diff options
Diffstat (limited to '76480-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 76480-0.txt | 5238 |
1 files changed, 5238 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/76480-0.txt b/76480-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d97919a --- /dev/null +++ b/76480-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,5238 @@ + +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76480 *** + + + + + + ENGLISH + MEN OF SCIENCE + + EDITED BY + J. REYNOLDS GREEN, Sc.D. + + SIR WILLIAM FLOWER + + _All Rights Reserved_ + + + + +[Illustration] + + + + + SIR WILLIAM FLOWER + + BY + R. LYDEKKER + + [Illustration] + + PUBLISHED IN LONDON BY + J. M. DENT & CO., AND IN NEW + YORK BY E. P. DUTTON & CO. + 1906 + + + + +PREFACE + + +Although the complete manuscript of this volume was placed in the hands +of the editor before the publication of the late Mr. C. J. Cornish’s +_Life of Sir William Flower_ (in 1904), yet the present writer was aware +that such a work was in progress, and that it would deal with the social +and personal rather than with the scientific side of Sir William’s +career. Consequently it was decided at an early period of the work to +concentrate attention in the present volume on the latter aspect of the +subject; as indeed is only fitting in the case of a biography belonging +to a series specially devoted to men of science. An incidental advantage +of this arrangement is that the writer has been able in the main to +confine himself to the discussion of topics with which he is more or less +familiar, rather than to attempt to chronicle events and episodes to +which he must of necessity be a stranger, and to attempt an appreciation +of a fine character for which he is in no wise qualified. + +It will be obvious from the above, that any references in the text to +earlier biographies do not relate to Mr. Cornish’s volume. + +In the course of the text, it has been necessary to make certain +allusions to the condition and the mode of exhibition of the specimens in +the public galleries of the Zoological Department of the Natural History +Museum previous to the new _régime_ inaugurated by Sir William Flower. +The writer may take this opportunity of stating that these are in no wise +intended to convey the slightest reflection on those who had charge of +the galleries previous to the new era. Technical museum-installation and +display is a comparatively new thing; and the old plan of arrangement had +become obsolete, not for want of attention, but because a more advanced +scheme had been developed by gradual evolution, and the adoption of this +involved a clean sweep. + +In conclusion, the writer has to express his best thanks to Mr. C. E. +Fagan, of the Secretariat of the Natural History Museum, for kindly +reading and revising the proof sheets. + + HARPENDEN LODGE, HERTS, + _July 1906_. + + + + +CONTENTS + + + PAGE + + CHAPTER I + + GENERAL SKETCH OF FLOWER’S LIFE 1 + + CHAPTER II + + AS CONSERVATOR OF THE MUSEUM OF THE COLLEGE + OF SURGEONS, AND HUNTERIAN PROFESSOR 31 + + CHAPTER III + + AS DIRECTOR OF THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM 57 + + CHAPTER IV + + AS PRESIDENT OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY 89 + + CHAPTER V + + GENERAL ZOOLOGICAL WORK 95 + + CHAPTER VI + + WORK ON THE CETACEA 139 + + CHAPTER VII + + ANTHROPOLOGICAL WORK 153 + + CHAPTER VIII + + MUSEUM AND MISCELLANEOUS WORK 169 + + APPENDIX (LIST OF BOOKS AND MEMOIRS) 179 + + + + +Life of Flower + + + + +CHAPTER I + +GENERAL SKETCH OF FLOWER’S LIFE + + +Born on 30th November 1831 at his father’s house, “The Hill,” +Stratford-on-Avon, William Henry Flower was a man who had the rare +good fortune not only to make a profession of the pursuit he loved +best, but likewise to attain the highest possible success in, and to +be appointed to the most important and influential post connected with +that profession. As he tells us in that delightful book, _Essays on +Museums_, he was pleased to designate as a “museum” when a boy at home +a miscellaneous collection of natural history objects, kept at first in +a cardboard box, but subsequently housed in a cupboard. And as a man +he became the respected head of the greatest Natural History Museum in +the British Empire, if not indeed in the whole world. Very significant +of his future attention to details and of the importance he attached to +recording the history of every specimen received in a museum, is the +fact that he compiled a carefully drawn-up catalogue of his first boyish +collection. + +This early and persistent taste for natural history was not, as we +learn from the same collection of essays, inherited from any member of +either his father’s or his mother’s family, but appears to have been +an “idiopathic” development. His isolated position in this respect may, +perhaps, have caused Flower in later life to notice more specially +than might otherwise have been the case, how comparatively rare is the +development of an ingrained taste for natural history among the adult +members of the British nation. This idea was exemplified by his remarking +on one occasion to the present writer that he often wondered how many +persons out of every thousand he passed casually in the street, or met +in social intercourse, had the slightest sympathy with, or took any real +interest in the subjects which formed his own favourite pursuits and +lines of thought. + +As regards his parentage, his father was the late Edward Fordham Flower, +who was a Justice of the Peace for his county, and from whom the son +inherited his tall and stately figure and dignified bearing. Edward +Flower, who was a partner in the well-known brewery at Stratford-on-Avon, +was the eldest son of Richard Flower, of Marden Hill, Hertfordshire, +who married Elizabeth, daughter of John Fordham, of Sandon Bury, in the +same county. In 1827 Edward married Celina, daughter of John Greaves, of +Radford Semele, Warwickshire, by whom he had, with other issue, Charles +Edward, late of Glencassly, Sutherlandshire, and William Henry, the +subject of the present memoir. + +Edward Fordham Flower was noted not only for his philanthropy, but for +his efforts to abolish the bearing-rein, which in his time was neither +more nor less than an instrument of downright torture to all carriage +horses. As the result of his efforts in this direction, was founded in +1890, by Mr. C. H. Allen, of Hampstead, a small local society for that +district and Highgate, having for its object the abolition, or at all +events the mitigated use, of the bearing-rein for draught-horses of all +descriptions. That body did good work in this direction for many years in +the north of London; and by its means the Hampstead Vestry was induced +to prohibit the use of the bearing-rein on the horses in its employ—an +example subsequently followed by many large coal-owners and others +connected with horses. + +From this small beginning arose in 1897 the now flourishing society known +as the Anti-Bearing Rein Association, of which, as was appropriate, Mr. +Archibald Flower, a grandson of Edward Fordham Flower, became Co.-Hon. +Secretary with Mr. Allen, while the late Duke of Westminster, and the +late Sir W. H. Flower (the subject of this biography) respectively +accepted the positions of Patron and President. + +In all the obituary notices it is stated that William Henry was the +second son of Edward Fordham and Celina Flower. This, however, as I am +informed by Mr. Arthur S. Flower (the eldest son of Sir William), is not +strictly the case. As an actual fact, the eldest son of the aforesaid +Edward and Celina was really Richard, who died in infancy, so that +Charles, who was born second, grew up as the eldest son, and William +Henry as the second, whereas he was really the third. + +The fair-haired and blue-eyed William not being intended to succeed his +father in the business, was permitted from his early years—fortunately +for zoological science—to pursue that innate love of natural history +which, as we have seen, developed itself in very early years and +continued unabated till the close of his career. That career naturally +divides into three epochs. Firstly, the period of boyhood and early +manhood; secondly, the long period of official life at the museum of +the Royal College of Surgeons; and thirdly, the time during which the +subject of this memoir occupied the post of Director of the Natural +History Branch of the British Museum, together with the short interval +which elapsed between his resignation of that position and his untimely +death. To each of the latter periods a separate chapter is devoted. It +has, however, been found convenient, instead of restricting the present +chapter to the first epoch, to include within its limits a general sketch +of Flower’s whole life. A fourth chapter is assigned to the period during +which he was President of the Zoological Society of London, although this +was synchronous with part of the period covered by the second, and with +the whole of that treated of in the third chapter. Finally, the full +description of his scientific work is reserved for subsequent chapters. + +According to information kindly furnished by his widow, Lady Flower, +delicate health prevented William Flower from being much at school during +his boyhood, and he was thus largely dependent upon his mother—a sensible +and well-read woman—for his early education. He was also in the habit of +accompanying his father in his rides, whereby he became much interested +in all that concerns horses and their well-being. Best of all, as regards +opportunity for developing a love of animal life, he was in the habit +of taking long, solitary rambles in the country, thereby acquiring a +knowledge of Nature which could be obtained in no other manner, and +developing his powers of observation. + +This innate taste for natural history appears to have been further +fostered in early life by frequent intercourse with the late Rev. P. B. +Brodie, an enthusiastic zoologist and geologist; but whether this took +place during school or college life the writer has no means of knowing. +Be this as it may, it appears that after a preliminary education, partly +at home and partly at private schools, Flower matriculated at London +University in 1849, (the year of his present biographer’s birth), +attaining honours in Zoology; and that during the same year having made +up his mind to adopt the study and practice of Medicine, or of Surgery +as a profession, he entered the Medical Classes at University College +and became a pupil at the Middlesex Hospital. It was apparently largely, +if not entirely, owing to his fondness for zoology that young Flower +selected Medicine as a profession, since at the time, as indeed for +many years subsequently, this was practically the only career open to +young naturalists devoid of sufficient private means whereby they might +hope to be able to devote a certain amount of time and attention to the +pursuits—and more especially Comparative Anatomy—towards which their +inclinations tended. + +At University College Flower had a distinguished career, gaining the gold +medal in Dr. Sharpey’s class of Physiology and Anatomy, and the silver +medal in Zoology and Comparative Anatomy; the gold medal in the latter +subjects having been carried off the same year by his fellow-student, +Joseph Lister, who in after years became the distinguished surgeon, and, +as Lord Lister, was for some time President of the Royal Society of +London. In 1851—the year of the Great Exhibition—Flower passed his first +M.B. examination at London University, coming out in the first division. +In the same year he made a tour in Holland and Germany, while in 1853 +visited France and the north of Spain; bringing home in both instances +numerous sketches in pencil and sepia of the scenery and people of the +countries traversed. + +In all the obituary notices of Flower that have come under the present +writer’s notice, it is stated that he obtained the post of Curator of +the museum of the Middlesex Hospital after his return from the Crimea. +This is, however, proved to be incorrect by his first zoological paper, +“On the Dissection of a Species of Galago,” which was contributed to the +Zoological Society of London in 1852, and appeared in the _Proceedings_ +of that body for the same year, where the author describes himself as +the holder of the post in question. As a matter of fact, he was elected +Curator in 1854, and resigned the post in 1854.[1] + +Flower never took the degree of M.D., but three years after passing his +M.B. he became (on 27th March 1854) a member of the Royal College of +Surgeons of England. + +A few weeks after this event a call was made for additional surgeons for +the army then serving in the Crimea, and young Flower, partly, perhaps, +from patriotic motives, and partly with a view of extending his practical +experience in surgery, promptly volunteered his services, which were +accepted. After spending a few idle months with the Depôt Battalion then +stationed at Templemore, in Ireland, he was gazetted as Assistant-Surgeon +to the 63rd (now the First Battalion of the Manchester) Regiment; and in +July 1854 embarked with his regiment at Cork for Constantinople. On its +arrival in the east the regiment was at once hurried up to join the main +army at Varna, whence it proceeded to take part in the expedition to the +Crimea, where both officers and men suffered severely from exposure to +the inclemencies of the climate and an insufficient commissariat during +the early months of the campaign. For ten weeks together, it is reported, +neither officers or men took off their clothes, either by night or by +day, and for the first three weeks all ranks were compelled to get such +sleep as they could obtain on the bare ground. Flower, who was present +at the battles of the Alma, of Inkerman, and of Balaclava, as well as at +the fall of Sebastopol, underwent many and thrilling experiences during +the campaign, alike in the field and in the hospital. The hardships and +privations which caused the strength of his regiment to be reduced by +nearly one-half within the short period of four months, could not but +tell severely on the constitution of the young surgeon, which was never +very robust; and from some of the effects of these he suffered throughout +his life. Nevertheless, in spite of all this, in the intervals of duty, +Flower, with but scant materials at his disposal, managed to find time +and energy sufficient to make a considerable number of vivid pen-and-ink, +or dashes of ink-and-water, sketches of his surroundings, including one +of his own tent overturned by the terrible snow-storm of 14th November +1854, and a second of the wrecked condition of the camp in general +at the end of the tempest. A panoramic view of Constantinople and a +sketch of the military hospital at Scutari were also among his artistic +productions at this period. In recognition of his services, Flower, +after being invalided home, received from the hands of Her Majesty, +Queen Victoria, the Crimean medal, with clasps for the Alma, Inkerman, +Balaclava, and Sebastopol; while he was also permitted to accept from +H.M., the Sultan, the Turkish war-medal. + +Apparently Flower had never entertained the idea of taking up the +profession of an army surgeon as a permanency, and after his return to +London he definitely resigned military service, with the intention of +settling down to private medical practice in the Metropolis. In the +spring of 1857 he passed the examination qualifying for the Fellowship +of the Royal College of Surgeons; and about this time, or perhaps +immediately on his return to London, he joined the staff of the Middlesex +Hospital as Demonstrator in Anatomy. During the next year (1858) he was +elected to the post of Assistant-Surgeon to the same Institution, where +he resumed the Curatorship of the museum and was also appointed Lecturer +on Comparative Anatomy. Although a large portion of his time while at +the hospital was devoted to surgical and other duties connected with the +medical profession, his Lectureship and Curatorship required that he +should devote a considerable amount of attention to the more congenial +study of Comparative Anatomy. + +It was during his connection with the Middlesex Hospital that his first +scientific work was published, this being the well-known and useful +little volume entitled _Diagrams of the Nerves of the Human Body_, +which appeared in 1861, and has passed through three editions. During +this period of his career he also contributed to Holmes’ _System of +Surgery_ an article on “Injuries to the Upper Extremities,” which +contained certain original observations with regard to dislocations of +the shoulder-joint; and he likewise wrote an essay on the same subject +to the Pathological Society, as well as several articles on various +surgical subjects to the medical journals of the day. But even at this +comparatively early period of his career Flower’s published scientific +work was by no means strictly confined to his ostensible profession, for +his two first papers on Comparative Anatomy—the one “On the Dissection of +a Galago”(Lemur); and the other “On the Posterior Lobes of the Cerebrum +of the Quadrumana”—appeared during the period in question. During this +period, as the writer of his obituary notice in the “Record” of the Royal +Society well remarks, there is little doubt that Flower had breathing +time, after his Crimean experiences, to collect his energies and gather +up a store of valuable information which stood him in good stead in later +years, when he had frequently less leisure to devote to pure study. + +It was, moreover, during his official connection with the Middlesex +Hospital that Mr. Flower married Georgina Rosetta, the youngest daughter +of the late Admiral W. H. Smyth, C.S.I., etc., a well-known astronomer, +who was for some time Hydrographer to the Admiralty and likewise Foreign +Secretary to the Royal Society, the wedding taking place in 1858 at +the church of Stone, in Buckinghamshire, near the bride’s home. This +happy union had in many ways an important influence upon the future +career of the young surgeon, for, in addition to her father, several +of the relatives of Mrs. (now Lady) Flower were more or less intimately +connected with scientific work and scientific people; among them being +Sir Warrington Smyth (sometime Inspector-General of Mines), Professor +Piazzi Smyth, General Sir Henry Smyth, and Sir George Baden-Powell. It +was to Lady Flower that Sir William dedicated his last work, the volume +entitled _Essays on Museums_. A tour through Belgium and up the Rhine +followed the marriage. + +Although it scarcely comes within the purview of this biography to allude +to the issue of this marriage, it may be mentioned that of the three sons +born to Sir William Flower, the second alone, Stanley Smyth, inherited +his father’s zoological tastes. Captain S. S. Flower (who takes his +first name from Dean Stanley, of Westminster, an intimate friend of the +family), after serving for some time in the 5th Fusileers, obtained the +appointment of Director of the Royal Museum at Bangkok, Siam, after which +he was made Director of the Khedival Zoological Gardens at Giza, near +Cairo, to which post (which he still holds) was subsequently added that +of Superintendent of Game Protection in the Sudan. Captain Flower has not +only raised the menagerie at Giza to a high state of perfection, but has +contributed several papers to the _Proceedings_ of the Zoological Society +of London on the zoology of Siam and the Malay countries. + +To revert to the proper subject of this memoir, during his tenure of the +aforesaid official posts at the Middlesex Hospital it was apparent to his +intimate scientific friends—among whom were included the late Professor +T. H. Huxley and the late Mr. George Busk—that the inclinations of +Flower were all on the side of comparative anatomy rather than towards +practical surgery or medicine. Accordingly, when the appointment of +Conservator to the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons became vacant +in 1861 by the death of Mr. Quekett, Flower was strongly recommended by +Huxley (then Hunterian Professor), Busk, and other friends as a suitable +successor, and was in due course elected by the Council. When, nine +years later (1870), Huxley himself felt compelled by the pressure of +other engagements and work to resign the Hunterian Professorship, the +Conservator of the Museum was appointed to the vacant chair, thus once +more bringing together two posts which had been sundered since Owen’s +resignation. + +On his appointment to the Conservatorship of the Museum of the College +of Surgeons, Flower once for all definitely abandoned medicine as a +profession, and determined to devote the whole of his energies for the +future to the study of his beloved comparative anatomy and zoology. +Nevertheless, he always remained in touch with his old profession, as +he was always in sympathy with those who were actively practising the +same. Indeed, since the collections under his charge included a large +pathological series, while during his tenure of office a large display of +surgical instruments was added to the exhibits, he could not, even had +he so desired, cut himself entirely adrift from old associations and old +studies. + +Since a considerable amount of space in a later chapter is devoted to +Flower’s work as Museum Curator and as Hunterian Lecturer, it will be +unnecessary to allude further to it in this place, although it will +be appropriate to quote the elogium on his efforts in this sphere, +pronounced by the President of the Royal Society, when bestowing the +Royal Gold Medal in recognition of his services to zoology. + +“It is very largely due,” runs the address, “to his incessant and +well-directed labour that the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons +at present contains the most complete, the best ordered, and the most +accessible collection of materials for the study of vertebrate structures +extant.” + +As regards his Hunterian lectures, it has been well remarked that few +could have any idea of the amount of labour they involved, nor would any +one be likely to guess this from the ever-ready and earnest efforts of +the lecturer to give to others that knowledge he had so laboriously, and +yet so pleasantly, acquired within the walls of the museum. + +In addition to the official Hunterian lectures, Flower during this +portion of his career commenced the delivery, as opportunity occurred, +of lectures of a much more popular description, at the Royal Institution +and elsewhere, by means of which he appealed to a wider audience than +any that could be attracted to technical discourses, and at the same +time was enabled to give a wide circulation to the discussion of +subjects connected with his own special studies which had more or less +of a general interest. In one of his earlier discourses of this type he +discussed at considerable detail the deformities produced in the human +foot by badly-designed boots or other covering among both civilised and +barbarous nations. Indeed, “fashion in deformity” was at all times a +favourite theme with the Hunterian Professor; and in a lecture on this +subject he uttered, for him, a strong protest against the evils caused +by the corset among European females, illustrating his remarks with a +ghastly figure of a female skeleton distorted by the undue pressure of +that fashionable article of costume. + +In 1871, and again in later years, Professor Flower acted as Examiner +in Zoology for the Natural Science Tripos at Cambridge, where his suave +and dignified manner, and innate courtliness rendered him as great a +favourite as in the Metropolis. He was during some portion of his career +Examiner in Anatomy at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. + +Flower’s official connection with the museum of the Royal College of +Surgeons was brought to a close by Owen’s resignation of the Post of +Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum, +when it was felt by all that the efficient and successful administrator +of the smaller museum in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, was the one man specially +fitted in every way to have supreme charge of the larger establishment in +the Cromwell Road. Professor Flower was accordingly selected by the three +principal trustees—the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and +the Speaker of the House of Commons—to fill this important post, into the +duties of which he entered during the same year. His administration of +the museum—which lasted until he was compelled by failing health to send +in his resignation a few months before his death—is fully discussed in +the fourth chapter, and was in every way a complete success. + +During his long and successful official career Sir William was the +recipient of a number of honours (in addition to the medals he received +for his Crimean service), and he was likewise on the roll of the more +important societies connected with the branches of biological study in +which he was specially interested. + +Of the Royal Society Sir William was elected a Fellow in 1864—at the +relatively early age of thirty-three—and he served on the Council of that +body for three separate periods, namely from 1868 to 1870, from 1876 to +1878, and again from 1884 to 1886, while in 1884 and 1885 he was one +of the Vice-Presidents. In 1882 his conspicuous services to zoological +science was recognised by the bestowal upon him of a Royal Gold Medal—one +of the most honourable distinctions in the gift of the Society; the other +recipient in the same year of a similar honour being Lord Rayleigh. In +handing to Professor Flower this medal, the President dwelt upon the +value of his contributions to both zoology and anthropology, referring, +in connection with the former science, to his paper on the classification +of the Carnivora, and, in respect to the latter, to the then recently +published first part of the “Catalogue of Osteological Specimens in the +Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons,” in which descriptions and +measurements of between 1300 and 1400 human skulls are recorded. The +present writer has been informed that Flower refused to be nominated +for the Presidentship of the Royal Society, owing to the fear that the +calls made upon his time by that office would interfere with his official +duties. Of the Zoological Society Professor Flower became a Fellow so +long ago as the year 1851, that is to say, three years previous to the +commencement of his Crimean service. After serving for several periods +on the Council he was elected to the honourable (and honorary) office +of President on the death of the Marquis of Tweeddale in 1879, and +in this important position he remained till his death. It should be +added that Flower never received one of the medals of the Zoological +Society, and this for the very good reason that such rewards are +bestowed in recognition of gifts to the Society’s Menagerie, and not for +contributions to zoological knowledge. Flower’s contributions to both +the _Transactions_ and the _Proceedings_ of the Society were numerous, +and, needless to say, valuable; the earliest in the former having been +published in 1866, and in the latter in 1852. With very few exceptions, +these communications relate to mammals. Fuller details with regard to Sir +William’s Presidency of the Zoological Society will be found in a later +chapter. + +Of the Linnean Society, Flower was elected a Fellow in 1862, but he does +not appear to have ever taken any active part in the administration of +that body, or to have contributed to its publications, although for a +time he was a Vice-President. + +To the Geological Society, on the other hand, of which he became a Fellow +in the year 1886, Sir William contributed three papers on paleontological +subjects, by far the most important of which was one on the affinities +and probable habits of the extinct Australian marsupial _Thylacoleo_. +Further allusion to this is made in the sequel. Of the other two, one +recorded the occurrence of teeth of the bear-like _Hyænarctus_ in the +Red Crag of Suffolk, and the other that of a skull of the manatee-like +_Halitherium_ in the same formation. + +Of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Flower +was elected a Vice-President in 1879, while in 1883 he succeeded to +the Presidential chair, and occupied that position till 1885. Of his +numerous contributions to anthropological science, many appeared in the +journal of the Institute. + +In the annual meetings of the British Association for the advancement +of science, Flower, from an early date, took a lively interest. At the +Norwich meeting, in 1868, he acted as Vice-President of the section of +Biology, while he was President of the same section at the Dublin meeting +of 1878. At York he presided over the section of Anthropology in 1881; +he was a Vice-President at the Aberdeen meeting of 1885, while for the +second time he occupied the Presidential chair of the Anthropological +section in 1894 at Oxford, when his opening address on Anthropological +progress displayed great breadth of thought and generalisation. +Finally, he was President of the Association at the meeting held in +Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1889, his address at the latter meeting forming the +first article in _Essays on Museums_. + +Among other offices of a kindred nature to the above, it may be mentioned +that Sir William was President of the section of Anatomy at the +International Medical Congress held in London in August 1881. His address +on that occasion (reprinted as article 7 of the volume just cited) being +on the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. In July 1893 he acted +as President of the Museum’s Association at their London meeting, when, +after referring to the general scope of that body, and a brief survey +of some of the chief museums of Europe, he sketched out a plan for an +ideal building of this nature. This address also appears in _Essays on +Museums_. Sir William, the year before his death, had also undertaken to +preside over the meeting of the International Zoological Congress held at +Cambridge in the summer of 1898, but was prevented by failing health; his +place being filled by Lord Avebury (Sir John Lubbock). On 29th November +1895, Sir William Flower delivered an address at the opening of the Perth +Museum, in which he pointed out the special function of local museums. +Five years earlier (3rd November 1890) he had delivered another address +on a very similar occasion, namely, the opening of the Booth Museum, in +the Dyke Road, Brighton, famed for its unrivalled collection of British +birds, the great majority of which had been shot and subsequently mounted +in a most artistic manner by its founder. This splendid collection, it +may be mentioned, was bequeathed at Mr. Booth’s death to the British +Museum, but it was reluctantly declined by the Trustees, who waived their +right in favour of the Corporation of Brighton. At the end of October +1896, Sir William, then in failing health, somewhat rashly undertook a +journey to Scotland to assist Lord Reay in the inauguration of the Gatty +Marine Laboratory at St. Andrews. + +Another important address delivered by Flower was one read before the +Church Congress at their meeting, held in October 1883, at Reading, on +“Recent Advances in Natural Science in Relation to the Christian Faith.” +It is reprinted in _Essays on Museums_. In this address Flower, while +proclaiming his full adherence to the doctrine of the transmutation of +species and the evolution of every organic form from a pre-existing +type, urged that this did not in the least shake his confidence in all +the essential teaching of the Christian religion. At the same time he +pointed out that the new doctrine in no wise detracted from the position +of the Divine Ruler of the world as the controller, and indeed the +originator, of animal development. + +Shortly after his retirement from the post of Conservator, Professor +Flower was elected a Trustee of the Hunterian Collection of the Royal +College of Surgeons. Many years later, in 1881, he became a Trustee of +Sir John Soane’s Museum, in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. + +Mention has already been made of the fact that in an early stage of his +career Sir William became an M.B. of London, and that later on he was +elected to the Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons. In addition +to these professional qualifications, he was also the recipient of +honorary degrees from the two elder Universities. Thus in 1891 he was +made a D.C.L. of Oxford, the public orator of the University, when the +degree was conferred, acclaiming him as a living proof of the truth of +the old saying, ἀρχή ἄνδρα δειξει, attributed to one of the seven wise +men of Greece, and as a man who had passed with increasing distinction +from one important official post to another; and he was likewise a D.Sc. +of Cambridge. But this by no means exhausts the list of his academic +honours, Edinburgh, St. Andrews, and Trinity College, Dublin, claiming +him on their roll of honorary LL.D.’s, while in 1889 he received from +Durham the degree of D.C.L. The Edinburgh degree, it may be mentioned, +was conferred on the occasion of the celebration of the tercentenary of +the University. Sir William was also a Ph.D. + +Nor were Flower’s conspicuous services to zoological science suffered to +remain unrecognised by the Government of his country, for he was created +a C.B. in 1887, three years after his first appointment to the British +Museum, and five years later (1892) followed the higher distinction of +the K.C.B. But this does not exhaust the list of official honours, for in +1887 Sir William received from Her Majesty, the late Queen Victoria, the +Jubilee Medal. Had he lived to the date of its foundation, it is possible +that Flower might have been admitted by his Sovereign as one of the +original members of the Order of Merit. + +From His Majesty the German Emperor Sir William Flower received the +distinction of the Royal Prussian order, “Pour la Mérite,” an honour of +which he was justly very proud. As a distinguished friend pointed out in +his letter of congratulation on learning of the new distinction, “it is +the one European decoration which an Englishman may be proud to wear, +and bestowed, as I believe it to be, with the sanction of the very few +who have already got it. It is the one order which real work, apart from +rank and wealth and courtiers’ trick, alone can win.” As another eminent +friend described it on the same occasion, it is truly “the blue riband of +literary and scientific decorations.” + +Numerous foreign scientific societies, it is almost unnecessary to +observe, were proud to claim the name of Sir William Flower on the list +of their honorary members or associates. It is however by no means easy +to give a complete list of these honourable distinctions, for Flower was +not one who followed the fashion of adding every possible combination of +letters to his name in every book or paper he wrote. Perhaps the most +important of these distinctions was that of Foreign Correspondent of +the Institute of France. Among other societies and academies to which he +belonged, were those of the Netherlands, Sweden, and Belgium. + +Although Flower’s scientific writings are discussed at length in the +later chapters of this memoir, it may be mentioned in this place that +during the “eighties” he contributed an important series of articles to +the ninth edition of the “Encyclopædia Britannica.” At the commencement +of that great undertaking, although the article “Ape” was confided to +the competent hands of the late Professor St. George Mivart, some of the +other articles, such as the one on “Antelope,” were entrusted to writers +who, whatever their other merits may have been, had certainly no claim +to be regarded as specialists on the subject of mammals. It was not long +before this was recognised by the publishers, who forthwith engaged for +this section of the work the services of Flower, supplemented by those of +the late Dr. Dobson and Mr. O. Thomas. Among the more important articles +by Flower were those on the Horse, Kangaroo, Lemur, Lion, Mammalia (in +co-operation with Dr. Dobson), Megatherium, Otter, Platypus, Rhinoceros, +Seal, Tapir, and Whale. These and other articles, together with the one +on Ape by Professor Mivart and several on the smaller mammals by Mr. +Thomas, were subsequently combined and revised to form the basis of the +_Study of Mammals Living and Extinct_, by Sir William Flower and the +present writer, and was published by Messrs. A. & C. Black in 1891, which +long formed the standard English work on the subject, although now, owing +to the rapid progress in zoology and the great change which has taken +place in nomenclature, is somewhat out of date. + +The excellent little volume on _The Horse_ in Sir John Lubbock’s (Lord +Avebury) _Modern Science Series_, published in 1891, and the _Essays on +Museums_ (1898), also appeared during this portion of Flower’s career. + +Although so largely occupied in the study of mammals and other creatures +from distant parts of the world, Sir William never travelled much, and +never visited little-known regions or did any important collecting +abroad. In addition to his Crimean experiences, and the journeys in +Holland, France, and the Rhine country, to which allusion has been +already made, his foreign tours appear to have been but few. In the +winter of 1873-74 he was, however, enabled to enjoy a trip up the Nile +in company with Mrs. Flower, and he visited Biarritz in 1892. During the +former excursion he made a number of sketches which bear ample testimony +to his powers as an artist. With his great knowledge of anatomy, it may +be here mentioned, coupled with his skill with the pencil, he enjoyed +a great advantage over many contemporary zoologists in being able to +draw accurate and life-like portraits of the animals he loved so well. +Nevertheless, if only from lack of time, he never attempted to illustrate +with his own hand any of his numerous scientific contributions—at all +events in later years. Owing to need for complete rest, after a short +sojourn in the early part of 1897 at Marazion, on the south coast of +Cornwall, he spent much of the following winter abroad; and after his +resignation of the Directorship of the Museum in 1898, he spent the +following winter at San Remo, from which he returned less than two months +before his death. + +As regards the closing scenes of his life, a very few words must suffice. +For the last two years of his existence he had evidently been in failing +health, largely due to his incessant exertions and from his refusal to +spare himself, even when warned of the absolute necessity of so doing by +his medical adviser. In August 1898, after a long period during which +he had been compelled to devote little or no attention to his official +duties, he placed his resignation of the Directorship of the Museum in +the hands of the Trustees. The aforesaid sojourn at San Remo during +the following winter effected some slight temporary improvement in his +health, but on his return to London, in May 1899, it was painfully +apparent that his constitution—never too robust—was shattered beyond +hope of permanent recovery. And, after a slight temporary rally, from +his malady of heart-failure, a sharp relapse occurred on Thursday, 29th +June, followed by pneumonia, and on Saturday, 1st July, Sir William +Flower passed peacefully away, at the age of sixty-seven years, at his +residence, 26 Stanhope Gardens, London. + +A memorial service was held on the following Wednesday at St. Luke’s +Church, Sidney Street, Chelsea, which was attended by a large and +sympathetic congregation of friends and scientific men, including Sir +Edward Maunde Thompson, the Chief Librarian and Director of the British +Museum, and Professor E. Ray Lankester, Sir William’s successor in the +Directorship of the Natural History Branch of the same. + +Sir William was undoubtedly a man of high and noble character, endeared +to all with whom he was brought into intimate relations by his unfailing +courtesy and charm of manner. To the present writer, it may be said +perhaps without undue egotism, he was a friend and counsellor such as +cannot be expected more than once in a life-time. + +No better summary of Sir William’s general character and high attributes +can perhaps be given (certainly the present writer cannot attempt to +rival it) than the one drawn up by his biographer in the “Year-book” of +the Royal Society for 1901, which may accordingly be quoted _in extenso_:— + +“In private life no one was more beloved and esteemed. He was in every +sense a domestic man, finding the highest joys that life brought him with +his family and children. The same courtly bearing and high tone, the same +preference for all that was good, was in private circles mingled with +the same genial smile, the fascinating account of something interesting +or novel, and the respect and deference to others, which was part of +his upright, unselfish nature. Many a young naturalist will gratefully +remember the kind encouragement and valued advice he was ever ready to +offer, and the stimulus which the sympathetic interest of a leader in the +department gave him. + +“In the busy life of Sir William and in the constant calls on brain and +nervous system—strong though these were—there came times when a feeling +of lassitude with headache and spinal uneasiness, if not prostration, +showed that the indoor life and the strain of many duties had told with +severity both on the central nervous system and on the heart. His annual +holiday sufficed in many cases to recruit his energies, especially when +he visited Scotland and the charming home of his friends, Mr. and Mrs. +Drummond, of Megginch. There he met other friends, such as Dean and +Lady Augusta Stanley [after whom a son and a daughter were respectively +named] and Colonel Drummond-Hay, of Seggieden, brother of Mr. Drummond. +Moreover, he was always interested in the splendid collection of birds +made by Colonel Drummond-Hay during his wanderings with the Black Watch.” + +Another passage from the same memoir of his life runs as follows:— + +“One side of Sir William’s life deserves special notice, viz., his social +influence, and the endeavour to popularise the great institution with +which he was officially connected. These influences, developed at the +Museum of the College of Surgeons with great success, were brought to +bear on a much wider circle in connection with the National Museum and +as President of the Zoological Society; and no one was more fitted than +he—either for the courtly circle or the large gatherings of working men +who flocked on Saturday afternoons to the galleries of the museum. In all +his many and varied social functions in his prominent positions he was +ably seconded by one who identified herself with his every engagement, +and to whom his last volume of collected addresses was dedicated. A man +of wide sympathies, he is found at one time addressing a Civil Service +dinner, at another a Volunteer gathering, now descanting on evolution +to a Church Congress, and again speaking at a Mayoral banquet, a girls’ +school, or an industrial exhibition. The strain on his physique demanded +by these efforts would have been great to an ordinary man, but it must +have been serious to one whose main energies were heavily taxed by +exhausting scientific work. His powerful constitution was thus slowly but +surely sapped, yet to an eager mind and a generous heart, such as his, +little heed was paid to himself.... + +“Taken all in all, we shall not soon see so talented and so accurate a +comparative anatomist, so impressive a speaker, so facile an artist, or a +public man with a higher type of character.” + +The zoological and anthropological side of Sir William’s work (with which +the present writer is more competent to deal than he is with his social +relations and character) is discussed at length in later chapters of this +memoir; but a few observations may be here introduced on subjects which +scarcely come within the category of purely scientific work. + +At intervals during his life-time Flower communicated a considerable +number of letters to the _Times_ and other journals on topics more or +less intimately connected with animals and animal life. His sympathy +with the crusade against the tight bearing-rein, initiated by his +father, has already received mention. Equally marked was his sympathy +with the movement against the wearing by ladies of the plumage of birds +(other than game-birds, etc.), and more especially the so-called “osprey +plumes”—really the breeding-plumes of the egrets and white herons—in +the so-called decoration of their bonnets and hats. The extreme cruelty +involved—at least in the case of the “ospreys”—in this practice, which +entails the destruction of the birds during the nesting-season, when +these nuptial plumes are alone donned, and consequently in many instances +the destruction of the helpless young by slow starvation, was painted in +forcible language by more than one letter from Flower’s pen. Happily, as +the result of these and other letters from sympathetic naturalists, and +the foundation of the Society for the Protection of Birds (whose general +aims were likewise strongly advocated by Sir William), this detestable +practice has been much diminished of late years, although very much +remains to be done in this way before there can be any pretence of saying +that birds, even in this country, are treated by man as they deserve. + +On another occasion he wrote, deprecating the wholesale destruction of +bottle-nosed whales, which had been advocated on account of the enormous +quantities of fishes devoured by these cetaceans. The question of pelagic +sealing in Bering Sea, and the best way of preventing unnecessary +slaughter, and thus eventual extermination, of the sea-bears and +sea-lions which visit the Pribiloff Islands, also occupied his attention. +And to him was confided the duty of selecting the naturalists (Professor +d’Arcy Thompson and Captain Barrett-Hamilton) who represented British +interests in the International Commission despatched to those islands in +1896 and 1897, to report on the sealing generally and the habits of the +sea-bears, or fur-seals. + +The best mode of disposing of the bodies of the dead was also a subject +to which Sir William devoted a share of his attention, and he was a +strong advocate for cremation, or, failing this, for burial in wicker +caskets in light sandy soil. + +The effects of the weather on “Cleopatra’s Needle” a comparatively short +time after it had been set up on the Thames Embankment; the best means of +utilising and beautifying the gardens in Lincoln’s Inn Fields; and the +anomaly that while a heavy book could be sent by post for a few pence, +the charge on a heavy letter, at the time in question, was considerable, +were among many other miscellaneous topics upon which he wrote. + +In conversation it was Sir William’s great delight, whenever possible, +to turn the subject to his own particular studies and pursuits; but, +as mentioned by an exalted personage on an occasion referred to in the +sequel, he never wearied his hearers. In a new or rare animal, his +delight was almost childish; and the present writer has often reflected +how intense would have been his pleasure had he been spared to see the +first specimen brought to this country of that wonderful animal, the +okapi of the Semliki Forest. + +To his official subordinates Sir William was also readily +accessible—possibly almost too much so; and he had always a word of +praise for work faithfully carried out under his direction, even if, from +a slight misunderstanding of his instructions, it had not been executed +precisely on the lines he himself would have desired. He was never above +lending a hand himself at manual work; and the writer well recollects an +occasion at the museum where a large animal was, with some difficulty, +being moved, and Sir William, although at the time manifestly unfit for +severe physical effort, would insist upon aiding in the task. + +As a host, Sir William Flower, ably seconded by Lady Flower, had few +rivals and no superiors; and although he absolutely detested tobacco, +such was his good-nature, that he would not deny his male friends the +luxury of an after-dinner cigarette—the idea of ladies smoking would +probably have been too much even for his good-nature and tolerance of +other people’s little weaknesses. + +This chapter may be fitly brought to a close by referring to the fact +that it was largely owing to the advocacy of Sir William that a statue +of his intimate friend Huxley was placed in the Central Hall of the +Natural History Museum, in company with those of Darwin and Owen, so +that “Huxley and Owen, often divided in their lives, would come together +after death in the most appropriate place and amidst the most appropriate +surroundings.” In this Valhalla of men pre-eminent in British biological +science of the nineteenth century, Flower’s own bust has found its home; +but of this more anon. + +In this connection it may be added that Sir William Flower wrote for the +_Proceedings_ of the Royal Society the obituary notice of Sir Richard +Owen, who had been his predecessor in his own two most important offices. +Despite the fact that Flower had been instrumental in overthrowing at +least one of Owen’s “pet theories,” this biographical notice is written +in the kindest and most sympathetic spirit, giving full credit to the +“immense labours and brilliant talents” of this truly remarkable man. + +An earlier obituary notice from Flower’s pen which appeared in the +same journal was devoted to a sketch of the life of George Rolleston, +the brilliant Professor of Anatomy and Physiology of Oxford, whose +comparatively early death in 1881 was one of the real losses to +biological science. + +Of a more varied and popular nature were Flower’s reminiscences of +his friend Huxley, which appeared in the _North American Review_ for +September 1895. A fourth biographical notice was the “eulogium” on +Charles Darwin, delivered by Sir William at the centenary meeting of the +Linnean Society, held on 24th May 1888, in which the speaker acknowledged +the incomparable importance of Darwin’s work, and incidentally avowed +his own acceptance of the doctrine of evolution. Compared to Darwin’s +achievements, he observed, “most of the work which we others do is but +irregular, guerilla warfare, attacks on isolated points, mere outpost +skirmishing, while his was the indefatigable, patient, unintermittent +toil, conducted in such a manner and on such a scale that it could +scarcely fail to secure victory in the end.” + + + + +CHAPTER II + +AS CONSERVATOR OF THE MUSEUM OF THE COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, AND HUNTERIAN +PROFESSOR. + +[1861-1884.] + + +The death, in 1861, of the eminent histological anatomist, Professor +Quekett, rendered vacant the important post of Conservator of the Museum +of the Royal College of Surgeons of England in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. This +museum, it is almost superfluous to mention, was founded by the great +anatomist, John Hunter, and is hence often known popularly, although not +officially, as the Hunterian Museum. + +“Originally a private collection,” observed Flower in his Presidential +address to the Anatomical section of the International Medical Congress, +held in London in the summer of 1881, “embracing a large variety of +objects, it has been carried out and increased upon much the same +plan as that designed by the founder, with modifications only to suit +some of the requirements of advancing knowledge. The only portion of +Hunter’s biological collection which have been actually parted with are +the stuffed birds and beasts, which, with the sanction of the Trustees +appointed by the Government to see that the college performs its part of +the contract as custodians of the collection, were transferred to the +British Museum, and a considerable number of dried vascular preparations, +which having become useless in consequence of the deterioration in their +condition, resulting from age and decay, have been replaced by others +preserved by better methods.” + +In regard to the special purposes served by this museum, it is mentioned +in the same address that it is maintained by the College of Surgeons “for +the benefit not only of its own members, but for that of the profession +at large, and indeed of all who take any interest in biological science, +whether the young student preparing for his examination, or the advanced +worker who has here found materials for many an important contribution +by which the boundaries of knowledge have been materially enlarged. To +all such it is freely open without fee or charge. Even the written or +personal introduction of members, still nominally required, is never +asked for on the four open days from any intelligent or interested +visitor; and on the one day of the week on which it is closed for +cleaning, facilities are always given to those who are desirous of +making special studies, and to the increasing number of lady students, +whether artistic, scholastic, or medical. Artists continually resort to +the museum to find opportunities of studying anatomy of man and animals, +which no other place in London affords; and of late years it has been +the means of a still wider diffusion of knowledge, by the visits which +have been organised on summer Saturday afternoons by various associations +of artizans, to whom a popular demonstration of its contents is usually +given by the Conservator.” + +Elsewhere in the same address we find the following passage in connection +with the teaching functions of this body:— + +“The various professorships and lectureships that are attached +to the College have grown up chiefly in consequence of one of the +conditions under which the Hunterian Collection was entrusted to it by +Government—that a course of no less than twenty-four lectures shall be +delivered annually by some member of the College upon Comparative Anatomy +and other subjects, illustrated by the preparations.” + +For some years previously to Professor Quekett’s death the offices of +Conservator of the Museum of the College and of Hunterian Professor of +Anatomy had been disassociated; the occupant of the professorial chair +at the date in question being the late Professor T. H. Huxley, while, as +already mentioned, Quekett held the Conservatorship. At an earlier date +the two offices had, however, been held conjointly; Owen having fulfilled +the duties of both for a period of no less than twenty-five years. + +It may be added that, from the varied nature of the collections under +his charge, the Conservator is expected to have a knowledge not only +of comparative anatomy and zoology, but likewise of palæontology, +physiology, surgery, and pathology. + +Such a wide range of knowledge is possible to few men at the present day, +but it was possessed to a very considerable extent by Mr. Flower, even +at this comparatively early stage of his career; and as the appointment +was congenial to his tastes, he applied for, and in due course was +elected to, the Conservatorship. The acceptance of this involved the +complete abandonment of practice as a surgeon—a course of action which, +I believe, was never regretted. For eight years Mr. Flower discharged +the duties of the Conservatorship to the satisfaction of the Council of +the College; and when, in 1869, Professor Huxley found himself compelled +by the pressure of other duties to relinquish the Hunterian chair, +Flower was elected in 1870 to fill the vacancy. He thus, for the first +time in his career, became entitled to the designation of “Professor,” +and he continued to hold the two offices till his transference to the +British Museum. Here it may perhaps be well to mention, in order to avoid +confusion, that in the early part of Flower’s official career at the +College of Surgeons the post of Articulator to the museum was held by a +name-sake—Mr. James Flower. + +For the first eight years of his connection with the museum in Lincoln’s +Inn Fields the time and attention of Flower were almost entirely devoted +to the improvement, augmentation, and rearrangement of the collections +under his charge; and even when his duties as Hunterian Professor claimed +a large share of his time, no efforts were spared to maintain the former +rate of progress in the museum. + +To record in detail the improvements and alterations made in the museum +under Flower’s able administration would obviously not only occupy a +large amount of space but would, likewise, be wearisome to the reader. +Attention will therefore be concentrated on a few salient features in +connection with his work. + +Although the anatomy of man naturally took a prominent place in what +used to be called the “physiological” series, yet the preparations +illustrating this subject were in the main restricted to the viscera; the +details of regional anatomy and of the arrangement and distribution of +muscles, vessels, and nerves not finding a place in the original scheme +of the museum. This appeared to Flower to be a serious omission, and +he soon set to work to exhibit human anatomy—largely on account of its +paramount importance to the members of the medical profession—on a much +more extensive scale than was previously the case, thereby affording by +means of permanent preparations a ready demonstration, accessible at all +times, of the structure of every part of the human frame. To those who +have already learnt their anatomy, it has been well remarked, and who +wish to refresh their memory, or verify a fact about which some passing +doubt may be felt, or to those who are precluded by circumstances from +visiting the dissecting room, the preparations of this series must prove +of great value. + +In connection with this series may be mentioned the fact that Flower +published during the year he took office the work which heads the +list of his numerous scientific contributions, namely, _Diagrams of +the Nerves of the Human Body, exhibiting their Origin, Divisions and +Connections_, which was favourably received by the medical profession. +In the preparation of the anatomical series, Flower’s almost unrivalled +powers of dissection stood him in good stead, and it was probably during +this period of his career that he first acquired the rudiments of that +originality and care in museum arrangement and display that led to his +being called in after life by a German savant “the Prince of Museum +Directors.” + +Perhaps, however, the portion of the museum under his charge in which +Flower was most deeply interested was that devoted to the dentition +and osteology of the different orders of the Mammalia. As regards the +osteological series, he expressed himself in the above-mentioned address +of 1881 in the following words:— + +“On this head we claim to be somewhat in advance of other museums, +on account of the improvements which have been made of late years in +preparing and articulating dried skeletons, and in displaying portions +of the bony framework in an instructive manner. Formerly all the bones +were rigidly fixed together, so that their articular surfaces, if not +actually destroyed, were completely concealed, and no bone could possibly +be removed and separately examined. The aim of a series of changes in +the method of mounting skeletons introduced here, and now adopted, more +or less completely, in many other museums, has been to obviate all these +difficulties, and to make each bone, as far as possible, independent of +all the rest, whilst preserving the general aspect and form of the entire +skeleton. + +“Another improvement in the osteological series introduced within +the last twenty years has been the formation of a special collection +designed to show the principal modifications of each individual skeleton +throughout the vertebrate classes, by the placing the homologous bones +of a number of different animals in juxtaposition. For convenience of +comparison, the specimens of this series are all placed in corresponding +positions, mounted on separate stands, and to each is attached a label +bearing the name of the bone and the animal to which it belongs. This +series is especially instructive to the students of elementary osteology, +and forms an introduction to the general series.” + +It might have been added with perfect truth that this series of the +detached homologous bones of different animals is of equal value and +importance to both the palæontologist and the evolutionist; since with +its assistance the former has a ready means of ascertaining the nearest +relationships of any fossil bone that may be brought under his notice, +while the latter is able to observe the modifications that any particular +bone has undergone in different groups of animals. He may notice, for +instance, the elongation and slenderness distinctive of the humerus, +or arm-bone, of the bat, and contrast it with the short and broad +contour characterising the same bone in the mole, while he may observe +the elongation of some of the bones of the hind-limbs distinctive of +jumping mammals, and their almost total disappearance in the whales and +dolphins. If the preparation of this series of specimens (which appears +to have been closely connected with his lectures on the osteology of the +Mammalia, and their subsequent incorporation in the well-known volume +noticed in the sequel) had been the sole limit of the work accomplished +by Flower, it would still have been sufficient to entitle him to the +gratitude of posterity. + +It was while engaged in the development of the collections of this museum +that Flower made his important observations on the homologies and mode of +succession of the teeth of various groups of mammals, and more especially +the marsupials. Here, too, it was that he undertook the investigations +which led to his publication of a new scheme of classification for +the Carnivora; and it was likewise during his Conservatorship that he +published his valuable series of observations upon the comparative +anatomy of the mammalian liver. These and other kindred subjects may, +however, better be considered at greater length in a later chapter. It +must suffice therefore, to add in this connection that during Flower’s +term of office the unrivalled series of human skeletons and skulls +underwent a very marked and important increase. + +By no means the least important part of Flower’s work in connection with +the museum of the College of Surgeons was the compilation and publication +of the first two volumes of the _Catalogue of Osteological Specimens_ the +first, dealing with man alone, issued in 1879, and the second, written +with the aid of his assistant, Dr. J. G. Garson, and treating of the +other members of the mammalian class, in 1884. The importance of these +works consists in the fact of their being a very great deal more than +mere catalogues of the contents of one particular museum. They are, +on the contrary, systematic treatises, embodying the views of their +chief author on such important subjects as zoological nomenclature and +classification, and on the best method of arranging museums which include +specimens of the dentition and osteology of both living and extinct +animals. They accordingly deserve notice at some considerable length, not +only on this account, but as forming a record of the great changes Flower +introduced into the museum at this period under his charge. + +It appears that the first printed list of the contents of the museum was +published in the year 1831. In a few years, however, it became evident +that a work of a more ambitious nature was required; and in January 1842, +the then Conservator, Professor Owen, presented a report to the Council, +on the supreme advantage to be gained by combining in the proposed new +Catalogue both the recent and the fossil osteological Catalogues. Acting +on this, the Committee of Council resolved that such a Catalogue should +be prepared and published, and the duty of doing this was thereupon +confided to Mr. Owen. + +For some reason or other, this excellent and far-seeing resolution +was not acted upon in its entirety; and although catalogues were in +due course compiled by Owen and published, the specimens belonging to +animals still extant were entered in volumes quite distinct from these +devoted to fossil bones and teeth; while the two series of specimens were +likewise kept apart in the museum itself. “Hence,” as Flower subsequently +observed, “each series was incomplete, and required reference to the +other for its perfect illustration and comprehension.” These defects +were remedied during the administration of Flower, who not only arranged +the extinct specimens in their proper position among those belonging +to recent animals, but likewise followed the same admirable plan in +drawing up the Catalogues. Later on, as we shall see in the sequel, he +endeavoured to introduce the same scheme into the Natural History Museum, +but was prevented by the force of circumstances from carrying his views +into full effect, although a small step in the right direction was +accomplished. + +The first part of the Catalogue of the osteological specimens in the +museum of the College which, as already said, is devoted to man alone, +is a most laborious, accurate, and valuable work, dealing first with the +general osteology of man, then with his dentition, and, thirdly, with +the special characters of the osteology and dentition of the different +races of the human species—a line of study which had formed the subject +of several of his lectures as Hunterian Professor. Nor is this by +any means all, for the introduction to this volume forms a valuable +compendium of the principles and rules of the science of craniology; the +remarks on the mode of measuring skulls, and the method of calculating +from such measurements “indices,” whereby skulls of different types can +be compared with one another with exactness, being models of accuracy and +clearness, and rendered the more valuable from the tables by which they +are accompanied. For measuring the cubic contents of skulls, Flower was +convinced that mustard-seed formed the best and most accurate medium. + +In addition to its value as a summary of the contents of that portion of +the museum of which it treats, and as a _précis_ of its chief author’s +views at that time as to the classification of mammals, the second part +of the Catalogue is of special importance on account of containing an +expression of opinion on the subject of zoological nomenclature—a subject +on which Flower had previously spoken in no uncertain tones in his +Presidential Address to the Zoological section of the British Association +at the meeting held in Dublin in 1878, which is republished in _Essays on +Museums_. + +The keynote of Flower’s introduction to his Catalogue was the urgent need +of uniformity of nomenclature among zoologists; and on this, and the +subject generally, he expressed himself as follows:— + +“As there is no matter of such great importance in a catalogue as the +correct naming of the objects described in it, this part of the subject +has engaged a very large share of attention in preparing the work. I +am not sanguine enough to suppose that the names I have adopted—always +after careful research and consideration—will in every case be deemed +satisfactory by other zoologists, yet I hope that some advance will +have been made towards that most desirable end—a fixed and generally +recognised nomenclature of all the best-known species of mammals. +Having selected the generic and specific name which I considered most +appropriate, I have given the place and date of their first occurrence, +but have only admitted such synonyms as have found their way into +standard works, judging it better that the remainder should be buried in +oblivion, or at all events only retained in professedly bibliographical +treatises. In selecting the name chosen, I have been mainly guided by +the views which have been gradually gaining general currency among +conscientious naturalists of all nations, and which were formulated in +what is commonly called the Stricklandian Code, adopted by a Committee +of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1842, and +revised and reprinted by the Association in 1865, and again in 1878.... +The regulations laid down in these codes for the formation of new names +are unimpeachable; and although some of the rules for the selection +of names already in existence have given rise to criticism, and are +occasionally difficult of practical application when an endeavour is made +to enforce them too rapidly, they do in the main, when interpreted with +discretion and common-sense, lead to satisfactory results. As what we are +aiming at is simply convenience and general accord, and not abstract +justice or truth, there are cases in which the rigid law of priority, +even if it can be ascertained, requires qualification, as it is certainly +not advisable to revive an obsolete or almost unknown name at the +expense of one, which if not strictly legitimate, has been universally +accepted and become thoroughly incorporated in zoological and anatomical +literature; and it is often better to put up with a small error or +inconvenience in an existing name than to incur the much larger confusion +caused by the introduction of a new one.” + +These are weighty words of wisdom, and it must be a matter for profound +regret to all persons of thoroughly philosophical and well-balanced minds +that, by the newer school of naturalists—led by an American section—they +have not only been received without the attention they merit as coming +from a man of Flower’s wide experience and mature judgment, but have +been absolutely ignored and the principle they inculcate treated with +disdain and contempt. Obscure names, frequently of the most barbarous +construction and sound, have been raked up from all conceivable sources +and substituted for the well-known terms adopted by Flower and many of +his contemporaries; while, to make matters worse, the good old rule +that no names antedating the twelfth edition of the _Systema Naturæ_ of +Linnæus should be recognised in zoological literature has, so far as +mammals are concerned, been treated absolutely as a dead letter. + +If it be asked what has been the result of thus ignoring the deliberately +expressed and matured views of a judicial mind like Flower’s, and +whether we are perceptibly nearer the attainment of uniformity in the +matter of biological nomenclature, the reply must be that the subject +is in a more unsatisfactory state than ever, and the desired end as far +off. It is perfectly true, indeed, that a section of the students of +the systematic side of zoology have agreed among themselves to employ +only such names as they believe to be the earliest, quite irrespective +of the obscurity of their origin or the rule that such names should be +compounded according to classic usage. When, however, we take a broader +survey of the field of biology, we find that, almost to a man, the +anatomists, the palæontologists, the geologists, the evolutionists, the +students of geographical distribution, and other writers who discuss the +subject from aspects other than the purely systematic, adhere to the +more conservative side in respect of nomenclature. Moreover, even if +this were not the case, we should be but little forwarder, seeing that +in works like Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ and Wallace’s _Geographical +Distribution of Mammals_—which must remain classical so long as zoology +lasts as a science—the older style of nomenclature is used. Consequently, +even if the proposed emendations and changes were universally adopted, +the names employed by these and other contemporary writers would still +have to be learnt and committed to memory by all zoological students; so +that, instead of one series of names, as would have been practically the +case had Flower’s proposal been loyally adopted by his contemporaries and +followers, we are compelled to know and remember a double series. + +Whether in the end there will not be a reversion to the judicial and +temperate conservative compromise proposed by Flower—and almost +everything in this world is based more or less upon compromise—from the +headstrong and radical mode of procedure followed by some of the younger +zoologists, remains to be seen. + +Another subject on which Flower insisted very strongly in the work under +consideration was the inadvisability of multiplying generic and family +divisions in zoology. Here again we may quote his own words. + +“I do not mean,” he writes, “that with the advancement of knowledge +improvements cannot be continually made in the current arrangement of +genera. The older groups become so unwieldy by the discovery of new +species belonging to them that they must be broken up, if only for the +sake of convenience; newly discovered forms which cannot be placed in +any of the established genera must have new genera constituted for them, +and fuller knowledge of the structure of an animal may necessitate its +removal from one genus into another; all these are incidents in the +legitimate progress of science. Such alterations should, however, never +be made lightly and without a full sense of responsibility for the +difficulties which may be occasioned by them, and which often can never +be removed. Complete agreement upon this subject can never be expected, +as the idea of a _genus_, of an assemblage of animals to which a common +generic name may be attached, cannot be defined in words, and only exists +in the imagination of the different persons making use of the expression; +but there might be no difficulty in coming to some general agreement, if +individual zoologists would look at the idea as held by the majority, +and would not give way to the impulse to bestow a name wherever there is +the slightest opening for doing so.” + +Here, again, we have golden words, which are unfortunately ignored by a +large number of the zoologists and palæontologists of the present day. +Most noteworthy, perhaps, in the whole passage, is the emphasis given to +the fact that generic groups are but arbitrary creations of the human, +and that, far from being natural realities, they are solely and simply +formed as matters of convenience, so that their limits are absolutely +dependent upon individual or collective opinion. + +Consequently, when we hear it said—as we may—that such and such an animal +_must_ constitute a genus by itself, we may be assured that in nine cases +out of ten the speaker is talking nonsense. It _may_ do so, but this is +purely as a matter of convenience for purposes of classification. As +examples of Flower’s broad and far-seeing way of looking at the limits +of generic groups, we may take his inclusion of the foxes in the same +group as the wolves, of the polecats and weasels with the martens, of +the two-horned with the one-horned rhinoceroses, and of the blackbirds +with the thrushes; and yet in all these instances, as in many others, a +large number of his successors—many of whom cannot lay claim to anything +approaching his intellectual capacity and his power of separating +essentials from trivialities—cannot be content with the grand simplicity +of his scheme of classification. What they gain by their involved systems +and minute subdivisions is best known to themselves—to the public such +complexity tends to render zoology, which ought to be one of the most +attractive and delightful of all sciences (and it was one of Flower’s +endeavours to make it as much so as possible), repulsive and distasteful. + +The present writer’s opportunities of intercourse with Professor Flower +during his tenure of the Conservatorship of the Museum of the College +of Surgeons were but few and intermittent, and restricted to the latter +part of that time, he may therefore be pardoned for quoting from a +biographer who appears to have enjoyed more favourable opportunities in +this respect. Before doing so, however, the writer cannot refrain from +putting it on record that his own appointment to the Geological Survey +of India in the early seventies was largely due to the influence of +Professor Flower, who had been his examiner in the Natural Science Tripos +at Cambridge, in December 1871. + +To revert to the subject of Flower’s personality in connection with his +appointment in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, his biographer in the “Year-Book” of +the Royal Society for 1901 writes as follows:— + +“His tenure of office, viz., twenty-two years, as Conservator of the +museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, was a splendid record of +original and laborious work, of great administrative capacity, and of +unvarying courtesy to visitors. The museum was most popular under his +management. There, amidst the almost unrivalled collections, the tall, +fair-haired, and earnest worker was daily to be found, minutely studying, +comparing and measuring, or giving directions for the extension, +arrangement, and classification of the varied and valuable contents. From +a scientific point of view no post could have been better adapted to the +man or the man to the post. With many and varied lines of study lying +conveniently around him, in the quietude of an office less conspicuous +and exacting than the British Museum, in the full vigour of manhood, and +in the midst of sympathetic seniors, friends, and assistants, it can well +be imagined that Sir William’s powers attained great development, and +that perhaps he never felt so full of happiness and satisfaction with his +original work. It could not well be otherwise. His conscientious devotion +to duty, his remarkable skill in devising methods of mounting, his +artistic eye, his tact with subordinates, and the esteem in which he was +held by zoologists and comparative anatomists at home and abroad, give a +clue to his subsequent career, and show the training of one of the most +accomplished and courtly comparative anatomists our country has produced.” + +But there was another side to Flower’s work during the greater part of +his official connection with the Royal College of Surgeons, and one which +brought him into wider and closer contact with the public than was the +case with his Conservatorship. This was the delivery of the lectures +which form the chief, if not the sole, duty of the Hunterian Professor. +According to the statutes of the College, the annual course of lectures, +which is short, must be on a different subject each year, but must in all +cases be illustrated by preparations in the museum. + +The present writer was privileged to attend only one of these courses—on +the general structure of the Mammalia—and is therefore not competent +to speak from experience of these lectures as a whole. Nevertheless +the one course was amply sufficient to convince him of the lecturer’s +special qualifications for his task. Flower was indeed an ideal lecturer, +endowed with a fine presence, a suave and yet penetrating voice, great +power of expression, a slow and impressive delivery, and, above all, +an absolute mastery of his subject (whatever it might be) down to the +minutest and apparently most insignificant details. For him, every detail +of structure, whether functional or rudimentary, had a significance +and a meaning, and he would never rest satisfied till he had found out +what that meaning was, and had laid the whole of the evidence on which +he based his conclusions before his audience. That audience, which +generally included a considerable number of the elder members of the +medical profession, as well as many well-known zoologists and anatomists, +invariably listened with rapt attention to the story told so admirably by +the accomplished lecturer. + +Of these lectures, the first course, delivered in 1870 on the Osteology +of the Mammalia, is perhaps the one which has rendered Flower most widely +known among zoological students, since, as noticed below, it became the +basis of a valuable little volume. + +His introductory lecture in February 1870 was largely devoted to the +subject of plan, or “type,” in Nature, and to the evidence in favour of +the transmutation of species and evolution of organised beings—a doctrine +which was at that time by no means so widely accepted, even among +scientific men, as it is at the present day. In this address the lecturer +prefaced his remarks by explaining that since the main part of his +anatomical knowledge was derived from the splendid series of specimens +and preparations in the museum under his charge, so he intended to act +as the mouth-piece of the specimens themselves. After this introductory +lecture followed the regular course for the year, which was devoted to +the Osteology of the Mammalia, and it is perhaps this series which has +rendered the name of Flower most familiar to the ordinary students of +scientific zoology and comparative anatomy, since it was published during +the same year as a volume in Macmillan’s _Manuals for Students_, under +the title of _An Introduction to the Osteology of the Mammalia: being +the Substance of a Course of Lectures delivered at the Royal College +of Surgeons of England_. Such was the success of this admirable little +volume—which has ever since formed the recognised text-book on the +subject of which it treats, that a second edition was called for in 1876, +and a third in 1885. In expanding and revising the latter—in which, by +the way, the second half of the original title was dropped—the author, +owing to the pressure of official duties, called in the assistance of Dr. +J. G. Garson, of Cambridge, a well-known zoologist and anatomist. + +This book, to be properly appreciated, should be studied in connection +with the series of homologous bones of different species of mammals +arranged by Flower himself in the museum of the College of Surgeons, +to which reference has been made in an earlier part of this chapter, +and from which most of the illustrations were drawn. The figures of the +dog’s skull have been reproduced in a large number of zoological and +anatomical works. The plan followed in this volume forms an admirable +model for all works of a kindred nature. In the first chapter the author +discusses the classification of the mammalia; in the second he describes +the skeleton of that group as a whole; while in the remainder the +modifications presented by the various bones in the different groups are +described in considerable detail. A special feature is the sparing use +of technical terms, and the careful explanation of the meaning of those +of which the use was unavoidable. Besides being carefully revised and +brought up to date, the third edition differed from its predecessors by +including a table of the number of vertebræ found in a large series of +species. + +In the following year (1871) the Hunterian course, which comprised +no less than eighteen lectures, was devoted to the functions and +modifications of the teeth of mammals, from man to the monotremes, +although it was not known at that time that either of the two generic +representatives of the latter group really possessed true teeth, the +discovery of these organs in the Australian duckbill not having been made +till many years later. + +Among other subjects included in his Hunterian lectures was the anatomy +and affinities of the Cetacea, or whales and dolphins, a group of mammals +in which Flower almost from the first displayed a marked and special +interest, and on which he became one of the first authorities. Since, +however, this is a subject to which fuller reference is made in a later +chapter, it need not be further discussed in this place. + +In 1872 Flower’s Hunterian lectures were devoted to the subject of +the digestive organs of mammals; these lectures being reported, with +illustrations, in the _Medical Times and Gazette_ of the same year. + +Perhaps the most important and certainly the most voluminous of these +lectures was the series on the “Comparative Anatomy of Man,” which +extended over several years, the course for 1880 dealing especially +with the skulls of the Fiji, Tongan, and Samoan islanders. The subject +of anthropology, or the study of the different races of mankind from a +zoological standpoint, shared indeed with that of the Cetacea a large +part of the Professor’s attention, and the two together formed, perhaps, +his favourite lines of investigation. In regard to the problems presented +by the human race when viewed from this standpoint, Flower has expressed +himself as follows:— + +“Comparative anatomy is specially occupied in studying the differences +between one man and another, estimating and classifying their +differences, and especially discriminating between such differences as +are only individual variations (variations which, when extreme, are +relegated to the department of the teratologist) and those that are +inherited, and so become characters of different groups and races of +the human species. Physical anthropology, moreover, extends its range +beyond merely comparing and registering these differences of structure. +It also occupies itself with endeavouring to trace their cause, and the +circumstances which may occasion their modifications. It endeavours also +to form a classification of the different groups of mankind, and so to +throw light upon the history and development of the human species.” + +The races towards which special attention was directed in these lectures +were mainly those inhabiting the islands of the Indian Ocean and the +Pacific, namely, the diminutive and degraded Andamanese, the Australians, +and their near but very distinct neighbours, the Tasmanians, long since +extinct, the Melanesians or Oceanic Negroes, and the Polynesians. With +the exception of the latter, which the Professor regarded as an aberrant +and somewhat mixed modification of the Malay stock, all these different +island races were considered to belong to the black or negroid branch +of the human species; and it was suggested that the Andamanese were +the purest living representatives of a great “Negrito” stock, which +had been formerly widely distributed, and had given rise to the true +African negroes on the one hand, and to the Oceanic negroes on the +other. As regards his view that the aboriginal Australians are members +of the negroid branch, it will be pointed out in a later chapter that an +alternative opinion has of late years gained considerable favour among +anthropologists. + +The Hunterian lectures of Flower were, however, by no means restricted +to the negro-like races of the islands of the southern oceans. On the +contrary, the Professor devoted much attention in the course of the +series to the various races to be met with in our Indian dependencies, +dwelling especially on the so-called Dravidian (_i.e._ non-Aryan) tribes +of the Nilgiris and other districts of southern India, and likewise on +the still more remarkable and primitive Veddas of Ceylon. The Mongols, +as typified by the Tatars and Chinese, and their relationship on the one +hand to the Eskimo, and thus with the “Indians” of America, and on the +other with the Malays, were also discussed at considerable length in +these lectures. + +The origin of the Egyptians was also a subject to which much attention +was devoted by the Hunterian Professor. “The much vexed questions,” he +said, “who were the Egyptians? and where did they come from? receive no +answer from anatomical investigations, beyond the very simple one that +they are one of several races which inhabit all the lands surrounding the +Mediterranean Sea; that they there lived in their own land far beyond +all periods of time measured by historical events, and that in all +probability it was there that they gradually developed that marvellous +civilisation which has exercised such a powerful influence over the arts, +the sciences, and the religion of the whole western world.” The truth of +these suggestions has been fully confirmed by the subsequent researches +of Professor Flinders Petrie. + +As a whole, these Hunterian lectures on anthropological subjects were +a great success, and won for the Professor increased respect and +admiration from scientific men of all classes. They paved the way for the +preparation of that invaluable Catalogue of the anthropological specimens +in the museum of the College to which allusion has already been made. + +When in 1884 Professor Flower, on the resignation of Sir Richard Owen, +accepted the Directorship of the Natural History Departments of the +British Museum, and was thus compelled to sever his official connection +with the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, after a service of +two-and-twenty years, the following resolution, on the motion of Sir +James Paget, seconded by Mr. Erichsen, was unanimously passed by the +Council of the College:— + +“That the Council hereby desire to express to Mr. William Henry Flower +their deep regret at his resignation of the office of Conservator. That +they thank him for the admirable care, judgment and zeal, with which for +twenty-two years he has fulfilled the various and responsible duties +of those offices. That they are glad to acknowledge that the great +increase of the museum during those years has been very largely due to +his exertions, and to the influence which he has exercised, not only on +all who have worked with him, but amongst all who have been desirous to +promote the progress of Anatomical Science. That they know that while +he has increased the value and utility of the museum by enlarging it, +by preserving it in perfect order, and by facilitating the study of +its contents, he has also maintained the scientific reputation of the +College, by the numerous works which have gained for him a distinguished +position amongst the naturalists and biologists of the present time. And +that, in their placing on record their high appreciation of Mr. Flower, +the Council feel sure that they are expressing the opinion of all the +Fellows and Members of the College, and that they all will unite with +them in wishing him complete success and happiness in the important +office to which he has been elected.” + +This is indeed a splendid, although by no means exaggerated, testimonial +to the success of Flower’s administration of the Museum of the College +of Surgeons, and to the good and lasting work he there effected—work +which paved the way to the improvements he was