these works are amply illustrated and have appealed to a wide public. Other zoological handbooks are in active preparation.

The history of events leading up to the reservation, under the title of Flinders Chase, of a large tract of territory in the western portion of Kangaroo Island, as a sanctuary for the fauna and flora, was published in 1920 by 5. Dixon.

The First Intercolonial Medical Congress of Australia (1887) held its meet- ing in Adelaide. Its transactions appeared in 1888 and contain a paper on Echinococcits of the brain, by Davies Thomas; and one by Creed on fear as a factor in producing many of the alarming symptoms following the bite of Aus- tralian snakes. The Congress met again in Adelaide in 1905 for its Seventh

liv

Meeting, its publication (1906) being styled The Transactions of the Australasian Medical Congress. It contains the following papers:—By MacCormick and Hill on a larval cestode (Sparganum) from a human being ; by MacCormick on cerebral hydatids ; by Johnson on Trypanosomiasis; and by Tidswell and Flashman on the etiology of dysentery, amoebic dysentery being discussed in it.

Some of the earlier biological reports of the Australasian Antarctic Expedi- tion of 1911-1914 were published in Adelaide. They include those on the Fishes by Waite (1916), and Mollusca by Hedley (1916). It is expected that several reports, now in the press and dealing with zoological collections made by the British, Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Expedition of 1929-1931, will be published in Adelaide during the present year (1936). ‘hey are those on the Birds by Falla; Loricata by Cotton, Collembola by Womersley; Coleoptera by Womersley; Brachiopoda by Cotton; Diptera by Womersley; Cumacea and Phyllocarida by Hale; Sundry Insecta by Womersley; and List of biological stations by Johnston.

Hodge, in his book on “Encounter Bay” (1932), devotes a chapter to early whaling in that district (1803-1851), and in another part refers to some of its birds, fish and larger crustacea.

In 1935 there was published in Adelaide “Combing the Southern Seas,” by the late Sir Joseph Verco. his work was based on the diaries which he kept relating to his extensive dredging trips ranging along the continental shelf from Beachport to Fremantle. The publication was undertaken at the request of Lady Verco and was edited by B. Cotton, who illustrated it by a great many of his own drawings of species collected by Sir Joseph. There was added, as a republication, Verco’s “Catalogue of the Marine Mollusca of South Australia,” originally issued in 1908.

In 1935 Finlayson published his book, “The Red Centre,” dealing amongst other matters, with some aspects of animal life in Central Australia. One chapter dealing with his re-discovery in the Eyre basin of the small mammal, Caloprymnus campestris, the “oolacunta,” which had escaped observation for nearly a century after its description by Gould, and was believed to be extinct. Though published in Sydney, the book is mentioned here because of its particular interest to South Australia.

A very brief survey of the Zoology of our State was published by Johnston in “The Centenary History of South Australia,” 1936 (pp. 336-38). Amongst the various South Australian smaller publications not issued under the aegis of any of the scientific societies mentioned above, the following have a zoological interest :—

W. T. Bednall: “List of South Australian Marine Shells” (1874).

Db. J. Adcock: “Handlist of the Aquatic Mollusca Inhabiting South Aus- tralia” (1893),

J.C. Verco: “Catalogue of the Marine Mollusca of South Australia” (1908) ; reprinted in Verco’s “Combing the Southern Seas” (1935).

J. Davies Thomas: “Hydatid Disease, with Special Reference to Its Preva- lence in Australia.” (Government Printer, Adelaide, 1884.)

J, Davies Thomas: “Hydatid Disease of the Lungs.” (Adelaide, 1884.) Other papers and books by this author were published outside South Australia.

W. Howchin: “Native Animals of South Australia.’ (Department of Intelligence, Bull. 14, 1910, Adelaide.) Refers to vertebrates only.)

T. P. Bellchambers: “Nature, Our Mother.” (Adelaide, 1918.)

list of books on Ormithology in the Public Library of South Australia, Adelaide, 1926.

lv

From the foregoing survey, it will be seen that much work remains to be done in the sphere of Zoology in South Australia. Apart from the Mollusca, higher Crustacea and certain groups of Insecta, comparatively little is known of our invertebrate faunma—in fact, there are great groups which are practically unstudied. One might mention the Protozoa (apart from the Foraminifera), Turbellaria, Nemerteans, free-living Nematoda, Chaetognatha, and ‘lunicata. The identification of our Coelenterates (apart from Corals), Sponges, Rotifera and Annulata has been incompletely carried out. Even the local parasitology in which the present author is more particularly interested, is very little known. The lower Crustacea, as well as many of the insect families, would repay study.

