The Florida agriculturist. [volume] (DeLand, Fla.) 1878-1911, 1890-05-07

no special effort to bring out new varie
ties. A few have been sent to me which
have examined, and my report on them
has been published in the papers, and
did not think it CT sufficient interest to
go back and compile a new report. 1t
was mostly grape fruit that was sent to
me. The varieties show that we are
making improvements in the growing of
the grape fruit. | recommend that this
committee be discontinued and that
the different fruits be sent to the different
committees. We have had no meetings.
The other members of thecommittee will
have to speak for themselves.
Mr. Manu. relied upon the chairman
OF the committee to make the report.
Mr. PHELPs.-I move that the report
he accepted and the recommendation of
Mr.. Manville as to disseminating the AID
Interim committee be accepted.
The motion was carried by a unanimous
vote.
The report of the committee on Nom
enclature was called for.
Mr.. PHELPs.-The committee reports
under the same condition that Mr.. Man
lille did, one being in one portion of the
State and one in another. There has
been no meeting. have decided that it
was committee that could be easily di-
vided into three divisions. | believe that
Mr.. Dubois accepted the position on
grapes, Mr.. DePass on plums and peaches
and / agreed to accept the position on
citrus fruits. Each was given the privi-
lege of choosing his own assistants, and
| have associated with me Mr.. Hubbard
as my assistant and he has prepared an
essay.
Mr.. DUBoB.--[ sent my report to the
last meeting, at Ocala, and it was read
and published.
The PREsIDENT.-If there is no objec-
ton we will consider that it is the pleas
ure of the Society that Mr.. Hubbard read
his essay.
Mr.. Hubbard then read his essay, as
follows:
CITRUS NOMENCLATURE.
Mr. President and Members of the Florida Hor-
ticuIturaI Society.
Every observed order of facts in physical phe-
nOmena suggests irresstibly to the mind the OpeT-
alton OF some physical cause. Although weknow
nothing of the real nature of force, even of that
force which is resident in ourselves, we do know
for what ends exert it, and the principle that
governs our devices for it's use. That principle is
combination for the accomplishment of purpose
1.-The how is very often incOmprehensible, where
the why is apparent at glance And be this OBJ
served that, when purpose is perceived it is
making plain to q higher faculty of the mind
than the mere sense of order. 1t is making plain
to reason. 1t is a reduction of phenomena to
that order of thought which is the basis of all
other order in the works of man. and which, he
instinctivey concludes is the basis also of all order
in the works of nature
''And here it is important to observe that al
though this general conclusion, like all other gen
eral conclusions, belongs to the category of men
tai differences, and not to the category of physi-
cal facts, yet each particular instance of purpose
on which the general inference is founded is not
an inference merely but fact. The function of
an organ, for example, is matter OF purely phys
ical Investigation. But the function of an organ
is not merely that which it does, but it is that
which some special construction enables it to do
1t is not merely it's work but it is the work as
signed to 1T as an apparatus, and as fitted
to other organs having other functions re-
lated to it's own. The nature OF that apparatus
as being in itself an adjustment for a particular
purpose is not an inference from the facts but it
is a part of the facts themselves. The very idea
of function is inSeparable from the idea of pur-
pose. The function of an organ is it's purpose, and
the relation OF it's parts and of the whole to that
purpose is as much and definitely q scientific
fact as the relation OF any phenomenon to space
or time or number. This distinction between
purpose as a general inference and purpose as a