subsequently able to +effect in the Natural History Museum. + + _Note._—On Owen’s retirement the post of Superintendent of the + Natural History Departments of the British Museum, which he had + filled, was merged into the new office of Director; a wider + scope being given to the duties of the post. + + + + +CHAPTER III + +AS DIRECTOR OF THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM + +[1884-1898] + + +On the resignation in 1884 by Sir Richard Owen of the post of +Superintendent of the Natural History Departments of the British Museum, +which four years previously had been transferred to the magnificent new +building in the Cromwell Road, officially known as the British Museum +(Natural History), but more commonly designated the Natural History +Museum, it was felt by all competent to form an adequate opinion on the +subject that Professor Flower was the one man specially and peculiarly +fitted for the post. And accordingly, in the course of the year in +question, he was duly appointed to that most important and influential +position, which may be regarded as conferring upon its occupant the +status of the leading official zoologist in the British Empire. It was in +this position that Flower became most widely known to the general public; +and here that he received the honours, firstly of C.B., and later on +K.C.B., conferred upon him by his Sovereign. + +At the date when Sir William (then Professor) assumed the reins of +office, the position of Director of the Natural History Museum was +of a somewhat anomalous and peculiar nature. At that time (as now) +the administration of the museum was divided into four sections, or +departments, namely Zoology, Geology (or rather Palæontology), Botany +and Mineralogy, each of which was presided over by a “Keeper,” who had +practically unlimited control, both as regards finance and general +arrangement, of his own section. Consequently, as regards these four +departments, the Director had very little control over the museum he was +nominally supposed to govern; and his functions were to a great extent +limited to regulating the “foreign policy” of the institution under his +charge, that is to say, its relations to the parent establishment at +Bloomsbury, to the Treasury, and to the world at large. In fact, as Sir +William once remarked to the present writer, the Director at that time +had to find a sphere of work for himself. + +Fortunately, such a sphere of work lay ready to hand, and Flower +immediately entered upon it with characteristic energy and enthusiasm. + +So long ago as the year 1859, Sir Richard Owen, in one of his reports +to the Trustees of the Museum, recommended that the new building, in +addition to affording ample space for the general series of natural +specimens exhibited to the public, should likewise include a hall, or +other suitable apartment, for the display of a series of specimens +calculated to convey an elementary idea of the general principles of +systematic natural history and biological classification to the large +proportion of the ordinary public visitor not conversant with that +subject. In other words, the feature of the proposed section would be the +exhibition of a series of specimens selected to show the more typical +characters of the principal groups of organised (and, it was at the +time added, crystallised) forms. This, it was urged, would constitute +an epitome of natural history, and would convey to the eye, in the +easiest and most ready manner, an elementary knowledge of the sciences in +question. + +In every modification which the plans of the new building underwent, +a hall for the purpose indicated in the above passages formed, as Sir +William has himself remarked, a prominent feature; being in the later +stages of the development of the building called, for want of a better +name, the “Index Museum.” + +The increasing infirmities of age, coupled with the short time during +which he presided over the Natural History collections in their new home, +combined, however, to prevent Owen from making any real progress with +the so-called Index Museum; and although he furnished the idea of the +scheme and planned the general installation of the hall, the selection +and installation of its contents were left to his successor. And, with +the vast experience gained by Sir William during his tenure of office in +the Royal College of Surgeons, they could not possibly have been left to +abler hands. + +Here it is necessary to explain that, whether by design or by accident, +history sayeth not, the Index Museum and the Central Hall generally were +not included in any one of the four great administrative departments +of the Museum, so that they consequently came under the immediate and +exclusive control of the Director himself. + +Nor was Flower long in setting to work at the task which thus lay +awaiting his master-hand; and the Index Museum, as fast as the exigencies +of finance and the difficulties of procuring suitable specimens +permitted, gradually assumed the shape and character familiar to all +visitors of the building, not that in these respects it exactly followed +the lines suggested by Owen. In place of being, as was originally +proposed, a sort of epitome or index of the main collections in the +galleries, it developed rather into something “more like the general +introduction preceding the systematic portion of treatises on any branch +of natural history.” + +Whether, in view of this departure from the original conception, Sir +William, if starting _de novo_, would have grouped all these separate +collections in a single apartment, or whether he would have split them +up and placed them at the commencement of the various series in the +exhibition galleries to which they respectively pertain, may be a moot +point. But, at anyrate, no detriment to his work would ensue if such a +splitting-up should be thought desirable in the future. And considerable +advantages would undoubtedly result if the series displaying the general +morphology and anatomy of the mammals were placed at the entrance of the +mammalian gallery, and so on with the other series at present exhibited +in the Index Museum. + +Be this as it may, the series of specimens and preparations arranged +in the Index Museum under the immediate superintendence of Flower is +probably unrivalled in its way, and displays in a marked manner that +attention to detail and that eye to artistic effect which were among his +special attributes. In the “bay” devoted to mammals, special attention +was given to the display of specimens illustrating the various forms +assumed by the teeth in the different orders and families, and their +mode of succession and replacement;—subjects in which Flower always +displayed special interest, and in regard to which he made some important +discoveries. Here, too, were exhibited during the latter half of his +tenure of office the skeletons and half-models of a man and a horse, +placed in juxtaposition, in order to display the special adaptations +and modifications for, on the one hand, the upright posture and great +brain-capacity, and, on the other, for the high degree of speed and +endurance essential to an otherwise defenceless quadruped living, in a +wild state, on open plains. In this exhibit, which forms the frontispiece +to his well-known and deservedly popular little work on _The Horse_, +Sir William always took an especial pride; and it was one of the first +objects to which he directed the attention of the many illustrious and +distinguished visitors who sought his guidance in viewing the collections +under his charge. Another specimen in the same “bay” of which he was +especially proud is the skeleton of a young chimpanzee, dissected by Dr. +Tyson, and described by that anatomist in a work published in 1699, under +the title of the _Anatomie of a Pigmie_, being the earliest scientific +description of any man-like ape. + +As regards the vertebrate “bays,” Sir William himself (always of course +with the aid of trained assistants) took an active part in the selection +and arrangement of the specimens. In the case of the invertebrate groups, +on the other hand, the task was left more to his subordinates; while +as regards the botanical section such relegation was, of necessity, +practically complete. Although it has been previously referred to +elsewhere, it may be mentioned that it was during the work on the Index +Museum the discovery of the absence in certain groups of birds of the +fifth cubital quill-feather was made; a fact now familiar to naturalists +under the title of diastaxy, or aquintocubitalism. + +A special feature of the vertebrate section of the Index Museum was the +attention devoted to the mounting of the skins of the mammals exhibited. +In an address delivered to the British Association in 1889, Flower +referred to “the sadly neglected art of taxidermy, which continues +to fill the cases of most of our museums with wretched and repulsive +caricatures of mammals and birds, out of all natural proportions, +shrunken here and bloated there, and in attitudes absolutely impossible +for the creature to have assumed while alive.” And he was determined that +the specimens of this nature in the section of the museum under his own +immediate superintendence should be the best of their kind, and should +serve as models for the renovation of these in the zoological galleries +which he had determined to undertake so soon as the opportunity was +afforded. + +Neither was he less particular in regard to labels describing the +exhibits. In the address already referred to, he had written that +“above all, the purpose for which each specimen is exhibited, and the +main lesson to be derived from it, must be distinctly indicated by the +labels affixed, both as headings of the various divisions of the series +and to the individual specimens. A well-arranged educational museum +has been defined as a collection of instructive labels, illustrated by +well-selected specimens.” Most, if not all, of the descriptive labels +in the vertebrate series of the Index Museum were written by the hand +of the Director himself, while all came under his personal supervision +before being placed in the museum. Labels of a descriptive nature had +hitherto been mainly, if not entirely, conspicuous by their absence on +the zoological side of the museum; and for some time the Index series +alone afforded an example of the nature of the Director’s views on +this all-important subject. Nor was this all; for in addition to these +descriptive labels, other and larger labels were affixed in the cases, +bearing the names of the various “classes,” “orders,” and “families,” +to which the specimens respectively pertained; the limits of the space +occupied by each group being indicated by black laths, varying in width +according to the grade of the group they demarcated. By this means +systematic divisions were clearly indicated; and on no consideration +would Flower permit of any single specimen being placed elsewhere than in +its proper systematic position. + +Another innovation—so far at anyrate as the zoological side of the museum +was concerned—was the placing of small maps alongside each specimen +or each group, to illustrate, by means of colour, the geographical +distribution of the species or group. + +As regards the function of the Index Museum, it may be admitted that +instead of, as originally intended, serving as an elementary guide +in natural history to the uninstructed public, this exhibit is more +generally used by serious zoological students, of whom numbers may from +time to time be seen, book in hand, and sometimes under the guidance +of a teacher, intently poring over the contents of the cases. Such a +use—although not perhaps the prime object of a national museum—is, +however, at least as important as catering to the requirements of the +ordinary visitor. + +The display in systematic and serial order of the external characters +and internal anatomy of the leading types of living and extinct animals +and plants formed, however, only a part of Flower’s scheme of exhibits +for the central hall of the museum. Such specimens occupied only the +“bays” or alcoves on the west and east sides, and there remained the +large central floor space for exhibits of other descriptions. Advantage +was taken of this to display examples of the phenomenon of seasonal +colour-change in birds, accompanied in some instances, as in the ruff, +by the development of special plumes round the neck, or elsewhere; the +two species selected for illustration being the aforesaid ruff and the +wild duck or mallard; the latter bird, together with many other members +of its tribe, being remarkable on account of the assumption by the +males at certain seasons of the year of an “eclipse” plumage, almost +indistinguishable from that distinctive at all times of the year of the +female. Other cases were devoted to showing some of the more remarkable +kinds of variation produced from a single wild stock by domestication +and artificial selection; the species exhibited for this purpose being +several types of the common fowl, the various kinds of pigeons, and the +more remarkable strains of the canary. The introduction of domesticated +breeds, whose peculiarities are entirely, in the outset at anyrate, the +result of man’s interference with the ordinary course of Nature, is a +notable feature of this portion of the work of Flower, and indicates +his sense of the important bearing of such artificial variations on +the doctrine of the evolution of organic nature. “Mimicry” by animals +of one group of those of another also formed an important part of this +introductory series of exhibit; as did likewise the colour-adaptation +of animals to their inorganic surroundings. This latter phenomenon +is specially illustrated by a series of animals (mammals, birds and +reptiles) from the Libyan desert, which are set up amid rocks and sand +from the same locality so as to imitate as nearly as possible the natural +conditions. And this case, together with one of these to be noticed +immediately, affords an excellent example of Sir William’s painstaking +efforts to make the exhibits in the museum as realistic as possible, +and also his influence and persuasive power in inducing friends or +correspondents to aid his endeavours. For in both these instances the +animals and their inanimate surroundings were collected on the spot by +generous and enthusiastic donors. + +The second instance of the adaptation of animals to their surroundings is +afforded by the two cases displaying respectively a summer and a winter +scene in Norway, with the birds and mammals in the one in their brown +dress, and in the other in their snow-white livery. Since Sir William’s +death an Arctic fox, in the appropriate dress, had been added to each +case, with a decided improvement to the general effect. + +Another exhibit of the above nature is devoted to the phenomenon of +albinism and melanism among animals; the two cases in which the specimens +are shown containing an extraordinary number of species, varying in +size from leopards to mice, in which these remarkable colour-phases +are respectively displayed. The admission of such departures from +the ordinary type into the museum justifies, it may be mentioned, the +introduction of abnormalities of a more startling nature. Finally, as +illustration of a transition from one species towards another, Sir +William caused to be set up a series of typical specimens of the common +and the hooded crow, together with offspring produced by the union of +the two, which are to a great extent intermediate between the parent +forms. In the same cases is a series of goldfinches, showing a complete +gradation between birds of different coloration, and commonly regarded as +belonging to distinct species. + +All the above instances serve to demonstrate, however inadequately, +Flower’s broad conception of the field to be covered by a national and +educational museum, altogether apart from the exhibition of specimens +illustrative of systematic natural history. It is no secret that Sir +William wished to add a series illustrative of the present geographical +distribution of animals on the surface of the globe; but, for lack of +space, all that could be attempted in this direction was the exhibition +of the British fauna, together with a map displaying the division of the +world into zoological regions, according to the scheme of Messrs. Sclater +and Wallace. + +For several years, apart from administrative duties, Flower devoted +practically the whole of his available time to the elaboration of the +Index Museum and the other exhibits in the Central Hall, although he +found opportunity to draw up a list of the specimens of Cetacea (whales +and dolphins) in the collection of the Museum, which was published by +order of the Trustees in 1885. Probably, indeed, this list was compiled +before active work on the Index Museum had commenced. It is a very +useful work to the student of the group, although limited to species +represented in the Museum collection. + +In the autumn of the year 1895 there occurred, however, an event, which +may be said to have revolutionised Flower’s position in the Museum, and +gave him that immediate personal control over the zoological collections +which was essential to the full development and perfection of his scheme +of museum reform and expansion. At that date Dr. Albert Günther retired +from the position of Keeper of the Zoological Department; and it was then +resolved by the Trustees of the Museum that this post should be held by +Sir William (who, by the way, had been made C.B. in 1887 and K.C.B. in +1892), in conjunction with the office of Director. + +This arrangement was continued throughout the remainder of Sir William’s +term of office, and was likewise renewed when he was succeeded by +Professor E. Ray Lankester, the present holder of the combined posts. + +This, then, gave Flower, as already stated, the opportunity for which +he had so long been waiting; and in January 1896 he undertook the +supervision of the reorganisation and rearrangement of the mammal gallery. + +Here a digression of some length must be made, in order to make the +reader acquainted in a certain degree with the conditions then prevalent +in the museum in connection with the galleries open to the public. In the +first place, as already indicated, while the skins and bones of recent +animals were contained and exhibited in the Zoological Department, the +remains of their extinct relatives, and even the fossilised bones and +teeth of the living species, were relegated to the Geological Department, +which occupies the ground floor of the opposite side of the building. To +make matters worse, the skeletons of living mammals were exhibited on +the second floor of the zoological side of the building (instead of, as +they should have been, on the ground floor), and thus as far away as they +could possibly be from those of their extinct predecessors. + +Such an unnatural and illogical sundering of kindred objects was +altogether repugnant to the mind of Flower, who in his address to the +British Association in 1889, to which allusion has been already made, +expressed himself as follows:— + +“For the perpetuation of the unfortunate separation of palæontology +from biology, which is so clearly a survival of an ancient condition +of scientific culture, and for the maintenance in its integrity of the +heterogeneous compound of sciences which we now call ‘geology,’ the +faulty organisation of our museums is in a great measure responsible. +The more their rearrangement can be made to overstep and break down +the abrupt line of demarcation which is still almost universally drawn +between beings which live now and those which have lived in past times, +so deeply rooted in the popular mind, and so hard to eradicate even from +that of the scientific student, the better it will be for the progress of +sound biological knowledge.” + +The force of circumstances, coupled with the expense which would have +been involved, was, however, too much for even a man with Flower’s +force of character and determination, and the attempt to merge the +palæontological with the zoological collections was consequently +perforce abandoned.[2] As a compromise a certain number of fossil +specimens, or casts of the same, were to be introduced among the recent +mammals; while, conversely, a few skeletons of the latter were to take +their place among the remains of their extinct forerunners. + +In another mooted change, Sir William (as it lay entirely in the +Department under his own special control) was, however, more successful. +Previously it had been the practice in the museum to separate the +skeletons and skulls and horns of mammals from the mounted skins, placing +the former in a gallery by themselves, known as the Osteological Gallery. +As a result of this, if a visitor wanted to ascertain the peculiarities +of the skeleton of any mammal of which the skin was exhibited, he had +to mount to the gallery above, and on his arrival there, very probably +forgot the essential features of the skin. One of the first resolves in +connection with the rearrangement was to do away with the Osteological +Gallery altogether, and to place a certain proportion of the skeletons +and skulls in juxtaposition with, or near by, the stuffed skins. + +Another feature of the old method of exhibition in vogue in the museum +was the crowding together of a vast number of specimens, good, bad, and +indifferent (mostly either the second or third), many of which were +duplicates, in such a manner that the great majority could scarcely be +seen at all, while the effect of those that were more or less visible +was marred and obscured by the adjacent specimens. To add to this +unsatisfactory state of affairs was the bad condition—due either to +age, to bad taxidermy, or both combined—of the bulk of the specimens. +Moreover, by some inconceivable Vandalism, dating apparently from a +very remote epoch in the museum’s history, every specimen was mounted +on a stand of polished sycamore, the effect of which was to mar even a +first-class specimen of taxidermy. When to the above is added the fact +that, beyond the scientific and in most cases also the popular name of +the species, nothing in the way of indicating the serial position of +the various groups was attempted, while all that was done in the way of +descriptive labels was the suspension here and there of frames containing +extracts from the “Guide” to the gallery, it may be imagined that the +state of the collection was very far indeed behind the Director’s idea of +what it should be. Moreover, although in the case of the smaller animals +a systematic arrangement was followed, the cases containing the larger +species were disposed without any reference to the systematic position of +the latter. + +In regard to such matters the Director had, in the address quoted, +already expressed his own views in no uncertain tone, as is evident from +the following passage relating to the arrangement of specimens in the +public galleries:— + +“In the first place,” he writes, “their numbers must be strictly limited, +according to the nature of the subject illustrated and the space +available. None must be placed too high or too low for ready examination. +There must be no crowding of specimens one behind another, every one +being perfectly and distinctly seen, and with a clear space around it.... +Every specimen exhibited should be good of its kind, and all available +skill and care should be spent upon its preservation and rendering +it capable of teaching the lesson it is intended to convey.... Every +specimen exhibited should have its definite purpose, and no absolute +duplicate should on any account be permitted.” + +The purport of these golden words, which at the time they were written +indicated an entirely new departure in museum arrangement and display, +was, so far as possible, followed in the rearrangement of the mammal +galleries. In the first place, the upper portions of the cases, which +were far too high above the ground to permit of the proper exhibition +of small specimens, were, except in those containing large mammals, +closed up and employed for displaying the labels relating to the larger +groups and the maps illustrating their geographical distribution. Then, +again, the shelves, in place of being arranged one above another like +those in a wardrobe, were reduced in number, and in most instances in +width, so as to be suited to the best possible display of the specimens +they were intended to carry. Duplicate specimens of all kinds, as well +as representatives of species having but little general interest, were +relentlessly weeded out and consigned to the store series; while efforts +were made to procure new examples, mounted in the best possible manner, +of all species—and these were by far the great majority—represented by +badly-mounted, or old and faded specimens. This part of the business was +found, however, to be a matter which must necessarily occupy much time, +as it is impossible to procure examples of rare or large species, in a +condition fit for stuffing, at the precise moment when they are required; +and there is also the question of expense, which becomes very heavy +indeed when renovating and replacing a collection of the proportions +of that of the National Museum. This portion of the work has therefore +been going on uninterruptedly ever since the first start was made, and +is indeed being continued at the present time; for it has been found +by experience that a collection of this nature, owing to the terribly +bleaching effects of sunlight, requires constant renovation, and that +exhibited museum specimens have only a definite and limited period, +varying to a considerable extent according to the colour and nature +of the hair in individual species, during which they are fitted to be +publicly shown. Instead of a museum, when once arranged, being “a joy +for ever,” it requires constant attention and renovation, so that even, +to keep them in proper order, the mammal galleries alone in the Natural +History Museum demand a large proportion of the time of one of the +officials. + +Not the least important of the changes made in the mammalian galleries +under the supervision of Sir William Flower was the alteration of the +colour of the stands on which the specimens were mounted. These, as +already said, were of polished sycamore, the bright reflection from +which was exceedingly unbecoming to the specimens, to say nothing of +the obvious lack of æsthetic fitness in mounting stuffed mammals upon a +polished surface of this nature. Before anything in the way of a change +was attempted, Sir William sought the advice of his friend, the late +Lord Leighton, after consultation with whom, it was finally decided +that in future the stands should be of a good “cigar-colour.” This was +effected, in the first instance, by scraping and staining the original +sycamore stands—a work of great labour and expense; but all new ones were +subsequently made of wood more easy to work, walnut being employed in the +case of the smaller sizes. Even this improvement, great as it undoubtedly +was, did not, however, by any means represent the full extent of the +changes in this direction. After a short experience of the aforesaid +“cigar-coloured” stands, it was found that the general effect was much +improved by gouging out the upper surface of these, with the exception of +a narrow rim round the margin, to a depth of a quarter or half an inch, +and covering it with a thin layer of sand or earth, upon which leaves, +pebbles, etc., might be disposed if required. Instead of “skating on +sycamore tables,” the animals were by this means shown standing on a very +good imitation of a natural land surface. + +Nor was this all. At an early period during the rearrangement of the +mammal galleries, Sir William suggested that many of the larger species +might be mounted upon imitation ground-work covering the entire floor +of the cases in which they were exhibited. This idea was forthwith put +into execution in several cases, notably in these containing the lions, +the tigers, and the group of fur-seals from the Pribiloff Islands, +presented by Sir George Baden-Powell. Supposed difficulties with regard +to the cleaning of the glass of the cases prevented this plan from being +carried out to any greater extent during Sir William’s life-time. But +these presumed difficulties were subsequently overcome, and of late years +a considerable number of the cases containing the larger species of +mammals have been treated in this manner with excellent effect and a vast +increase to the general attractiveness of the museum. In some instances a +merely conventional ground-work has been introduced, but in others a more +realistic effect has been attempted. A notable example of this is the +reindeer-case, in which the artificial ground-work is covered with rocks, +lichen, moss, and birch-stems obtained from the reindeer pastures of +Norway. Similarly, the Arctic musk-oxen have been placed on an imitation +snow-slope. Although, as already said, much of this work has been +carried out since his death, the idea originated entirely with Flower. A +similar grouping of animals on artificial ground-work—when possible in +imitation of the natural surroundings—has been instituted in some of the +American museums, but whether following Flower’s lead, or as an original +inspiration, I am unable to say. + +At the time when Sir William took over the office of Keeper of the +Zoological Department (in addition to the Directorship), the scheme then +in vogue at the museum scarcely assigned to man his real zoological +position—at the head of the order Primates in the mammalian class. It is +true that in the osteological gallery the genus Homo was represented by +a couple of skeletons and a series of skulls. But in the gallery devoted +to stuffed specimens man, as an integral portion of the exhibited series, +was conspicuous by his absence. This by no means suited the views of +the Director, who in an obituary notice of Owen quoted with approval +a statement of the great anatomist to the effect that no collection of +zoology could in any way be regarded as complete without a large