The ecological relationship of the fauna constitutes an almost untouched field. Embryology of our marine forms is likewise almost unknown. Fisheries problems await investigation. Cytology and genetics offer wide fields for zoological research, The main direction in which our energies are likely to be directed for a considerable time in the future, as far as Zoology is concerned, will probably be along morphological, embryological and ecological lines.

CENTENARY ADDRESS NO. 7 PROGRESS IN KNOWLEDGE OF THE GEOLOGY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

BY SIR DOUGLAS MAWSON, D.Sc., F.LR.S.

Summary

One hundred years ago almost nothing was known of the geological features of the large region now included within the borders of this State. All that had been gleaned at that date is comprised in the casual observations of the earliest explorers. With the rapid extension of settlement following the establishment of the Province in the year 1836, knowledge of its geography and of its simplest and broadest geological features was steadily developed. The early discovery of rich copper deposits at the Burra, Moonta and Kapunda undoubtedly quickened public interest in geological affairs.

CENTENARY ADDRESS No. 7 PROGRESS IN KNOWLEDGE OF THE GEOLOGY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA. By Str Doucras Mawson, D.Sc., PRS.

IntTRopucToRY BIBLIOGRAPHIC REVIEW.

One hundred years ago almost nothing was known of the geological features of the large region now included within the borders of this State. All that had been gleaned at that date is comprised in the casual observations of the earliest explorers.

With the rapid extension of settlement following the establishment of the Province in the year 1836, knowledge of its geography and of its simplest and broadest geological features was steadily developed. The early discovery of rich copper deposits at the Burra, Moonta and Kapunda undoubtedly quickened public interest in geological affairs.

Ilowever, as there were then in the Colony but few competent geological observers and but little facility for the publication of such knowledge as was acquired, the first 42 years after the founding of the State served only to lay broad and imperfect foundations upon which the subsequent more exact and com- prehensive rendering has since been achieved.

This primary period in the evolution of geological knowledge of the State terminated in 1878 with the inauguration of the Royal Society of South Aus- tralia, which event initiated a new era of progress in all sections of natural science. No department of scientific enquiry received greater impetus, at that time, than Geology, for the person mainly intcrested in the launching of our Society was Ralph Tate, himself a geologist, who had arrived in the Colony in 1875 to occupy the Chair of Natural Science at the University of Adelaide.

Tate’s Presidential Address, which appears in the first volume of the Society’s Transactions, contains a valuable bibliographic summary of publications bearing on the Geology and Palaeontology of the State published to that date, thus covering the primary period of our review. Tate’s list of works relating to general geology, but not including purely palaeontological contributions, amounts to 15 in all. A further 17 palaeontological papers dealing with South Australian Tertiary fossils are also cited. At that time no pre-Tertiary fossils had becn discovered within the hotundaries of the State,

Of the contributions to general geology that had appeared at that time the more important are the following :—

Publications of the Rev. J. E. Tenison-Woods; more especially lis well- written “Geological Observations in South Australia,” printed in Ingland in 1862.

Reports on the mineral resources and the geology of portions of the State, respectively, by A. R. C. Selwyn in 1859, and by G. H. IF. Ulrich in 1872, published as Parliamentary papers.

Finally, there appeared in 1875 a “First Sketch of a Geological Map of Aus- tralia” by R. Brough Smyth. Of this Tate remarks it “embodies the labours of Selwyn and Woods and the inedited observations of our Survey Department and of some explorers.”

The embryonic state of geological knowledge even in 1875 is well portrayed by this first geological map, for therein, within the boundaries of South Australia, cognisance is taken of only three divisions, namely, Tertiary, Silurian and Igneous ; even so, it is greatly in error.

(vit

The 58 years that have elapsed since 1878 have been a period of steady and fairly rapid progress in the elucidation of the geological fabric of the country. In this our Society has played a direct part, as is evidenced by the large number of contributions on geological subjects printed in the Society’s volumes. Further, by its action in helping to secure the appointment, in 1883, of the Government Geologist, an office which had not existed prior to that date, the Society has greatly promoted geological science in this State.

The distribution of literature in the form of original contributions to the Geology and Palaeontology of South Australia that have appeared since Tate’s address in 1878, may be briefly summarised as follows :—

Firstly, the Geological Survey reports and various reports by the Govern- ment Geologist and others, which have been printed at the Government Printing Office as Parliamentary Reports or as productions of the Geological Survey Department, are embodied in about 200 separate publications; included amongst these are coloured maps issued, respectively, at successive intervals illustrating the distribution of the various geological formations as known at the time of printing. Shortly after his appointment as Government Geologist, Dr. L. K. Ward included as an addendum to his annual report for the year 1915 a catalogue of official publications dealing with the geology and mineral resources of South Australia; this is a valuable reference list, complete to that date.

Apart from the official publications of the Geological Survey, the volumes of the Royal Socicty of South Australia are outstanding as a source of published information concerning the geology of the State. Comprised within the regular annual volumes of transactions and the special quarto memoirs of the Society which were issued some years ago, there are about 191 contributions on general geological and mineralogical subjects and about 60 of a purely palaeontological nature, all relating to matters within this State. In addition there are 16 papers dealing with the geology of Central Australia and the Northern Territory, most of which by the geographical proximity of that region have a direct bearing on the geology of the northern areas of our State.

A third source of published information, in the nature of original observa- tions on the Geology of South Australia, are the volumes of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science (now the A.N.Z,A.A.5.), In these are to be found some valuable summarics relating to certain aspects of the subject. One of these deserves special mention here; I refer to Professor Ralph Tate’s Presidential Address delivered in the year 1893, “A Century of Geological Pro- gress,” in which he traces the rising tide of geological knowledge of Australia and Tasmania during the first 100 years of colonization, In all, there appear in the Science Agsociation’s volumes 35 papers relating to South Atstralia that are of a general geological nature, and 5 that are purely palaeontological; 7 other contributions refer casually to South Australian matters, and 3 deal with Central Australia contiguous to South Australia.

In the above three publications are to be found the main bulk of all original observations relating to South Australian Geology. About another dozen con- tributions bearing on our local geology are to be found in the Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Australia, S.A. Branch.

Some important contributions are contained in works published outside the State, of which the following have come under my notice.

Many papers dealing with the Tertiary marine rocks and fossils of Victoria, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, make some refer- ence to corresponding beds in this State and their fossil contents.

Reference to Cretaceous fossils forwarded by H. Y. L. Brown and deter- mined by W. H. Hudleston appears in the Geological Magazine of 1884, page 339. In the same magazine, page 342, H. P. Woodward supplied notes on trilobites,

lvitt

etc., from Ardrossan, forwarded to him by Tate and Brown. Again, in the Geolo- gical Magazine of 1885, page 289, H. P. Woodward describes Mesozoic and Ter- tiary (?) plant remains from Leigh’s Creek and Mount Babbage. At a much later date, Dr. C. E. Tilley published in the Geological Magazine important petro- logical papers on Pre-Cambrian rocks of Eyre Peninsula (vol. lvii, p. 449 and p. 492; vol. lviii, p. 251, and vol. xii, p. 309).

In a paper published in the Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S5.W., vol. xxi (1896), pp. 571- 583, T. W. E. David and W. Howchin relate the occurrence of radialaria and oolitic structure in South Australian Pre-Cambrian (?) rocks and discuss the question of age of the Brighton Limestone and associated beds.

In the Q.J.G.S. Howchin has written on the Sturtian Tillite [vol. kxiv (1908), p. 234]. In vol. Ixxxii (1926), p. 332, Cretaceous glaciation in Central Australia is referred to by T. W. E. David and W. G. Woolnough, There is also another paper on some algal limestones of South Australia [vol. Ixxxv (1929), p. 613]. In addition, there have appeared in this Journal, in recent years, several important papers by Dr. Madigan and others on the geology of Central Australia, which observations have a special interest to South Australia.

A notable paper by Dr, C. T, Madigan dealing with the Lake Eyre Basin is to be found in the Geog. Journal, vol. Ixxvi, p. 216.

As long ago as 1894 Dr. C. Chewings contributed original observations in a dissertation for the doctorate degree at Heidelberg University, published as “Geologie Siid und Central-Australiens” by the Heidelberg University press.

Important summaries relating to the geological features of South Australia have appeared in certain of the Commonwealth Handbooks (see especially 1914 and 1920) and in handbooks issued in connection with Adelaide mectings of the A.A.A.S. In the Proceedings of the Pan Pacific Science Congress of 1923 (Sydney) there are references to South Australia in relation to the Marine Tertiary formations of southern Australia.

Professor W. Howchin’s “Geology of South Australia,” which first appeared in 1918 and again as a revised edition in 1929, assembles under one cover most of the accumulated knowledge concerning the geology of this State.