amount +of space being devoted to the display of the physical characteristics +of the various races of the human species. “The series of zoology would +lack its most important feature were the illustrations of the physical +characters of the human race omitted.” Such a series, thought Owen in +1862, would require a gallery of something like 150 feet in length, by +50 feet in width, for its proper display. Stuffed specimens being, of +course, out of the question, the series was to include “casts of the +entire body, coloured after life, of characteristic parts, as the head +and face, skeletons of every variety arranged side by side for facility +of comparison, the hair preserved in spirit, showing its characteristic +sign and distinctive structures, etc.” Had photography been in anything +like its present advanced position in 1862, no doubt its aid would have +been claimed in illustrating the various racial types of the human +species. + +A gallery of anything like the dimensions required by Owen was quite out +of the question when Flower planned the addition of an anthropological +section to the mammalian series, but one-half of the portion of the upper +mammal gallery now open to the public was reserved for this purpose, +so that man took his proper place in the zoological series immediately +after the gorilla, chimpanzee, and the other man-like apes, which, in +their turn, were preceded by the lower types of monkey. In the main, the +specimens exhibited in this series follow on the lines suggested by Owen, +including coloured casts of the upper part of the body, or the head and +neck alone, specimens of the hair, skulls, skeletons, etc. + +In addition to these is a series of photographs of heads enlarged to +natural size, and including, whenever possible, a full face and a profile +view of each individual represented. Flower took great interest in these +photographs (as in the anthropological series generally), and made +several experiments before finally deciding as to the scale to which +they were to be enlarged. As facilities for photographing in the museum +itself were at the time very limited, Flower enlisted the assistance +of Dr. H. O. Forbes, Director of the Liverpool Museums, who entered +enthusiastically into the project, and under whose superintendence the +great majority of the reproductions from photographs now exhibited was +produced; the arrangement being that Liverpool should have a copy of +every photograph forwarded for reproduction. + +The races of mankind were arranged in the gallery according to Flower’s +own scheme, fuller reference to which is made elsewhere in the present +volume. Flower himself did not survive long enough to see the arrangement +he had plotted out fully installed. Of late years, although some progress +has been made in this direction, the series of coloured casts of the +various human races has not increased so rapidly as Flower had hoped they +would; but, nevertheless, a fairly representative series had been brought +together, and there is, at present, ample space for additions when +opportunities of acquiring new specimens occur. It should be added that +Flower inaugurated the plan of making a collection of photographs of the +various human races to be kept in the study series. + +It must not, however, be supposed that Flower, during his too brief +tenure of the office of Keeper of the Zoological Department, by any means +confined his attention to the mammalian galleries. On the contrary, he +had with his own hands rearranged two of the cases in the bird gallery, +namely, those containing the humming-birds and the woodpeckers; and +shortly before his resignation he was planning the rearrangement of all +the cases in this section; a work which since his death has been carried +out to completion on the same lines. In this connection it is, however, +only fair to state that in the obituary notice of Flower, published in +the “Year-Book” of the Royal Society for 1901, full justice has not been +done to his predecessors. The passage in question runs as follows:— + +“Every effort was made to give the specimens natural postures and natural +surroundings. Thus, for example, the tree on which the woodpecker was at +work, was cut down, the foliage modelled in wax, and all the surroundings +carefully kept. Hovering birds were suspended by fine wire or thread. +Birds making nests in holes, such as the Manx shearwater, sand-martin and +kingfishers, either had the actual parts or a model of these beside them, +just as the nests of the gannets and guillemots on the Bass Rock were +shown with their natural environment.” + +The obvious inference from this would be that the cases of birds mounted +in imitation of their natural environment, inclusive of the splendid +model of a portion of the Bass Rock, with its feathered inhabitants +placed in the “pavilion” at the end of the bird gallery, are due to the +initiation of Flower. This is far from being the case; and he himself +would have been the very last man to claim credit which was not his due. +As a matter of fact, the idea of mounting birds in this manner originated +with Dr. Bowdler Sharpe during the Keepership of Dr. Günther; the first +case installed on these lines being the one containing the common coot. +The series was continued during Dr. Günther’s term of office, and was +kept up by Flower after his succession to the Keepership. As regards +the Bass Rock model, this was also installed during Dr. Günther’s +Keepership, and, I believe, while Owen was Superintendent. What Flower +did initiate in the bird gallery was the rearrangement of the wall-cases +on much the same lines as the mammal galleries, including the rejection +of duplicates and uninteresting species, and the replacement of worn-out +and badly-mounted specimens, by new and artistically set-up examples, +and the addition of maps and descriptive labels. As a matter of fact, +the replacement and remounting of specimens have been carried out to a +much greater extent among the birds than has been found possible with the +mammals. A large number of the birds have been mounted by Cullingford +of Durham, whereas nearly all the mammals have been set up by three +London taxidermists, namely Rowland Ward, Ltd., Gerrard, and Pickhardt. +This plan of employing several firms of taxidermists, instead of giving +all the work to one, was much favoured by Flower, as it gave rise to a +healthy competition and rivalry, and thus produced better results; the +different firms being kept up to the mark by having their names affixed +to the more important examples of their respective work. + +Before his last illness Flower had in contemplation a plan for treating +the reptile and fish galleries (in which the crowded exhibits displayed a +monotonous and dismal “khaki” hue) on the above lines, but this work was +left for his successor, by whom it is in course of being carried out with +characteristic energy and originality. + +There is, however, another section of the zoological department of the +museum which owes its conception entirely to Sir William Flower, and +which he was fortunately spared to complete. This is the whale-room, +or whale-annexe, as it might be better called; for it is a temporary +structure of galvanised iron, lined with match-boarding built out from +the north-west angle of the building, and entered by a passage leading +out of the corridor alongside the bird gallery. At the time that Flower +took over the Keepership of the Zoological Department, with the exception +of a skeleton of the sperm-whale, placed in the middle of the Central +Hall, the specimens of Cetacea were housed in a portion of the basement, +never intended for a public gallery and very unsuited to that purpose. +The collection consisted mainly of skeletons and skulls, together with +samples of whalebone and teeth; for it had been found by experience that +it was a practical impossibility to mount the skins of the larger whales +for exhibition purposes. Indeed, there is great difficulty in doing this +even in the case of the dolphins, porpoises, and smaller whales, owing +to the fact that their skins are saturated with oil, which, even after +the most careful preparation, is almost sure, sooner or later, to exude +through the pores, and render the specimens unsightly, if not absolutely +unfit for exhibition. + +Previously to Flower’s attempt to make an adequate and striking +exhibition of the bodily form of the larger whales, some of the smaller +members of the group, such as the killer-whale, had been modelled in +America in papier-maché; one such model of the species in question being +exhibited in the museum. Flower, however, conceived the idea of making +models in plaster of even the largest species of whales; but, in order to +save both material and space, resolved that these should be restricted +to one-half of the animal, and should be constructed upon the actual +skeleton, thereby ensuring, with the aid, when possible, of measurements +taken from carcases, practically absolute accuracy as regards size and +proportion. In due course, after great labour and care, such half-models +were built up on the skeletons of the sperm-whale, the southern +right-whale, and two species of fin-whale, or rorqual, while others +were made of some of the smaller kinds, such as the narwhal and the +beluga or white whale. Skeletons and skulls of other species, together +with complete models or stuffed skins, or models of the head alone, of +many of the porpoises and dolphins, and other specimens illustrating +the natural history of the Cetacea, were likewise placed in the new +annexe, which was opened to the public on Whit Monday 1897. Flower had +always been impressed with the great structural difference between the +toothed whales, as represented by the sperm-whale, grampuses, porpoises, +dolphins, etc., on the one hand, and the whalebone-whales, such as the +right-whales, humpbacks, and finners, on the other; and in order to +emphasise this essential distinction, he caused the skeletons and models +of the one group to be mounted with their heads in one direction, while +those of the second were turned the opposite way. + +Although it was found impossible to obtain a skeleton of the Greenland +right-whale, Flower was able to persuade Captain Gray, a well-known +whaler, to carve a miniature model in wood, which gives an excellent +idea of the proportions, especially the huge size of the head and mouth, +of this interesting species. Sketches on the walls of the building +illustrate the habits and mode of capture of the sperm-whale, while +others serve to show the bodily form of species not yet represented by +models. + +At the time it was opened this exhibit was absolutely unique; and, in the +belief of the writer, it remains so to the present day. Unfortunately, +the size and design of the building, which has a row of wooden posts down +the middle, are such as greatly to interfere with the proper effect of +the specimens exhibited; and it is much to be hoped that means will be +found to erect a larger gallery, of a more permanent nature, which will +not only allow the contents of the present structure to be adequately +seen, but will likewise leave space to permit of models of other species, +such as the humpback whale, to be added to the series. + +Hitherto I have dwelt exclusively upon Sir William’s efforts to improve +the museum under his charge, from the point of view of the general +public, that is to say, as an institution for the exhibition of natural +history specimens. It must, however, be always remembered that this was +but one side of his task, and that he laboured hard during the whole +time of his official connection with the museum not only to increase +the study, or reserve, collections (which are those on which the real +scientific work of the museum is almost exclusively based), but to add to +the space available for their storage and for the workers by whom they +are studied. + +Early in his career as Director he recognised the insufficiency of the +accommodation of this nature, although, as usual, he expressed his +opinion in extremely cautious and guarded language. For instance, in his +address as President of the Museum Associations in 1893, after referring +to the deficiencies of all, at that time, modern museums, which were +described as having been built during a period when opinion was still +divided as to the proper function of institutions of this nature, he +continued as follows:— + +“In none, perhaps, is this more strikingly shown than in our own—built, +unfortunately, before any of the others, and so without the advantages of +the experience that might have been gained from their successes or their +shortcomings. Though a building of acknowledged architectural beauty, and +with some excellent features, it cannot be taken structurally as a model +museum when the test of adaptation to the purpose to which it is devoted +is rigidly applied.” + +This unsuitableness, it may be added, is apparent not only in the lack +of accommodation for the study series, but in the exhibition galleries +themselves, where architectural ornament interferes with the proper +display of the specimens, if indeed it does not absolutely preclude +their being placed on the walls, while an excess of light (which has +been partially remedied by blocking up the lower portion of the windows +in some of the zoological galleries) causes the specimens to become +prematurely bleached and faded. + +As regards the deficiency of accommodation for the study series in the +museum, Sir William endeavoured to remedy this, so far as possible, by +closing some portions of the galleries previously open to the public—a +step, which, however necessary, tended to mar the building, so far as +exhibition purposes are concerned. + +“While thus maintaining,” writes his biographer in the “Year-book” of +the Royal Society for 1901, “the high scientific reputation of the +great National Museum, he continued to popularise the institution and +science by taking parties of working men round the museum on Sundays, +and occasionally a distinguished visitor, like Dr. Nansen, would also +join the group. Nor was he less attentive to members of the Royal Family, +or to distinguished statesmen, like Mr. Gladstone, who honoured the +museum with their presence. Foreign rulers, like the Queen of Holland, +the Prince of Naples, the Empress Frederick of Germany, and the King of +Siam, were also interested in the collection, so that the popularity +and welfare of the museum were greatly extended by the Director’s tact +and urbanity. Formerly, he had taken a leading part in interesting the +Prince of Wales (his present Majesty), who was present at Sir James +Paget’s Hunterian Oration in 1877, in the Museum of the Royal College +of Surgeons, and in arranging for an exhibition of the Prince’s hunting +trophies at the Zoological Society shortly afterwards, so in his +new sphere royal and other powerful influences were utilised for the +improvement and popularising of the collection.” + +King Edward, as Prince of Wales, it may be added, was a constant +attendant at the meetings of the Board of Trustees at the Museum during +Sir William Flower’s administration; and would occasionally, at the close +of the meeting, accompanied by the Director, make an inspection of some +of the galleries. As indicative of the interest he took in the details of +the arrangement of the museum, it may be mentioned that on one of these +tours of inspection His Majesty took exception to the position assigned +to the head of a reindeer, and desired that it might be placed elsewhere. + +One other point in connection with Sir William’s administration may be +noticed. Ever since its establishment the hall and public exhibition +galleries of the Natural History Museum had been guarded during +exhibition hours by members of the Metropolitan Police—an arrangement +which involved a very large expense to the country. Flower suggested +that, provided two or three police sergeants and constables were detailed +for special duty, the general work of guarding the collections could be +equally well done by members of the Corps of Commissionaires, thereby +not only effecting a considerable financial saving, but likewise a fresh +area of employment for a very deserving class of the community. This +arrangement, which was found to work smoothly and satisfactorily, has +remained in force ever since. It may be added that the opening of the +museum for a limited number of hours on Sunday afternoons commenced +during Flower’s tenure of office; this arrangement being common to other +institutions of a like nature. + +At the special recommendation of the Trustees, the Treasury, when Sir +William reached the age for retirement, according to Civil Service rules, +extended his term of office for three years. A lengthened period of +physical weakness and prostration rendered it, however, impossible for +Flower to avail himself of the whole of this extension, and in July 1898 +the state of his health was such that he felt himself compelled to send +in his resignation. + +When this resignation was accepted by the Standing Committee of the +Trustees of the Museum, a special Minute, signed by Lord Dillon, gave +expression to the regret felt by that body and the Trustees generally +at the retirement of Sir William, to whom every compliment was paid as +a worthy successor of Sir Richard Owen, and as one who had done so much +towards the reorganisation of a museum pre-eminent amongst institutions +of its kind. + +To enter upon the relations of Flower to his subordinates in the Museum +is treading upon somewhat delicate ground; it may be safely affirmed, +however, that to those who were in full sympathy and accord with his +way of looking at things and his schemes for the general advancement +and improvement of the institution under his charge, no truer friend or +kinder master could possibly have been found. Owing to the fact that the +time of the permanent officials of the museum is for the most part fully +occupied in working out the store collections, and registering and, when +necessary, describing new acquisitions, Sir William soon found that he +had not sufficient skilled labour at his disposal wherewith to carry out +the installation of the Index Museum and his meditated improvements in +the exhibition series. Accordingly he obtained the assent of the Treasury +to employ the services of a few scientific men not on the staff of the +museum for these purposes; an arrangement which has been continued under +his successor. + +Sir William’s services to the museum, as well as to science in general, +are commemorated by a bust, executed by Mr. T. Brock, and placed on the +south side of the entrance to the first “bay” of the Index Museum. The +funds necessary for this were raised by the “Flower Memorial Committee,” +to which Mr. F. E. Beddard, Prosector of the Zoological Society, acted as +Secretary. The bust, which in a profile view, is an excellent likeness +of the late Director, was unveiled on 26th July 1903, by the Archbishop +of Canterbury, in the presence of a representative assemblage of men of +science and personal friends, as well as of statesmen. + +The proceedings were opened by Professor E. Ray Lankester, the Director +of the Museum, who moved that Lord Avebury (better known in scientific +circles as Sir John Lubbock), the Chairman of the Memorial Committee, +should take the chair. The Chairman, having taken his seat, expressed his +pleasure in being called upon to preside at the ceremony, on account of +his admiration and respect for the late Sir William Flower, and for the +services he had rendered to zoological science. + +Dr. Philip Lutley Sclater, the Secretary of the Zoological Society, also +spoke as an old and intimate friend of the late Director, with whom he +had been brought into specially close contact during the long period the +latter presided over the Zoological Society. + +The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a brief speech previous to unveiling the +bust, referred to two traits in Flower’s character which had specially +struck his Grace, and which were seldom found associated in the same +individual, one of these being his great love of talking on his own +special subjects of study, and the other that, in spite of this, he never +bored even the least interested of his hearers. During his Directorship +Flower had done more to popularise the museum, and museums generally, +than had any other man of science. + +The proceedings closed with the usual vote of thanks to the Chairman. + +In addition to writing numerous scientific memoirs, Flower found time +during his tenure of the Directorship of the museum to prepare for +publication two volumes of considerable interest. The first was the one +on _The Horse_, issued in 1891, to which fuller reference is made in a +later chapter; and the second, the well-known _Essays on Museums_, which +appeared in 1898, and consists of a collected series of essays, articles, +addresses, etc., on natural history and kindred subjects. A melancholy +interest attached to this volume (which is dedicated to Lady Flower), +since, as we are told in the preface, it was compiled during a period of +enforced restraint from active occupation, which was evidently only the +prelude to the final breakdown. + +It was also during his Directorship of the Museum that _The Study of +Mammals_ saw the light. + + + + +CHAPTER IV + +AS PRESIDENT OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY + +[1879-1899] + + +During a portion of his tenure of office as Conservator of the Museum +of the Royal College of Surgeons, and throughout the whole of his +Directorship of the Natural History Museum, Sir William Flower occupied +the Presidential Chair of the Zoological Society of London—the oldest +body of its kind in existence. The events narrated in the present +chapter occurred therefore during the period covered by its two +immediate predecessors; nevertheless, this method of treatment, although +breaking the chronological order, has been found, on the whole, the most +convenient. + +The Zoological Society, it may be observed, has been in the habit of +selecting its presidents from three distinct classes. As in the case of +the late Prince Consort, the president may be a personage of exalted +rank without any claim to a special knowledge of zoology. On the other +hand, as exemplified by the Earl of Derby, who filled the office in the +“fifties,” the Marquis of Tweeddale in the “seventies,” and the Duke of +Bedford at the present time, he may combine high rank with a more or less +pronounced taste for and knowledge of natural history, or, finally, as in +the case of the founder, Sir Stamford Raffles, he may be selected solely +for his eminence as a zoologist or as a lover of animals. + +On the death of the Marquis of Tweeddale, 29th December 1878, Professor +Flower was selected by the Council to fill the presidential chair; the +appointment being duly ratified at the Annual Meeting of the Society +held the following spring. From that date till the year of his death, +Flower was annually re-elected president by the unanimous vote of the +meeting. He made an admirable president, his deliberate mode of speaking +being specially well adapted to the comments expected from a scientific +man occupying the presidential chair at the scientific meetings. From +his wide knowledge of zoology, anatomy, and palæontology, he was able +to speak to the point on almost all the papers read at the Society’s +meetings; and those privileged to listen to his remarks on any specimen +in which he was specially interested will not readily forget the +impressive manner in which he brought its more salient and characteristic +features to the notice of his hearers. Many of his more important +scientific memoirs communicated to the Society had been published in its +_Proceedings_ or _Transactions_, before he accepted the presidential +chair, in days when the calls on his time were not so pressing or so +numerous as they afterwards became; but even after his elevation to the +presidency several valuable memoirs were received from him, the most +important being, perhaps, one on the classification and affinities of the +dolphins, to which fuller reference is made in another chapter. + +During Flower’s presidency several important events and changes occurred +in the affairs of the Zoological Society; and although the management +was to a very great extent in the hands of the Secretary, Dr. P. L. +Sclater, yet in matters of extreme importance the influence and opinions +of the president always made themselves felt—the more so, perhaps, that +they were not in special evidence in the case of trivial matters. In the +early eighties the Society suffered severely from financial depression, +its income in the years 1883 and 1884 falling far below its expenditure. +Thanks, however, to the patient sagacity and great administrative powers +of the president and secretary, the affairs of the Society were soon +put on a much more satisfactory basis, and long before the death of the +former, a state of prosperity was reached which had seldom, if ever, been +equalled, and certainly never excelled. + +In the first year of his presidency, Flower delivered one of the Davis +lectures in the Society’s Gardens, the subject being birds that do not +fly, and he also lectured in the two following years, selecting as his +subjects in 1881 firstly whales, and secondly dolphins. The following +year was notable on account of the sale to the great American showman, +Barnum, of the African elephant “Jumbo.” The reason for thus parting +with a valuable and interesting animal was that it was unsafe to keep it +in the gardens any longer. The sale, as stated in the “Record” of the +Society, caused a good deal of public excitement, but the Council would +not have parted with the animal unless satisfactory reasons for so doing +had been laid before it by the responsible Executive of the Gardens. + +A still more important event occurred in 1883, namely the transference of +the Society’s Offices and Library from No 11 to No 3 Hanover Square; the +freehold of the latter house having been secured by the Council at a cost +of £16,250. Such an important transaction would not, we may be assured, +have been allowed to take place without the most careful deliberation and +consideration on the part of the President. + +On the first meeting of the Society, held on 1st April 1884, in its +new premises, the President took the opportunity of congratulating the +Fellows present on the very great improvement in the Meeting-room, the +Library, and the Offices, resulting from the change. The Society had +occupied the old house, No 11 Hanover Square, for forty-one years, and +had long since quite outgrown the accommodation it afforded in all the +three departments mentioned above. + +The income of the Society had increased from £9137 in 1843 to £28,966 in +1883, with a corresponding increase of clerical work. The Library had +been almost entirely formed since the earlier of these dates, and was +rapidly increasing, and the attendance of the Fellows at the evening +meetings for scientific business had been such that the old rooms were +quite inadequate for their accommodation. The President trusted that the +increased facilities afforded by the move would be taken advantage of by +the Fellows in promoting, with even greater zeal than previously, the +work for which the Society was founded, and in maintaining and extending +the high reputation it had acquired in the scientific world. + +Few presidents or chairmen, whether of scientific societies or of +commercial companies, could have had a more satisfactory record of +progress to lay before their supporters. The following account of +certain events in the Society’s history which took place in 1887 is +extracted from the “Record” of its work:— + +“In order to mark the Jubilee of her late Majesty Queen Victoria which +took place this year, in some special way, it was decided to hold +the General Meeting in June in the Gardens. After the usual formal +business had been transacted, the Silver Medal awarded to the Maharaja +of Kuch-Behar was presented to His Highness in person, and suitably +acknowledged. Professor Flower, C.B., President of the Society, then +delivered an address, which was printed as an Appendix to the Council’s +Report. It dealt in general terms with the principal points in the +history of the Society, from its foundation in 1826, tracing its progress +throughout. The connection of the Royal Family with the Society as +Patrons and Donors, the scientific meetings, the publications, the Davis +Lectures, the menagerie, and the recent improvements in the Gardens were +passed in review. The President concluded by appealing for the continued +support of the public, either by becoming Fellows or by visiting the +Gardens, and expressed the hope that the ‘brief record of the Society’s +history would show that such support was not undeserved by those who +have had the management of its affairs.’ A reception held after the +meeting was numerously attended by the Fellows and their friends, and +by many specially invited guests, among whom were the Queen of Hawaii +and Princess Liliokalani, the Thakor Sahib of Limdli, H.H. the Prince +Devawongse, and the Maharaja of Bhurtpore.” + +The reception, which was held on 15th June in brilliant weather, was a +marked success; the number of foreign visitors in their native dresses +lending additional patches of colour to the scene. The President’s +address on the occasion is reprinted in his _Essays on Museums_. + +Referring to Sir William’s death, the “Record” of the Society has the +following paragraph:— + +“On 1st July [1899] the Presidentship of the Society became vacant by +the death of Sir William Flower who had filled the office for more +than twenty years. During this period Sir William Flower had regularly +occupied the Presidential chair, and had been constantly engaged on +committees and on other matters connected with the Society’s affairs. In +Sir William Flower the Society lost a zoologist of the highest ability +and a most able and energetic President. To succeed him the Council +selected His Grace the Duke of Bedford as President, and their choice was +confirmed at the Anniversary Meeting in 1900.” + + + + +CHAPTER V + +GENERAL ZOOLOGICAL WORK + + +In the course of the preceding chapters numerous more or less incidental +references have been made to the contributions of Sir William Flower to +biological literature, as well as to his many improvements in museum +organisation and arrangement. The more detailed discussion of these +has, however, been reserved for the present and succeeding chapters, of +which the first two are devoted to the zoological and the third to the +anthropological side of his work, while in the fourth his views in regard +to museums and certain other subjects are taken into consideration. + +Regarding the general scientific work of Flower, it must be confessed at +the outset that this is characterised in the main by its conscientious +carefulness and exactness, rather than by brilliancy of thought, +conception, or style. Great attention to detail, both as regards the work +itself and in reference to authorities (which were always most carefully +verified), is indeed one of the leading features of his labours; but +there is no epoch-making discovery or comprehensive generalisation which +can be associated with his name. In connection with his careful attention +to small and apparently trivial points of detail, the following passage +from Professor Ray Lankester’s obituary notice in _Nature_ may be +appropriately quoted:— + +“He did his own work with his own hands, and I have the best reason to +know that he was so deeply shocked and distressed by the inaccuracy +which unfortunately crept into some of the work of his distinguished +predecessor, Owen, through the employment of dissectors and draughtsmen, +whose work he did not sufficiently supervise, that he himself determined +to be exceptionally careful and accurate in his own records and notes.” + +In another passage of his notice the same writer observes that:— + +“Caution and reticence in generalisation certainly distinguish all +Flower’s scientific writings. Whilst he was on this account necessarily +not known as the author of stirring hypotheses, his statements of fact +gained in weight by his reputation for judgment and accuracy.” + +Flower’s zoological studies related entirely to the vertebrates and +almost exclusively to mammals, although he devoted a few papers, such as +the one on the gular pouch of the great bustard, and that on the skull +of a cassowary, to birds. Other groups, I believe, he never touched. In +the earlier years of his scientific career, at anyrate, his labours were +in the main devoted to the anatomical aspect of zoology, such subjects +as the dentition, osteology, and the structure and characters of the +brain and viscera claiming a much larger share of his attention than was +bestowed on the myology. In latter years the classification of the major +groups of the mammalia received much attention from Flower. Not that he +was in any way what is nowadays called a systematist in zoology, that is +to say, he took no active part in describing new species (not to mention +sub-species, which had scarcely begun to be recognised by naturalists in +his day), or the redefining of generic groups, and other work of this +nature. Indeed, as mentioned in the chapter devoted to his career at +the College of Surgeons, he was extremely conservative in this respect, +and strongly opposed to the modern fondness for small generic groups, +and also for changing generic names which, from long association, have +come almost to be regarded as household words and integral parts of the +English language. The substitution of the name _Procavia_, for _Hyrax_, +the familiar title of the Klipdass, was, for instance, very repugnant to +him, although loyally accepted when found to be coming into general use. + +As a matter of fact, so far as my information goes, with the exception +of certain whales and dolphins, and one extinct sea-cow (_Halitherium_), +Flower never named a new species of animal, nor, I think, did he ever +propose a new generic term. Indeed, so opposed was he to any interference +with names of the latter description in general use, that when several +such were replaced by alternative ones in the _Study of Mammals_, it was +expressly stipulated by him that the responsibility for such substitution +should rest solely with the present writer.[3] + +The modern system of forming trinomials to indicate the local races, +or sub-species, of mammals (as exemplified by _Giraffa camelopardalis +rothschildi_ and _Giraffa camelopardalis capensis_ for two of the local +phases of the species of giraffe typified by _G. camelopardalis_ of the +Egyptian Sudan and Abyssinia), was practically in its infancy during the +active life-time of Flower, and it is doubtful how he would have approved +of the extent to which it has been subsequently carried. Nevertheless, +that he appreciated the practice of recognising minute local differences +of colour, size, etc., in the same species of mammals is evident from +an incident within the writer’s own knowledge, which occurred at the +Natural History Museum, when a tray containing the local phases of one +of the species of the small squirrel-like rodents known as chipmunks +was submitted to his notice; his remark being that such variations from +a common type ought in nowise to be ignored, if we wished to make our +knowledge of animals anything like complete, and that the simplest way of +indicating such differences was to assign them distinct names. + +In a general way, however, it may be said that Sir William’s sympathies +were with the wider and more philosophical aspects of zoology rather +than with the details of specific and sub-specific distinction (which, +by the way, have scarcely any more right to be regarded as real +philosophical science than has stamp-collecting)[4]; and that, from a +systematic standpoint, his interest was very largely concentrated on the +relationships existing between the mammals of to-day and their extinct +predecessors. Several of his lectures and papers, and one especially of +his separate works (that on _The Horse_) were indeed devoted to this +aspect of the subject; and on every possible occasion he emphasised his +conviction of the necessity of studying (and arranging in museums) living +and extinct mammals together, if we wish to make our science really +practical. + +As a matter of fact he had the strongest possible objection to the +recognition of “palæontology” as a science apart from zoology, and he +even went so far as to mildly rebuke (in his own inimitably courteous and +gentle manner) the present writer, for venturing to offer to the public +a volume on that subject. To a great extent, no doubt, he was perfectly +right in this contention, although there are points of view from which +“palæontological” works are decidedly convenient, even if their existence +and production cannot be logically justified. + +As regards the particular groups of mammals (other than man) in which +Flower was more especially interested, there can be no doubt that the +Cetacea (whales and dolphins) occupied the first position. And on this +subject he was undoubtedly one of the first authorities, his only +possible rivals in this country, at anyrate, being Sir William Turner and +Professor Struthers. Next to this group came, perhaps, the marsupials, +in which a most important discovery was made by Flower in regard to the +succession and replacement of the teeth. + +Not even the most sympathetic of biographers would attempt for one +instant to assume that his hero—if a zoologist—could by any possibility +be infallible; and it has to be recorded that many changes and amendments +have had to be made in Flower’s conclusions. Perhaps, indeed, Sir William +has been to some extent especially unfortunate in this respect, owing to +the extreme imperfection of the state of our palæontological (I must use +the objectionable word) knowledge at the date when much of his best work +was accomplished. At that time, in spite of the enormous and valuable +results achieved by Cuvier, Owen, and others, mammalian palæontology +may be said to have been in its infancy compared to its present state; +the wonderful discoveries in North and South America being then either +unknown or only partially revealed, and the same being the case with +regard to those made known by the working of the phosphorite beds in +Central France. + +These and other discoveries have, for instance, totally revolutionised +our ideas with regard to the affinities of the different families of the +modern Carnivora, and have thus led to considerable modifications of the +views entertained by Flower as to the relationships of the members of +this group. + +Moreover, there is another important factor which has to be taken into +consideration. At the time when Sir William wrote his celebrated memoir +on the Carnivora, the effects of what is now universally known among +zoologists as “parallelism in development” were quite unrecognised. +By “parallelism” (to abbreviate the expression) is meant, it may be +explained, a remarkable tendency which undoubtedly exists among animals +of markedly diverse origin to become more or less like one another in +at least one important structural feature, when living under similar +physical conditions, or specially adapted for similar modes of existence. +Not unfrequently this structural resemblance, when closely examined, is +found to be less close than might at first sight have seemed to be the +case; the adaptation having been brought about by the modification of +structures originally more or less dissimilar towards a common type. In +other words, the same goal has been reached by two different routes. + +An excellent example of this is offered by the development of +“cannon-bones” in the lower portion of the limbs of the members of the +horse tribe on the one hand and those of the deer and antelopes on the +other; the object of this lengthening and strengthening of this part +of the limb being in both instances the attainment of increased speed. +Whereas, however in the one instance the cannon-bone is formed from one +original element, in the other it is the result of the fusion of two +such elements. In this case, indeed, the difference in the structure of +this part of the skeleton in the two groups is so apparent as to leave +no reasonable doubt as to the remoteness of the affinity between their +respective ancestors. There is, however, a certain group of extinct South +American hoofed mammals in which the cannon-bone corresponds exactly +in origin and structure with that of the horse, from which it might be +assumed that the two animals were closely related, whereas, from other +evidence, we know that they are widely sundered. Approximately similar +structures are therefore in many instances far from being indications of +genetic affinity between the animals in which they respectively occur. +Before the occurrence of this parallelism was recognised by naturalists +as an important factor in their development, such resemblances were, +however, frequently regarded as indications of a common parentage, so +that animals which had comparatively little to do with one another were +brigaded as members of the same assemblage. + +With these preliminary remarks, we may proceed to a general survey of +Sir William’s zoological work. It has, however, been found convenient to +relegate the consideration of his numerous memoirs on the Cetacea to the +next chapter, by which means their connection will be made more apparent +than if they were discussed among those on other sections of zoology. + +The first zoological paper (and indeed the first scientific work of +any description) published by Flower seems to have been that on the +dissection of one of the African lemurs belonging to the genus _Galago_, +which appeared in the Zoological Society’s _Proceedings_ for 1852, and +serves to prove, as mentioned in the first chapter, that the author was +at that time holding the post of Curator of the Museum of the Middlesex +Hospital. The paper itself is of little importance, dealing only with the +structure of the muscles and viscera of the species in question. + +The next paper on the list, which appeared in the same journal for 1860, +was also written during this part of Flower’s career; it is one of the +few devoted to the anatomy of birds, and describes the gizzard of the +Nicobar pigeon and other graminivorous species. + +About this time Flower began to devote his attention to the mammalian +brain; his first contribution on this subject being “Observations +on the Posterior Lobes of the Cerebrum of the Quadrumana, with the +Description of the Brain of a _Galago_,” of which an abstract appeared +in the _Proceedings_ of the Royal Society of London for 1860, although +the complete memoir was not published till 1862, in the _Philosophical +Transactions_. The date of publication of the abstract proves that these +studies were commenced, and the memoir in question completed, before (and +not, as stated by Professor M’Intosh,[5] after) the author’s appointment +to the Conservatorship of the Museum of the College of Surgeons, which +did not take place till the year 1861. The brain of another monkey was +also described in a paper on the anatomy of a South American species then +known as _Pithecia monachus_, which appeared in the Zoological Society’s +_Proceedings_ for 1862. In the following year (1863) he published, in +the _Natural History Review_, a still more important communication, +dealing with the brain of the Malay siamang (_Hylobates syndactylus_), +one of the man-like apes, in which it was shown that in this species +(and probably therefore in gibbons generally) the posterior part of the +cerebrum, or main division of the brain, overlapped the cerebellum, or +hind brain, to an even less degree than in the American howling-monkeys, +which had hitherto been regarded as the lowest members of the group, so +far as the feature in question was concerned. That such a feature should +occur in one of the highest groups of apes was certainly a remarkable +and unexpected discovery. Yet another contribution to the same subject +was made in 1864, when a paper appeared in the Zoological Society’s +_Proceedings_ on the brain of the red howling-monkey, then known as +_Mycetes seniculus_, but of which the generic title is changed by many +modern naturalists to _Alouata_. + +The earlier memoirs of this series published (in the _Philosophical +Transactions_), writes Professor M’Intosh in the _Scottish Review_ for +1900, “formed important evidence in the discussions which took place +between Owen and Huxley in regard to the posterior lobe of the brain, +the posterior cornu, and the hippocampus minor.” Professor Owen, at the +Cambridge Meeting of the British Association in 1862, maintained, from +specimens of the human brain in spirit, and from a cast of the interior +of the gorilla’s skull, that in man the posterior lobes of the brain +overlapped the cerebellum, whereas in the gorilla they did not; that +these characters are constant, and therefore he had decided to place man, +with his overlapping posterior lobes, the existence of a posterior horn +in the lateral ventricle, and the presence of a hippocampus minor in +the posterior horn, under the special division Archencephala. Moreover, +he grouped with these features the distinctive characters of the foot +of man, and showed how it differed from that of all monkeys. Flower’s +accurate investigations enabled Huxley to substantiate his antagonistic +position to Owen’s doctrines, viz., that these structures, instead of +being the attributes of man, are precisely the most marked cerebral +characters common to man with the apes. Huxley also asserted that the +differences between the foot of man and that of the higher apes were of +the same order, and but slightly different in degree from those which +separated one ape from another. + +The result of this controversy was the overthrow (except in the mind +and works of its author) of Owen’s separation of man on the one hand +as the representative of a primary group—the Archencephala; and of +apes, monkeys, Carnivora, Ungulates, Sirenians, and Cetaceans on the +other hand, as forming a second group—the Gyrencephala.[6] As will +be seen from the above quotation, this result was very largely due to +the work of Flower, although it was brought into prominent notice by +the superior fighting powers of Huxley, who was also an older, and at +the time at anyrate, a better-known man. It may be added that Flower +himself subsequently abandoned the use of the term “Quadrumana,” as +distinguishing apes and monkeys on the one hand from man, as “Bimana,” +on the other, and brigaded all altogether under their Linnæan title +“Primates.” + +The contributions of Flower to our knowledge of (and, it may be added, to +the clearing up of misconceptions in regard to) the mammalian brain, was, +however, by no means confined to the Primates (man, apes, monkeys, and +lemurs). On the contrary, his researches were of equal—if not indeed of +more—importance with regard to the structure of that organ in the lower +groups of the class, namely the marsupials and the monotremes (duckbill +platypus and spiny ant-eater). + +In the well-known Reade Lecture of 1859, Professor Owen expressed himself +as follows with regard to the brain of the two groups last mentioned:— + +“Prior to the year 1836, it was held by comparative anatomists that the +brain in mammalia differed from that in all other vertebrate animals by +the presence of the large mass of transverse white fibres called ‘corpus +callosum’ by the anthropotomist; which fibres, overarching the ventricles +and diverging as they penetrate the substance of either hemisphere of +the cerebrum, bring every convolution of the one into communication with +those of the other hemisphere, whence the other name of this part—the +‘great commissure.’ In that year I discovered that the brain of the +kangaroo, the wombat, and some other marsupial quadrupeds, wanted the +‘great commissure’; and that the cerebral hemispheres were connected +together, as in birds, only by the ‘fornix’ and ‘anterior commissure.’ +Soon afterward I had the opportunity of determining that the same +deficiency of structure prevailed in the _Ornithorhynchus_ (duckbill) and +_Echidna_ (spiny ant-eater).” + +Owen’s conclusions with regard to the absence of the great connecting +band of fibres between the hemispheres of the marsupial brain were +first published in the _Philosophical Transactions_ for 1837; those, +with regard to the same lack in the monotremes, being added in Todd’s +_Cyclopædia of Anatomy and Physiology_, Article “Monotremata.” In the +latter article it was also stated that the brain of the echidna was +further distinguished from that of other mammals by the circumstance +that whereas in the latter the portion of the brain known as the optic +lobes consists of four lobes (_corpora quadrigemina_), in the echidna and +duckbill there are only a pair of such lobes (_corpora bigemina_.) + +In consequence of this supposed lack of the corpus callosum in their +brains, Owen separated the marsupials and monotremes from other mammals +in a primary group by themselves, under the title of Lyencephala. + +Flower’s attack on these conclusions was commenced by a paper which +appeared in the Zoological Society’s _Proceedings_ for 26th January 1864, +entitled “On the Optic Lobes of the Brain of the Echidna,” in which it +was conclusively demonstrated that these structures resembled those of +the higher mammals in being four-lobed. + +More important still was his memoir “On the Commissures of the Cerebral +Hemispheres of the Marsupialia and Monotremata, as compared with those +of the Placental Mammals,” which was published in the _Philosophical +Transactions_ of the Royal Society for 1865. In this was shown, it was +thought, the existence in both monotremes and marsupials of a distinct, +although very small, corpus callosum connecting the two hemispheres of +the brain; the anterior commissure, which in the higher mammals is the +smaller connecting band, being in this instance much the larger. + +Recent researches have, however, tended to show that Owen was after all +right in denying the existence of a corpus callosum in the latter groups. +Even allowing for this correction, the result of this important paper was +to discredit among all zoologists capable of forming an adequate opinion +on the subject Owen’s proposed fourfold division of the Mammalia into +Lyencephala, Lissencephala, Gyrencephala, and Archencephala. And these +terms have now completely disappeared from zoological literature. + +In those days it required no considerable amount of courage to attack +a man of Owen’s established social and scientific position on an +important subject like this; and Flower’s triumph was therefore the more +conspicuous. Of course such of these discoveries as are valid, if they +had not been made by him, would have been made later on by somebody else, +as they merely required accurate dissection and observation. But this +may be said of every discovery of a like nature; and Flower is entitled +to all credit for having worked out the subject in the way he did. It +may be added, that, with our present knowledge of mammalian morphology, +a classification based on the characters of the brain is manifestly +based on a misconception from first to last; the degree of development +and specialisation of that organ being purely adaptive features, and +therefore not dependent upon structural relationships. Had Owen’s +classification been maintained, it would have been necessary to assign +the primitive Carnivora and Ungulata to a group quite apart from the one +containing their existing representatives. + +In the light of modern research, it cannot now be held that the result +of Flower’s investigations in this direction was to demonstrate the +existence of a corpus callosum to the brain in all the members of the +mammalian class. + +In another paper, dealing with the brain of the Javan loris, published +in the _Transactions_ of the Zoological Society, Flower made a further +contribution to the study of this part of the organism. Previous to the +appearance of the memoir on the marsupial and monotreme brain, Flower had +published, in the _Natural History Review_ for 1864, one on the number of +cervical vertebræ in the Sirenia (manati and dugong). Apart from several +papers on whales and dolphins, which, as already mentioned, are reserved +for consideration in a later chapter, the next noteworthy zoological +contribution from Flower’s pen appears to be one on the gular pouch of +the great bustard, published in the Zoological Society’s _Proceedings_ +for 1865. This pouch, which, it may be observed is confined to the +cock-bird, and inflated during the breeding season, is a very remarkable +structure, which has recently been described in greater detail by Mr. W. +P. Pycraft. + +Two years later (1867), Flower contributed to the same journal a paper +on the anatomy of the West African chevrotain, _Hyomoschus aquaticus_, +or, as it is now called, _Dorcatherium aquaticum_. The specimen on +which the paper was based was the first of its kind which had ever been +dissected—at least in this country; and the result of its examination +was to confirm the view that the mouse-deer, or chevrotains, cannot be +included among the true ruminants, or Pecora, but rather that they form +a group (Tragulina), in many respects intermediate between the latter +and the pigs and hippopotamuses, or Suina. To the essential difference +between the chevrotains and the musk-deer, which have often been +confounded, Flower was very fond of recurring in his later writings. + +About the year 1866 Sir William began to turn his attention to the teeth +of mammals, more especially as regards the mode in which the milk or baby +series is succeeded by the permanent teeth, and the general homology of +the milk with the permanent, and of the individual teeth of both series +with one another. As the result of these investigations he published +during the next few years the following papers on this subject. First and +most important, one on the development and succession of the teeth of +marsupials, which appeared in the _Philosophical Transactions_ for 1867. +In the following year he delivered before the British Association at +Norwich a paper entitled “Remarks on the Homologies and Relation of the +Teeth of the Mammalia,” which was published in the _Journal of Anatomy +and Physiology_ for the same year. In that year he also published, in +the _Proceedings_ of the Zoological Society, an account of the homology +and succession of the teeth in the armadillos. A general sketch from his +pen of the dentition of mammals was published in the _British Medical +Journal_ for 1871, while in the _Transactions_ of the Odontological +Society for the same year, appeared a paper on the first, or milk, +dentition of the Mammalia. + +By far the most important of this series of papers is undoubtedly the +one on the succession and homologies of the teeth in the marsupials or +pouched mammals; and it is the one which contains, perhaps, the most +noteworthy discovery made by Flower. + +Owen had previously pointed out that marsupials differ from ordinary +placental mammals in having four (in place of three) pairs of cheek-teeth +at the hinder part of the series which have no milk, or deciduous, +predecessors, and are therefore, according to the usual rule, to be +regarded as true molars, in contradiction to premolars, in which such +deciduous predecessors are generally developed. He considered, however, +that all the premolars in the kangaroo (and therefore presumably in other +marsupials) as well as the incisors or cutting teeth, and the canines +or tusks, were preceded by milk-teeth. Flower, on the other hand (who +it is only just to add had a much fuller series of specimens of young +marsupials on which to work than was available to Owen), was enabled +to show that in the Marsupialia only one pair of teeth in each jaw, at +most, is preceded by a milk-tooth. The tooth, in question, is the fifth +from the posterior end of the series, and whereas in the adult animal +it differs in character from those behind it, its deciduous predecessor +resembles the latter. The replacing tooth was further considered to +correspond with the fourth or last premolar of placental mammals, while +the replaced tooth was regarded as the only one in the entire series +corresponding to the milk-teeth of placental mammals. This view rendered +it necessary, of course, to regard all the four pairs of cheek-teeth +behind this abnormal one as corresponding to the true molars of +placentals, as had been done by Owen, thus making, as already mentioned, +marsupials to differ from ordinary placentals by possessing four instead +of three pairs of these teeth. + +Before proceeding to notice an amendment which has been proposed in +regard to the homology of the one successional tooth of the marsupials, +certain other features connected with it and its predecessor discussed by +Flower may be briefly mentioned. He noticed, to quote from an admirable +epitome of his observations on this point, drawn up by Professor M’Intosh +in the _Scottish Review_ for 1900, “that there were considerable +differences in the various genera as to the relative period of the +animal’s life at which the fall of the temporary molar and the evolution +of its successor takes place. In some, as in the rat-kangaroos, it is one +of the latest, the temporary tooth retaining its place and its functions +until the animal has nearly, if not quite, reached its full growth, and +is not shed until all the other teeth are in position and use. On the +other hand, in the Tasmanian wolf the temporary tooth is very rudimentary +in size and form, and is shed or absorbed before any other teeth enter +the gum. Anterior to the period of Sir William Flower’s communication, +mammals had been, in regard to the succession of their teeth, divided +into two groups—the Monophyodonts, or those that generate a single +series of teeth, and the Diphyodonts, or those that develop two sets +of teeth, but, as he pointed out, even in the most typical Diphyodonts +the successional process does not extend to the whole of the teeth, +always stopping short of those situated most posteriorly in each series. +The pouched animals (marsupials), he stated, occupied an intermediate +position, presenting, as it were, a rudimentary diphyodont condition, the +successional process being confined to a single tooth on each side of +each jaw.” + +All this is unexceptionable. Flower, however, went further than this, and +claimed that the true molar teeth of mammals correspond serially with the +permanent premolars, canines, and incisors, and not with their deciduous +predecessors. And he therefore urged (as indeed must be the case on these +premisses) that the whole dentition of adult marsupials corresponds with +the permanent dentition of placentals. A further inference from this +is that the milk-teeth, instead of being an original development, may +rather be a set superadded to meet the temporary needs of mammals whose +permanent set is of a highly complex type. + +To review the objections which have been raised against these views would +be entering on a very difficult question, and one in regard to which +uniformity of opinion by no means exists among naturalists even at the +present day. It may be mentioned, however, that from the circumstance of +the later milk-premolars resembling (as was noticed by Flower in the case +of the one tooth replaced in marsupials) the true molars rather than the +permanent premolars, it has been suggested that the milk-dentition is +serially homologous with the true molars. And on this view, the entire +dentition of marsupials (with the exception of the one replacing tooth) +corresponds to the milk-dentition of placentals. Possibly, however, the +larger number of incisors which distinguish many of the carnivorous +marsupials from the placentals may be due to the development of teeth +belonging to the permanent series with those of the milk-set, and both +persisting together throughout life. Be this as it may, it is evident, +on the above view of the serial homology of their dentition, that +marsupials, instead of as Flower supposed, showing the commencement of a +milk-dentition, really exhibit the decadence of the permanent series. + +In this respect they display a precise similarity to the modern +elephants, as indeed was pointed out by Flower in his original paper, +although on a false premiss, for he at that time regarded the anterior +cheek-teeth of the elephant as the representatives of the permanent +premolars, whereas they really correspond with the milk-premolars. + +One objection has indeed been raised with regard to the identification of +the adult marsupial dentition with the milk-set of placentals, namely, +the existence in certain marsupialia of rudimentary teeth belonging to +an earlier set than the one functionally developed. This has been got +over by regarding these rudimentary germs as the representatives of a +prelacteal series. + +Passing on to another point, it has to be noticed that exception has also +been taken to Flower’s view that the replacing tooth of marsupials and +its deciduous predecessor correspond to the fourth, or last premolar of +placentals. The question has been discussed in considerable detail in +the Zoological Society’s _Proceedings_ for 1899 by the present writer, +who had for material the dentition of certain extinct South American +mammals quite unknown to science at the time Flower’s paper was written. +The result of these comparisons was to render it evident, in the present +writer’s opinion, that the replacing tooth of the marsupials corresponds +to the third, instead of to the fourth, premolar of placentals. From +this it follows that marsupials agree with placentals in possessing only +three pairs of true molars; the first of the four teeth in the former +behind the replacing tooth being the last milk-premolar (which is never +replaced) instead of, as supposed by Flower, the first true molar. This +conclusion, as pointed out by the present writer in the paper referred +to above, had really been arrived at years previously by Owen, who also +believed the replacing tooth to correspond to the third premolar of +placentals. + +In thus bringing marsupials into line with placentals as regards their +dentition, this later interpretation accords well with recent discoveries +in regard to other parts of the organisation of the former animals. +It should, however, be mentioned that the newer view is by no means +accepted by all zoologists, although it has received the support of +the well-known American paleontologist, Dr. J. L. Wortman,[7] who is +specially qualified to form a trustworthy opinion on a point of this +nature. + +Finally, whatever be the eventual verdict as to the serial homology of +the marsupial dentition as a whole, and also as to that of the replacing +premolar, Flower must always be credited with the discovery that +marsupials replace only a single pair of teeth in each jaw by vertical +successors. + +The other papers on dentition referred to above as having been written +by Flower about the same time are, although interesting in their way, +of far less importance than the one published in the _Philosophical +Transactions_. Indeed the one read before the British Association in 1868 +and published in the _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_ for the same +year, is little more than a recapitulation of the results arrived at in +the former. + +The paper on the development and succession of the teeth in the +armadillos, published in the Zoological Society’s _Proceedings_ in +1868, is, on the other hand, of considerable interest on account of its +confirming the fact first mentioned by the French zoologist, Professor +Paul Gervais, but generally overlooked by subsequent writers up to that +time, that the common nine-banded armadillo (_Tatusia peba_) differs from +its relatives in replacing some of its teeth by vertical successors. This +at the time was an unexpected feature in any member of the so-called +Edentate mammals; and tended further to break down the supposed hard and +fast distinction between monophyodonts and diphyodonts. + +Closely connected with the subject of dentition is a paper on “The +Affinities and Probable Habits of the Extinct Marsupial, _Thylacoleo +carnifex_ (Owen),” communicated by Flower to the Geological Society of +London in 1868, and published in the _Quarterly Journal_ of that body +for the same year. After alluding to the paper on marsupial dentition, +Professor Ray Lankester, in his obituary notice of Sir William in +_Nature_, of 13th July 1899, observes of the communication under +consideration that—“The next most striking discovery which we owe to +Flower seems to me to be the complete and convincing demonstration that +the extinct marsupial, called _Thylacoleo carnifex_ by Owen, was not a +carnivore, but a gnawing herbivorous creature like the marsupial rats and +the wombat—a demonstration which has been brought home to the eye even of +the unlearned by the complete restoration of the skull of _Thylacoleo_ in +the Natural History Museum by Dr. Henry Woodward.” + +If we are to believe later authorities, Flower’s demonstration of the +herbivorous nature of the creature in question was by no means so +“complete and convincing” as the learned Professor would have us believe; +but of this anon. + +The first important paper on _Thylacoleo_, which was a creature of +the approximate size of a jaguar, whose remains are met with in the +superficial formations of Australia, was one by Owen, published in the +_Philosophical Transactions_ for 1859. From the general characters of the +skull (which was at that time only known by fragments), and especially +from the rudimentary condition of the hinder cheek-teeth and the enormous +size of the secant replacing premolar, which bears a certain superficial +resemblance to the carnassial tooth of the cats, its describer was led +to the conclusion that _Thylacoleo_ was a marsupial carnivore, and “one +of the fellest and most destructive of predatory beasts.” Probably +Owen’s views at this time were, that the creature had its nearest +living relatives in the members of the Australian family _Dasyuridæ_, +such as the Tasmanian devil (_Sarcophilus ursinus_), and that it bore a +relationship to the existing carnivorous marsupials somewhat similar to +that presented by a lion to a dog. At this time there was no evidence to +show whether the large teeth near the front of the jaw, the existence of +which was indicated in the original specimen merely by its empty socket, +was a canine or an incisor; and though Owen was inclined to regard it +as the former, he admitted that it might be an incisor, in which event +he recognised that the affinities of the animal would be more with +the herbivorous, or diprotodont section of the marsupials, and more +especially the phalangers, or so-called opossums of the colonists. This +is clearly indicated by the following sentence appended by Sir Richard +to his description:—“If, however, this be really the foremost tooth +of the jaw, it would be one of a pair of terminal incisors according +to the marsupial type exhibited by the _Macropodidæ_ (kangaroos) and +_Phalangistidæ_ (phalangers).” + +In 1866, after receiving additional specimens from Australia, Owen +was enabled to describe the greater part of the skull and the entire +dentition of _Thylacoleo_. The large anterior teeth were clearly +recognised to be incisors, which, in Owen’s opinion, “proved the +_Thylacoleo_ to be the carnivorous modification of the more common and +characteristic type of Australian marsupials, having the incisors of +the lower jaw reduced to a pair of large, more or less procumbent and +approximately conical teeth, or ‘tusks.’” Not only did the additional +evidence serve to confirm Sir Richard in his view of the carnivorous +propensities of _Thylacoleo_, but he considered that in this extinct form +we have “the simplest and most effectual dental machinery for predatory +life and carnivorous diet known in the mammalian class. It is the extreme +modification, to this end, of the diprotodont type of marsupialia.” + +Beyond, however, admitting its affinities with the diprotodonts, Sir +Richard Owen does not appear in this later paper to have regarded +_Thylacoleo_ as a near relative of any of the existing forms; but in the +article on “Paleontology” in the eighth edition of the _Encyclopædia +Britannica_, published in 1859, he seems to have considered it allied to +_Plagiaulax_ of the Purbeck strata of Dorsetshire, which had been shown +by Dr. Hugh Falconer to be probably of herbivorous habits. + +Sir William Flower, in the aforesaid paper in the Geological Society’s +_Quarterly Journal_ for 1868, while agreeing with Owen that _Thylacoleo_ +was related to the diprotodont rather than to the polyprotodont +carnivorous marsupials, differed from the conclusion that it was a +carnivore. While the large cutting premolar teeth were considered by +Owen to resemble the carnassial teeth of a lion, Flower was struck by +their similarity to the corresponding teeth of the rat-kangaroos and +the phalangers. After discussing the other teeth, he concluded that “in +the number and arrangement of these teeth ... _Thylacoleo_ corresponds +exactly with the modern families _Macropodidæ_ and _Phalangistidæ_, and +differs completely from the carnivorous marsupials.” + +After alluding to the small size of the brain-cavity and the large +space for the attachment of the powerful muscles which worked the lower +jaw, and suggesting that these features may be only to be expected in +a large form as compared with the smaller members of the same group, +Flower concluded that the habits of all species with the same general +type of dentition must necessarily be similar. And, on these premisses, +it was urged that _Thylacoleo_ must in all probability have been a +vegetable-feeder. The large premolar may seemingly have been “as well +adapted for chopping up succulent roots and vegetables, as for dividing +the nutritive fibres of animal prey.” It is further suggested that the +nutriment of _Thylacoleo_ “may have been some kind of root or bulb; it +may have been fruit; it may have been flesh.” While in conclusion it is +argued that the organisation of the animal did not countenance the idea +of its preying on the large contemporary marsupials. + +Omitting reference to Owen’s reply to this reversal of his conclusions, +and also to certain comments and additions to the arguments by other +writers, we may pass on to a paper by Dr. R. Broom, published in the +_Proceedings_ of the Linnean Society of New South Wales for April 1898, +and entitled “On the Affinities and Habits of _Thylacoleo_.” + +In this the author admits that the animal in question, as suggested +by Owen in his second paper, and more fully determined by Flower, was +undoubtedly a diprotodont, and that it was nearly allied to the modern +phalangers. With the latter it is indeed closely connected by the +recently discovered extinct _Burramys_, which differs from the existing +members of that group by the large size of the secant premolar. + +After discussing numerous points in connection with the problem, +Dr. Broom states that those who believe _Thylacoleo_ to have been +carnivorous, “evidently consider that the molars have been reduced +through their functions being taken up by the large premolars. But could +the large premolars take up the molar function—could they grind? Even +those who favour the idea of _Thylacoleo_ being a vegetable-feeder, admit +that the premolars were cutting teeth, and the difficulty of imagining +a herbivorous animal without grinders is got over by supposing that its +food was of a soft or succulent nature.” + +But for the creature to have lived on succulent roots and bulbs, the +vegetation of that part of Australia where it lived must, urges Dr. +Broom, have been quite different from what it is at the present day; +and we have no justification for assuming any such change to have taken +place. Moreover, an animal that could only slice, and not grind up, +vegetable food, could apparently subsist only on ripe fruit, and such is +to be met with in Australia only at one season of the year, when, owing +to the abundance of frugivorous mammals, little, if any, is allowed to +fall to the ground. + +“It is probably however,” adds Dr. Broom, “unnecessary to discuss further +what food _Thylacoleo_ could possibly have obtained, when we have, as I +hold with Owen, the most satisfactory proof from its anatomical structure +as to what food it did obtain. It must be admitted that _Thylacoleo_ +had enormous temporal muscles, and it is perfectly certain that such +muscles would not have been developed unless the animal required them. +For what could such powerful muscles be required? Most certainly not for +slicing fruits or succulent roots and bulbs, nor would they be required +even for the slicing of fleshy fibres. Temporal muscles are chiefly used +apparently for closing the jaws more or less forcibly from the open +position, while for the more complicated movements of mastication it is +the masseter and pterygoid muscles that are chiefly used. Hence in all +carnivorous animals the temporals are largely developed and the masseters +more feebly, because the killing process requires a very forcible closing +of the jaws, and the work to be done by the premolars and molars is +comparatively little. In herbivorous animals the conditions are reversed. +The jaws are here rarely required to be opened widely or to be closed +with any great force, while a very large amount of grinding work has to +be done; hence the temporals are rarely much larger than the masseters, +and often very much smaller. When we look at _Thylacoleo_, we find not +only the enormous temporals and only moderate masseters, but everything +else about the skull seems to be built on carnivorous lines. Owen has +shown the wonderful similarity which exists between the molar machinery +in _Thylacoleo_ and the lion, and it is hard to conceive as possible any +other cause giving rise to such a specialisation in _Thylacoleo_ than +that which led to a similar specialisation in the cat tribe. Another +most striking feature is to be seen in the condition of the incisors. +Leaving out of consideration the mode of implantation and structure of +the teeth—both confirmatory of the carnivorous hypothesis—there is one +point which appears to me absolutely conclusive on the subject. Unless +Owen’s figures are altogether unreliable, the lower incisors are quite +unlike those of the herbivorous diprotodonts. In such typical forms as +the wombat, the koala, the kangaroo, and the phalanger, though there are +different modifications of the arrangement, we have the lower incisors +meeting the upper, and forming with them an instrument for biting +through a moderately tough, fibrous tissue, and even in the very small +diprotodonts, so far as I am aware, the lower incisors always meet and +work against the upper. But in _Thylacoleo_ we have powerful pointed +incisors which do not meet, but overlap. Though technically incisors, +they are not intended to incise, but to pierce and tear. Such powerful +pointed and overlapping teeth, though easily explained on the theory +that they were intended to kill and tear animal prey, were never surely +provided merely to pierce succulent vegetables or ripe fruit. It might of +course be argued that the incisors were used as weapons of defence, as +apparently are the canines in the baboon; but against this idea is the +objection that the incisors were put to some use which wore them down and +blunted them more rapidly than would be the case if they were chiefly +used on the rare occasions when the animal had to defend itself; and +furthermore, were such the case, the temporals would not require to be +greatly developed. + +“There is thus, in my opinion, no other conclusion tenable than that +_Thylacoleo_ was a purely carnivorous animal, and one which would be +quite able to, and probably did, kill animals as large as or larger than +itself.” + +This opinion as to the carnivorous habits of _Thylacoleo_ is approved by +Mr. B. A. Bensley, who has specially studied the Australian marsupials +in a memoir recently published in the _Transactions_ of the Linnean +Society of London. + +If it be correct, it reduces the net result of Flower’s investigations on +this subject to a fuller realisation of the diprotodont affinities of the +animal under consideration. + +In the latter part of 1868, Mr. Flower, as he was then styled, +communicated to the Zoological Society a most important paper entitled, +“On the Value of the Characters of the Base of the Cranium in the +Classification of the Order Carnivora,” which was published in the first +part of the Society’s _Proceedings_ for the following year. Working +on the lines suggested twenty years previously by Mr. H. N. Turner, +who had pointed out the importance of certain peculiarities of the +base of the skull in the Mammalia, and especially demonstrated their +constancy in the different groups of the Carnivora, Flower felt himself +justified in dividing, on these characters, the existing terrestrial +representatives of that order into three groups. These were—1st, the +Æluroidea, comprising the cats (_Felidæ_), the fossa (_Cryptoproctidæ_), +civets and mongooses (_Viverridæ_), the aard-wolf (_Proteleidæ_), and +hyænas (_Hyænidæ_); 2nd, the Cynoidea, including only the dogs, wolves, +and foxes; and 3rd, the Arctoidea, embracing the bears (_Ursidæ_), the +raccoons and pandas (_Procyonidæ_ and _Æluridæ_), and the weasels, +badgers, otters, etc. (_Mustelidæ_). + +One result of this classification from cranial characteristics was to +determine definitely the position of the American cacomistle (_Bassaris_ +or _Bassariscus_), which had been previously uncertain. The genus, as +might have been expected from distributional considerations, turned out +to belong to the raccoon family (_Procyonidæ_). + +As regards the relationship of the three main groups, subsequent +palæontological discoveries have fully confirmed Flower’s view that +the _Canidæ_ (Cynoidea) occupy a central, or perhaps rather a basal, +position. Palæontology has, however, also shown that the bears (_Ursidæ_) +are a direct offshoot from the _Canidæ_, and accordingly that, if +extinct forms be taken into consideration, there is no justification +for the separation of the two families into distinct primary groups +(Arctoidea and Cynoidea). On the other hand, fossil forms from the +Lower Tertiaries of France and of North America seem to demonstrate the +existence of a complete gradation between the primitive dogs (_Canidæ_) +and the ancestral civets (_Viverridæ_), thus breaking up the distinction +between the Cynoidea and the Æluroidea. Nor is this all, for according +to the French palæontologists, there exists a transition between the +primitive civets and the early weasels (_Mustelidæ_); which, with what +has been already stated in connection with the bears, indicates that +the Arctoidea is a more or less artificial group, the members of which +have come to resemble one another to a certain degree in regard to the +characters of the base of the skull, owing to “parallelism.” In this +connection it is somewhat curious to note that a certain resemblance, +which had been pointed out by Turner as existing between the mongooses +or ichneumons (_Viverridæ_) and the weasels, was regarded by Flower as +of no importance. Finally, it is by no means improbable that the cats +(_Felidæ_) have no near kinship with the civets, but may be directly +sprung from more primitive Carnivora. + +It is thus evident that Flower’s proposed triple division of the +Carnivora is not altogether in accord with palæontological, or +phylogenetic, evidence. An amendment is to merge the Cynoidea in the +Arctoidea, and thus retain only two groups. The observations recorded in +the paper have a high permanent value, in respect to the structure of the +carnivorous skull. + +Another paper by Flower appeared in the Zoological Society’s +_Proceedings_ for 1869, dealing with the anatomy of the soft parts of +that remarkable animal, the African aard-wolf (_Proteles cristatus_). +Although the skeleton had been previously described, no information +had hitherto been available with regard to the viscera. In the paper +discussed in the foregoing paragraphs Flower, from the external +characters, coupled with those of the dentition and skeleton, had +regarded the creature as the representative of a distinct family, +intermediate in some respects between the _Hyænidæ_ and the _Viverridæ_. +The result of the examination of the viscera was in the main to support +this conclusion, although it showed that the _Proteleidæ_ are more +closely allied to the _Hyænidæ_ than the author had previously believed +to be the case. The aard-wolf may, indeed, be regarded as a kind of +small and degraded hyæna, with an almost rudimentary type of dentition, +suitable to the soft substances on which it feeds. + +Passing on to the year 1870, we have to note the appearance of two +separate works bearing Flower’s name. The first of these was the +_Introductory Lectures to the Course of Comparative Anatomy_, delivered +at the Royal College of Surgeons in that year. Far more important +was the issue of the first edition of that invaluable text-book, _An +Introduction to the Osteology of the Mammalia_. Since, however, mention +of this work had been already made in an earlier chapter, it need not be +further alluded to in this place. + +During the same year, exclusive of those on the Cetacea, several papers +were published by Flower in various scientific serials. Among these, bare +mention must suffice for one, “On the Connexion of the Hyoid Arch with +the Cranium,” which appeared in the twentieth volume of the _Report_ +of the British Association. More important is the article “On the +Correspondence between the parts composing the Shoulder and the Pelvic +Girdle of the Mammalia.” In this the author pointed out that although +the homology between the scapula in the shoulder-girdle and the ilium in +the pelvis had long been admitted by naturalists, yet much misconception +existed with regard to the exact correspondence between the respective +surfaces and borders of these bones; and he then proceeded to define +and describe these correspondences in considerable detail. The names +then assigned by Flower to the component surfaces and borders of the +bones in question have ever since been generally adapted by naturalists. +Observations were also recorded with regard to the homology between the +coracoid bone and the ischium. A second paper in the same journal for +1870 dealt with the carpus of the dog; while in 1873 he published in this +medium a note on the same part of the skeleton in the sloths. + +Reverting once more to the _Proceedings_ of the Zoological Society, +in which the bulk of his contributions to the anatomy of mammals was +published, we find a paper by Flower in the volume for 1870 on the +anatomy of the Himalayan panda (_Ælurus fulgens_.) + +The specimen on which the paper was based was the first example of +this remarkable animal which had ever been dissected; and the brain +and viscera were described at considerable length. The result of the +dissection was to confirm the author’s previous opinion—based on the +external characters and skeleton—as to the near affinity of _Ælurus_ to +the American _Procyonidæ_; and it was left somewhat an open question, +whether it should be included in that group, or regarded as the +representative of a family (_Æluridæ_) by itself. In after years Mr. W. +T. Blanford adopted the former view. In the following year (1871) Flower +contributed a note to the _Proceedings_, recording the occurrence of a +specimen of the ringed seal (_Phoca hispida_) on the Norfolk coast in +1846; and he also wrote a paper in the same volume on the skeleton of one +of the cassowaries. The somewhat remarkable fact that the two-spotted +palm-civet (_Nandinia binotata_) differs from the other genera of +the same group by the absence of a blind appendage, or cæcum, to the +intestine, was recorded by Flower in the same serial for 1872. + +Of much more importance than either of the foregoing were two +contributions to mammalian anatomy made by Sir William during the year +last mentioned. The one, which appeared in the _Medical Times and +Gazette_, was the report of “Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy of the +Organs of Digestion in the Mammalia, delivered at the Royal College of +Surgeons in February and March, 1872.” In this article, which is well +illustrated, will be found descriptions of the various forms assumed by +the stomach in a large number of the ordinal and family groups; especial +attention being directed to the remarkable complexity of that organ in +the porpoise. The other, which was published in _Nature_, and in abstract +in the _Report_ of the British Association, dealt with the arrangement +and nomenclature of the lobes of the mammalian liver. It is, perhaps, one +of the most valuable of the author’s contributions to visceral anatomy; +and introduced order and precision where confusion had previously +reigned. The names then given to the different lobes of the liver have +been very generally adopted in zoological and anatomical literature. + +In 1873 Flower delivered before the Royal Institution a lecture on +palæontological evidence of gradual modification of animal forms, which +is published in the _Proceedings_ of that body for the same year. In this +he touched on the important evidence afforded by the discoveries which +had then been recently made in North America in favour of the derivation +of one animal form from another, directing particular attention to the +case for the evolution of the horse. Another paper on the same subject +appears in the _British Medical Journal_ for 1874; while, as noticed +below, Sir William again lectured on palæontological evolution in 1876. + +The year 1874 was noteworthy, so far as palæontology is concerned, by the +appearance in the _Philosophical Transactions_ of the Royal Society of a +paper by Flower on part of a remarkable mammalian skull from Patagonia, +described under the name of _Homalodontotherium cunninghami_. In justice +to the author, it should be said that he was not responsible for the +undue length of the generic name, which had been bestowed by his friend +Huxley four years previously in the Geological Society’s _Journal_, and +which Flower was therefore compelled to employ. It refers to the fact +that the jaws of the new animal are remarkable for the even and unbroken +wall formed by the teeth, which show no enlarged tusks. At the time the +geological age of this interesting fossil was quite unknown; but it +formed the forerunner of the marvellous discoveries of the remains of +fossil mammals of middle tertiary age in Patagonia, which have been made +of late years, and have done so much to increase our knowledge of the +past life and history of the South American Continent. + +Of minor interest is a paper by the then Hunterian Professor in the +_Quarterly Journal_ of the Geological Society on a much rolled and +battered skull from the so-called Red Crag of Suffolk, which the author +referred to a species of that extinct genus of sea-cows (Sirenia) known +as _Halitherium_. Such interest as the specimen possessed was due to +its affording the first evidence of the occurrence of remains of that +genus in Britain. Another paper, it may be mentioned, was published by +Flower in the same journal for 1877, in which another well-known extinct +continental genus of mammals was added to the fauna of the Red Crag of +East Anglia. The paper described two molar teeth, in the York Museum, +from the deposit in question, evidently referable to the large bear-like +animal known as _Hyænarctus_, of which the first remains had been +described many years previously from the Siwalik Hills of North-Eastern +India. As the mention of this paper has broken the chronological order of +treatment, it may be added that in 1876 Flower published another paper, +this time in the Zoological Society’s _Proceedings_, on a mammalian skull +from the Red Crag. The specimen referred to in this communication was +provisionally assigned to Cuvier’s genus _Xiphodon_, and was believed to +have been originally washed out from a formation much older than the Red +Crag, and reburied in the latter. + +Next on our list comes a paper on the anatomy of the musk-deer (_Moschus +moschiferus_), contributed to the serial last cited for 1875, in which +the author points out how widely this animal differs from the more +typical deer, and shows that it cannot even claim a near relationship +with the Chinese water-deer, despite the fact that in both species the +males are devoid of antlers, and are armed with long sabre-like tusks in +the upper jaw. In several respects—notably the presence of a gall-bladder +to the liver—the musk-deer is indeed nearer to the hollow-horned +ruminants (Bovidæ), than to the other members of the deer tribe (Cervidæ). + +In 1876 Professor Flower delivered before the Royal Institution an +extremely interesting lecture on the extinct mammals of North America, +which at that time were in course of being made known to the scientific +world by the writings of Professors Marsh and Cope. In the course of +this lecture Flower alluded at considerable length to the ancestry +of the horse—then a comparatively new subject—and also discussed the +structure and affinities of those gigantic many-horned mammals commonly +known as Dinocerata. In concluding, the lecturer observed that the work +accomplished in America taught us—“First, that the living world around +us at the present moment bears but an exceedingly small proportion to +the whole series of animal and vegetable forms which have existed in past +ages. Secondly, that, notwithstanding all that has been said, and most +justly said, of the necessary imperfection of the geological record, we +may hope that there is still so much preserved that the study of the +course of events which have led up to the present condition of life on +the globe, may have a great future before it.” + +The subsequent discoveries of fossil mammalian remains in such enormous +quantities in Patagonia, and still later in the Libyan desert, have +rendered this utterance almost