Howchin’s production, “The Building of Australia and the Succession of Life,” which appeared in three parts between the dates of 1925 and 1930 as a handbook of the British Science Guild (South Australian Branch), may also be consulted, but the purely geological matter contained therein is marshalled from his preceding work and other published matter.

In 1932 Sir T. W. Edgeworth David’s “New Geological Map of The Com- monwealth of Australia” and accompanying book of “Explanatory Notes” were published by the Commonwealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. This work incorporates some previously unpublished matter and, so far as is within its scope, it brought the subject of South Australian Geology right up to date at the time of publication,

Memoirs, by R. and W. R. Bedford, No. 1 (1934) and No. 2 (1936), of the Kyancutta Museum (a private museum in S.A.), dealing with new species of Archaeocyathinae and other organisms, have recently appeared.

This year Messrs. Angus and Robertson have published a memoir by the late Sir ‘I. W. Edgeworth David and R. J. Tillyard on Fossils of the Late Pre- Cambrian from the Adelaide Series.

Thus outlined in the foregoing paragraphs is the distribution of original literature on the subject of this address, Other expositions of South Australian gcological features as recapitulations of already published matter are to be found in British, American and German publications.

2

lix

The principal contributors to this mass of literature were, firstly, officers of the Geological Survey, more especially H. Y. L. Brown, Dr. L. K. Ward and Dr. R. L. Jack. The work of the Survey Department has of necessity been con- centrated mainly upon economic matters.

Secondly, a large and very important share in the unravelling of the geo- logical history of the State and in the detailed scientific treatment of some of the problems presented has been achieved by geologists associated with the University. Mention may be made of Professor Ralph Tate and Professor Walter Howchin in eatlier times; whilst in more recent years the number co-operating in these investigations has greatly expanded, including, especially, Sir T, W. Edgeworth David, Dr. W. G. Woolnough, Dr. W. N. Benson, Dr. W. R. Browne, Dr. C. T. Madigan, Dr. C. Fenner, Dr A. R, Alderman and Mr. P. Hossfeld. My own observations have been devoted largely to the investigation of the older rocks of the North-Eastern areas.

Finally, some notable contributions to the common task have come from investigators not associated with either of the above institutions, as is exemplified by the very important foundational work of the Rev. J, E. Tcnison-Woods.

Tue PROBLEM OF THE OLDER Rocks.

We will now turn to a review of some of the outstanding problems that have faced geologists in this State.

To begin with, the stratigraphy of the very large areas of ancient rocks con- taining little or no fossil remains is a problem yet only partially solved. Based on conjecture only, these and the somewhat less ancient terrain, now recognised as Cambrian, were figured in the earliest maps as Silurian. The first positive information bearing on their age was the discovery by Mr. Otto Tepper, in 1878, in limestone near Ardrossan, of trilobites and coral-like fossils (Archaeo- cyathinae). It was immediately recognised that this discovery demonstrated the occurrence of beds of older Palaeozoic age, but it was not until several years later that the age was finally fixed as Cambrian. Thus a section of the older rocks of Yorke Peninsula came to be recognised as Cambrian, whilst a crystalline formation disposed unconformably beneath them was then relegated to the Pre-Cambrian. The great mass of older rocks forming the Mount Lofty Ranges still defied analysis, and it was Tate’s opinion, in 1893, that they were all Pre-Cambrian and would be found to be without fossils. However, in 1896, when in company with Howchin on a visit to Selwyn’s rocks in the Inman Valley, Professor David discovered Archaeocyathinae fossils in the limestone of the Normanville-Sellick’s Hill belt. At that time, on account of the fact that over large areas in the Mount Loity Ranges the dip of the sediments is in a general easterly direction, Tate was of the opinion that progressively newer beds would be found towards the east side of the Range. The metamorphic and igneous areas of the central and eastern belts were at that time interpreted as the result of subsequent igneous injection.

Howchin laboured for long endeavouring to unravel the structure and sequence of beds of the western flank of the range near Adelaide. He demon- strated the faulted character of the formation and finally succeeded in presenting the sequence of a vast series of sedimentary beds unconformably overlying the crystalline complex, ta which Woolnough had given the name Barossian on account of their strong development in ‘the Barossa Ranges. Though no perfectly continuous series was proved in the vicinity of Adelaide, yet Howchin was then of the opinion that the fossiliferous Cambrian beds of Sellick’s [Hill were the topmost members of a continuous series