prophetic. + +During the same year (1876) appeared, in the _Philosophical +Transactions_, a notice by Flower of the seals and cetaceans obtained +during the _Transit of Venus_ expeditions of 1874 and 1875. The year +1876 likewise witnessed the publication, in the _Proceedings_ of the +Zoological Society, of an article on the skulls of the various existing +species of rhinoceroses, in which it was shown that the number of such +species had been altogether unjustifiably exaggerated by the late +Dr. J. E. Gray and other writers, and that in all probability there +were really not more than five. Certain characters connected with the +postero-lateral region of the skull were also described, which served to +divide these species into groups. A further contribution to our knowledge +of the skulls of the rhinoceroses was made by Flower in 1878, when he +described, in the same journal, the skull of an Indian specimen, which +it was thought might be the _Rhinoceros lasiotis_ of Dr. Sclater—now +known to be (as then suggested) merely a local race of the two-horned _R. +sumatrensis_. + +Between the years 1880 and 1883 several papers on mammalian zoology were +published by Flower in the _Proceedings_ of the Zoological Society and +elsewhere, none of which can be regarded as of first-rate importance. The +first of these (_P.Z.S._ 1880) dealt with the internal anatomy of that +rare mammal, the bush-dog (_Speothus_, or _Icticyon_, _venaticus_), of +Guiana, which had never previously been described. The author regarded +this animal as a specialised member of the Canidæ, showing some signs +of affinity with the wild dogs (_Cyon_) of Asia. In 1880 the museum +of the Royal College of Surgeons received a very large skull of the +elephant-seal or sea-elephant (_Macrorhinus leoninus_); and this induced +Flower to draw up some notes on that enormous creature, which appeared +in the above-named journal for 1881. The author described it as “an +animal which, notwithstanding its former abundance and wide distribution, +and its great zoological interest, is still very imperfectly known +anatomically, and very poorly represented in collections.” Fortunately, +since that date—mainly owing to the energy and liberality of Mr. +Rothschild—specimens of the skin and skeleton of this huge seal have +been secured for our museums before it was too late. In the same volume +Flower drew attention to the evidence showing that the sea-cow, or +manati, of which a pair were living at the time in the Brighton Aquarium, +occasionally, or periodically, comes ashore for the purpose of grazing. +In the same year appeared an article from his pen in the _British Medical +Journal_ on the anatomy of the Cetacea and Edentata; while in 1882 the +question of the mutual relationships of the mammals commonly included in +the latter order (such as sloths, ant-eaters, armadillos, pangolins, and +aard-varks) were discussed by him in the _Proceedings_ of the Zoological +Society. + +The trend of the paper last mentioned, as well as that of some of his +other communications published shortly before, indicates that about this +time, instead of restricting his attention more or less entirely to their +anatomy, Flower was much occupied with the subject of the classification +of the Mammalia. And the reason is not far to seek, for he had undertaken +not only the volume of the “Catalogue of Osteological Specimens in the +Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons,” dealing with mammals other +than man, but he had likewise engaged (in co-operation with the late Dr. +Dobson) to write the article “Mammalia” for the ninth edition of the +_Encyclopædia Britannica_. With the view apparently of clearing the way +for these two important contributions to zoology, he published during the +early part of 1883 in the Zoological Society’s _Proceedings_ a paper on +the “Arrangement of the Orders and Families of Mammalia.” + +To discuss this important paper in detail on the present occasion is +quite unnecessary; and it will suffice to state that it has formed the +basis on which all modern classifications of the group are framed. Indeed +it has been accepted by most writers with little or no modification. In +this scheme it was proposed to divide mammals into three primary groups, +or sub-classes, namely, Prototheria, or Ornithodelphia, as represented +only by the egg-laying group; Metatheria or Didelphia, including the +pouched group, or marsupials; and Eutheria or Monodelphia, comprising the +whole of the remaining or placental groups. Of late years, owing to the +discovery of unexpected relationships between placentals and marsupials, +it has been proposed to recognise only two sub-classes of mammals: the +Eutheria, comprising the two groups last mentioned, and the Prototheria, +or monotremes. The scheme chiefly differed from the one proposed some +years earlier by Huxley in the inclusion of the Hyracoidea (klipdass) and +Proboscidea (elephants) as sub-orders of the Ungulata, instead of their +forming separate orders by themselves. In this instance Flower ranked the +Artiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Hyracoidea, and Proboscidea as equivalent +sub-orders of Ungulata, but later on he brigaded the two former together +as Ungulata Vera, and the two latter as Subungulata. + +The above scheme was employed by Flower in the article “Mammalia,” +written by him for the ninth edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, +the volume containing which appeared in 1883. This article, with others +by himself and other authors, formed, as will be noticed later on, +the basis of the _Study of Mammals_ published in 1891. Among other +articles contributed by Flower to the _Encyclopædia_ were those on the +Horse, Kangaroo, Lemur, Lion, Mastodon, Megatherium, Otter, Platypus, +Rhinoceros, Seal, Swine, Tapir, Whale, and Zebra. + +The aforesaid scheme of classification was likewise used in the second +part of the “Catalogue of Osteological Specimens in the Museum of the +Royal College of Surgeons,” which was written with the assistance of Dr. +Garson, and appeared in 1884. Since this valuable work has been already +noticed at some length in the chapter devoted to Flower’s official +connection with the College of Surgeons, it need not be further referred +to in this place, except that the writer may again take the opportunity +of expressing his regret that the views on nomenclature there enunciated +have not met with acceptance among the modern school of naturalists. + +At the “Jubilee” meeting of the Zoological Society, held in June 1887, +Flower, as President, read an address on the “Progress of Zoological +Science” during the reign of Queen Victoria, which appeared in the +_Report_ of the Council of that year, and to which reference has been +made in an earlier chapter. + +About this time the Natural History Museum received a series of antlers +shed year by year by one particular red-deer stag, together with the +complete skull and antlers of the same animal; and this gift induced +Flower to deliver in December 1887 a lecture on “Horns and Antlers” +before the Middlesex Natural History Society, which is printed, with +a plate of the aforesaid series of red-deer antlers, in a somewhat +abbreviated form, in the _Transactions_ of that Society. + +If we except a few on Cetacea, noticed in the next chapter, Sir William’s +contributions to the Zoological Society’s _Proceedings_ after 1883 were +not numerous or of much importance. In 1884 he contributed, however, +remarks on the so-called white elephant from Burma, then exhibited in +the Society’s Menagerie; and in the same year he also wrote on the young +dentition of the capybara. In 1887 he discussed the generic position +and relationships of the pigmy hippopotamus of Liberia. The acquisition +in the following year by the Natural History Museum of specimens of +that breed of Japanese fowls remarkable for the excessive elongation +of the tail-feathers of the cocks, led to a note on that subject in +the _Proceedings_ for the same year. This paper, it may be incidentally +mentioned, is noteworthy, on account of the evidence it affords that Sir +William did not regard the variations displayed by domesticated animals +as in any way unworthy the notice of the naturalist; while the next shows +that monstrosities or abnormalities—at all events to a certain extent—are +also worthy of recognition. The note incidentally alluded to in the +last sentence appeared in 1889, and dealt with an African rhinoceros +head, showing three horns. Finally, in 1890, Sir William exhibited and +commented upon a photograph of the nesting-hole of a hornbill, showing +the female “walled up” with mud. + +The next year (1891) saw the publication of _An Introduction to the +Study of Mammals, Living and Extinct_, written, as already said, in +collaboration with the present writer, and embodying the whole of +Flower’s contributions to the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, together with +certain articles by other authors from the same work, and such new +material as was necessary in order to weave these _disjecta membra_ into +one connected and harmonious whole. + +In the same year was also published, in the _Modern Science Series_, Sir +William’s admirable little volume on _The Horse_, which was likewise +largely based on his _Encyclopædia_ articles. In this work Flower dwelt +particularly on the vestiges exhibited by the modern horse of its descent +from more generalised ancestors; and he was successful in demonstrating +that the structure known to veterinarians as the “ergot,” represents one +of the foot-pads of the earlier forms. + +Undoubtedly the most important elements in the foregoing tale of work are +those relating to the mammalian (and especially the marsupial) brain, and +the marsupial dentition. And if Flower had accomplished nothing more than +this, he would have been entitled to gratitude of his successors. But, +as we shall immediately see, all the above formed but a portion of his +zoological labours. + + + + +CHAPTER VI + +WORK ON THE CETACEA + + +Next at any rate to the study of the various races of the human species +(which he took up seriously later on in his career), the group of +mammals to which Flower devoted special attention, and which attracted +his greatest interest, was undoubtedly that of the Cetacea, or whales, +dolphins, porpoises, etc. At the time when he set himself seriously to +study these aquatic and fish-like mammals, the zoology of the group was +certainly in a most confused and unsatisfactory state; partly, no doubt, +owing to the comparative rarity of complete specimens in our museums, and +the consequent difficulty of instituting accurate comparisons, and partly +to the reckless prodigality with which names had been given to imperfect +or insufficiently characterised specimens by some of his predecessors and +early contemporaries, and the needless multiplication of generic terms. +It was consequently at this time almost impossible to be sure which was +the right name for even many of the commoner species; while in the case +of the rarer kinds, the confusion was almost hopeless. When Flower left +the subject—which he only did when his working days were over—it was in +great measure thoroughly in order, although of course much was left for +future workers to fill in. Unhappily, his views on the nomenclature of +the group have not been accepted by all his followers; so that a fresh +and totally unnecessary source of confusion has been introduced of late +years into a subject which had already sufficient difficulties of its own. + +In regard to the discrimination of species, Flower took a view almost the +reverse of that held by some of his predecessors and colleagues; and, as +he says himself, he may have consequently erred in a direction the very +opposite of theirs. “As species have not generally been recognised as +such,” he wrote in the British Museum _List_ of 1885, “unless presenting +constant distinguishing characters capable of definition, it is probable +that, in the imperfect state of knowledge of many forms, some may have +been grouped together which a fuller acquaintance with all parts of their +structure, external and internal, will show to be distinct.” + +Apart from his explaining to popular audiences that whales were mammals +and not fishes, Flower emphasised three points very strongly in regard +to the organisation and physiology of these animals. First of all, +he pointed out that, as a rule, they do not “spout” water from their +“blowholes.” “The ‘spouting,’ or more properly the ‘blowing’ of the +whale,” he wrote, “is nothing more than the ordinary act of expiration, +which, taking place at larger intervals than in land animals, is +performed with a greater amount of emphasis. The moment the animal rises +to the surface it forcibly expels from its lungs the air taken in at the +last inspiration, which is of course highly charged with watery vapour in +consequence of the natural respiratory changes. This, rapidly condensing +in the cold atmosphere in which the phenomena is generally observed, +forms a column of steam or spray, which has been erroneously taken for +water.” + +Secondly, he drew attention to the importance of the rudiments of +hind-limbs which occur in many whales as affording decisive evidence +of the descent of the group from land mammals. And thirdly, he +emphasised the marked distinction between baleen, or whalebone, whales +(Mystacoceti), and toothed whales and dolphins (Odontoceti); although +he appears never to have gone so far in this direction as some modern +naturalists, who are of opinion that these two groups have originated +independently of one another from separate types of land mammals. + +Another point to which Flower devoted a considerable share of attention +was the dimensions attained by the larger species of whales. Previously, +there is no doubt that very great exaggeration had been current in this +respect, and that such things as 150-feet whales are unknown. With his +excessive caution, and determination to be on the safe side, it is +however probable that in some instances—notably the Greenland right-whale +and the sperm-whale—Flower somewhat under-estimated the maximum +dimensions. + +At what date Flower first began to study whales seriously, it is not +easy to ascertain. From the fact of his contributing three papers on +this subject to the Zoological Society’s _Proceedings_ for 1864, it may, +however, be inferred that by that time he had devoted no inconsiderable +amount of attention to the group. In the first of those he described a +specimen of a lesser fin-whale, then recently stranded on the Norfolk +coast; while in a second, and much more important communication, he gave +notes on the skeletons of whales preserved in the museums of Holland +and Belgium which he had recently visited. Two of these he described as +indicating apparently new species; although their right to distinction +was not maintained. In the same year he described two skulls of grampuses +from Tasmania, which were regarded as representing a new species, under +the name of _Orca meridionalis_; a further note on these being added in +the Society’s _Proceedings_ for 1865, when the species was transferred +to the genus _Pseudorca_. Later still it was found that the supposed +species was inseparable from the typical _P. crassidens_; named by Owen +many years previously on the evidence of a skeleton from the Lincolnshire +Fens. In another note published the same year in the same journal he +showed that one of the whales named by him in 1864 was identical with the +one now known as _Balænoptera sibbaldi_; while a second paper described a +specimen of the fin-whale commonly known as _B. musculus_. A further note +on the synonymy of _B. sibbaldi_ appeared in the _Proceedings_ for 1868. + +Reverting to earlier publications, in 1866 the Royal Society of +London issued a volume containing translations by Flower of certain +very important memoirs on Cetacea by Professors Eschricht, Reinhardt, +and Lilljeborg. As these were written in a language understood by +comparatively few Englishmen, the translation was a distinct benefit to +“cetology” in this country. + +Between the years 1869 and 1878 inclusive, six very important memoirs on +whales (including in that term porpoises, dolphins, etc.) from Flower’s +pen appeared in the _Transactions_ of the Zoological Society of London. +The first of these, which was published in the year first mentioned, was +devoted to the description of the skeleton of the very interesting and +then little-known South American freshwater or estuarine dolphins, _Inia_ +and _Pontoporia_. In the course of this memoir it was demonstrated that, +in spite of the wide distance between their habitats, these dolphins and +the freshwater dolphin of the Ganges and certain other Indian rivers, +_Platanista gangetica_, collectively form a distinct family group—the +Platanistidæ, which exhibits many very generalised features. + +In the second memoir of this series, which appeared in 1869, Flower +treated in an exhaustive manner of the osteology of the sperm-whale, or +cachalot. “The fine skeleton of a young male which he procured for the +Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons,” writes Professor M’Intosh in +his obituary notice of Sir William, “formed the basis of this important +paper, and enabled him to add to and correct much which had been written +on this subject. The description of its huge cranium as a large, pointed +slipper, with a high heel-piece and the front trodden down, the hollow +limited behind by the occipital crest, continued laterally into the +elevated ridges of the broadly expanded maxillæ, which rose from the +median line to the edge of the skull, instead of falling away, as in most +Cetaceans, must be familiar to all students of the group. In this vast +cavity lies the ‘head-matter,’ composed of almost pure spermaceti.” + +It was further demonstrated that the available evidence pointed to the +existence of only a single species of true cachalot; the small adult jaws +not unfrequently seen in collections being apparently those of females, +which are known to be far inferior in size to the old bulls. + +It may be added, in connection with sperm-whales, that the abrupt +termination of the muzzle, shown (in a somewhat modified degree) in the +model of the old bull, set up under Sir William’s direction in the Whale +Room at the Natural History Museum, has been said by certain modern +naturalists to be incorrect. Inquiries instituted at the present writer’s +suggestion at the New Bedford Cachalot-whaling Station have, however, +proved that the abruptness is under-estimated rather than exaggerated in +the restoration. + +This brief reference to the Whale Room at the museum, and Flower’s work +in superintending the construction of models of several of the larger +members of the group, must, it may be further added, suffice in this +place, seeing that fuller mention of the subject has been already made in +an earlier chapter. + +The third memoir of the series in the Zoological Society’s _Transactions_ +treats of the Chinese white dolphin (_Delphinus_, or _Prodelphinus_, +_sinensis_), and was published in 1872. In the following year appeared +one on Risso’s dolphin, _Grampus griseus_, in which the author directed +attention to certain variable markings always seen on the skin of this +species. These, it has been subsequently shown, are produced by the claws +in the suckers of the cuttlefish which forms the food of this species. + +The two remaining memoirs in the _Transactions_, which appeared +respectively in 1873 and 1878, were devoted to that difficult, and at +the time imperfectly known group, termed ziphioid, or beaked whales. In +the first of the two attention was concentrated on the aberrant and +rare form known as _Berardius arnuxi_; while the second was exclusively +devoted to the much more abundant types included under the generic title +_Mesoplodon_, in allusion to the single pair of lower teeth near the +middle of the sides of the lower jaw, which forms the single dental +armature of the cetaceans of this genus. The beaked whales, it should be +added, had been previously discussed by Flower in a preliminary paper +published in the Zoological Society’s _Proceedings_ for 1871 and 1876, +and likewise in an article communicated in 1872 to _Nature_. + +Special interest attaches to a paper by Flower published in the +_Transactions_ of the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall for 1872, +and also in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_ for the same +year, on the bones of a whale dug up at Petuan, in Cornwall, sometime +previously to 1829, and now preserved in the museum of the above-named +Society. The whale represented by these remains was made the type of the +new genus and species _Eschrichtius robustus_, by the late Dr. J. E. +Gray. That it was a member of the group of whalebone-whales, and that +it could not be identified with either of the genera then known, namely +_Balæna_, _Balænoptera_, and _Megaptera_, was fully demonstrated by +Flower, who also showed that it agreed with the two latter in having the +neck-vertebræ free. + +“The interesting question,” he added, “remains, whether this species +still exists in our seas; if extinct, it must have become so at a +comparatively recent period, certainly long after Cornwall was inhabited +by man. The negative evidence of no specimen having been met with by +naturalists in a living or recent state, is hardly conclusive as to its +non-existence, as our knowledge of this group of animals is lamentably +deficient. We are acquainted with many species, even of very large size, +only through isolated individuals, and the discovery of others new to +science is by no means an infrequent or unlooked-for occurrence at the +present time.” + +In the opinion of the present writer, it is quite probable that this +whale may be identical with the grey whale of the Pacific, described many +years subsequently by the late Professor Cope as _Rhachianectes glaucus_, +in which event that name will have to give place to _Eschrichtius +robustus_. + +In the year 1879, and for some time after, Flower directed his attention +more especially to the dolphins and porpoises, which collectively +constitute the family Delphinidæ of naturalists, and he published a +series of papers on this group in the _Proceedings_ of the Zoological +Society. In the volume for 1879 there appeared, for instance, one paper +on the common dolphin (_Delphinus delphis_); a second on the bottle-nosed +dolphin, now known as _Tursiops tursio_; and a third on the skull of +the white whale, or beluga (_Delphinapterus leucas_). Of far greater +importance was, however, the appearance in 1883 of a paper in the same +serial on the generic characters of the family Delphinidæ as a whole. +Special attention was directed in this communication to the value of the +pterygoid bones, on the under surface of the skull, in the classification +of the family; and characters were formulated which enabled the various +genera to be identified, wholly or in part, by this part of the skull. +Flower’s classification of the Delphinidæ has, with some slight +modifications, been very generally accepted by later naturalists. Some +time after the publication of this paper the present writer pointed +out to the author that two of the generic names employed by him were +barred by previous use in a different sense; and in a note subsequently +published in the _Proceedings_, these were accordingly replaced. + +Flower was, however, by no means forgetful of his earlier love for the +cachalot and beaked whales (Physeteridæ); and in 1883 and again in 1884 +he published papers in the _Proceedings_ on their near relatives the +bottle-nosed whales (not to be confounded with the bottle-nosed dolphins) +of the genus _Hyperöodon_. In these investigations he was much indebted, +as on several previous occasions, to the observations of Captain Gray, a +well-known whaler. As regards the common bottle-nose (_H. rostratus_), +Sir William succeeded in demonstrating that the great differences which +had long been noticed in the skull were due to distinctions either +of sex or age; the old males developing huge maxillary crests—with a +broad and flattened front surface—of which there is scarcely any trace +in the younger members of the same sex, or in females of all ages. In +consequence of this difference in the skull, the head of the old bull +bottle-nose is easily recognisable by the abrupt and prominent elevation +of the forehead immediately behind the base of the beak. Flower was +also able to show that bottle-noses yield true spermaceti, especially +in the head; a fact which does not appear to have been previously known +to zoologists, although it may have been to whalers. At the present day +there is a considerable trade in bottle-nose sperm-oil and spermaceti; +these being often blended with the products of the cachalot, from which +they are distinguishable by their specific gravity. In his 1882 paper +Flower described a water-worn bottle-nose skull from Australia, which +he regarded as indicating a second species of the genus—_Hyperöodon +planifrons_. The correctness of this determination has been demonstrated +by complete skeletons of the same whale from the South American seas. + +The last two papers on Cetacea by Sir William in the _Proceedings_ of +the Zoological Society refer to the occurrence of examples of Rudolphi’s +rorqual (_Balænoptera borealis_) on the English coasts. In the one paper +he described a specimen stranded on the Essex shore in 1883, and in the +other an example captured in the Thames four years later. + +As regards other contributions to our knowledge of the Cetacea, Sir +William in 1883 delivered before the Royal Institution a lecture on +“Whales, Past and Present,” which is reproduced in the _Proceedings_ of +that body for the same year. A second lecture, “On Whales and Whaling,” +was delivered before the Royal Colonial Institute for 1885, and is +published in the _Journal_ of the Institute for that year. The article +“Whale,” for the ninth edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, is also +the work of Flower; it is reproduced, almost as it stands, in the _Study +of Mammals_. + +The year 1885 saw the publication of the “List of the Specimens of +Cetacea in the Zoological Department of the British Museum,” a small, but +nevertheless valuable work, from which an extract has already been made. +Even when this was written, the museum contained skulls or skeletons of +nearly all the more important and well-established representatives of the +order, the only notable deficiency being the large whalebone whale from +the North Pacific commonly known as the grey whale, and scientifically +termed _Rhachianectes glaucus_. It was not many years before this gap +was filled by the acquisition of a complete skeleton of the species in +question. + +In concluding this brief notice of the work accomplished by Flower on the +Cetacea, an extract may be made to illustrate his views with regard to +the ancestry and origin of the group:— + +“The origin of the Cetacea,” he wrote, “is at present involved in much +obscurity. They present no signs of closer affinity to any of the +lower classes of vertebrates than do many other members of their own +class. Indeed in all that essentially distinguishes a mammal from the +oviparous vertebrates, whether in the osseous, nervous, reproductive, or +any other system, they are as truly mammalian as any other group. Any +supposed marks of inferiority, as absence of limb-structure, of hairy +covering, of lachrymal apparatus, etc., are obviously modifications (or +degradations, as they may be termed) in adaptation to their special mode +of life. The characters of the teeth of _Zeuglodon_ and other extinct +forms, and also of the fœtal Mystacocetes, clearly indicate that they +have been derived from mammals in which the heterodont type of dentition +was fully established. The steps by which a land mammal may have been +modified into a purely aquatic one are indicated by the stages which +still survive among the Carnivora in the Otariidæ and in the true seals. +A further change in the same direction would produce an animal somewhat +resembling a dolphin; and it has been thought that this may have been the +route by which the Cetacean form has been developed. There are, however, +great difficulties in the way of this view. Thus if the hind-limbs had +ever been developed into the very efficient aquatic propelling organs +they present in the seals, it is not easy to imagine how they could +have become completely atrophied and their function transferred to the +tail. So that, from this point of view, it is more likely that whales +were derived from animals with long tails, which were used in swimming, +eventually with such effect that the hind-limbs became no longer +necessary. The powerful tail, with its lateral cutaneous flanges, of an +American species of otter (_Lutra brasiliensis_) may give an idea of +this member in the primitive Cetaceans. But the structure of the Cetacea +is, in so many essential characters, so unlike that of the Carnivora, +that the probabilities are against these orders being nearly related. +Even in the skull of the _Zeuglodon_, which has been cited as presenting +a great resemblance to that of a seal, quite as many likenesses may be +traced to one of the primitive Pig-like Ungulates (except in the purely +adaptive character of the form of the teeth) while the elongated larynx, +complex stomach, simple liver, reproductive organs, both male and female, +and fœtal membranes of the existing Cetacea, are far more like those of +that group than of the Carnivora. Indeed, it appears probable that the +old popular idea which affixed the name of ‘Sea-Hog’ to the porpoise, +contains a larger element of truth than the speculations of many +accomplished zoologists of modern times. The fact that _Platanista_, +which, as mentioned above, appears to retain more of the primitive +characteristics of the group than any other existing form, and also the +distantly related _Inia_ from South America, are both at the present day +exclusively fluviatile, may point to the freshwater origin of the whole +group, in which case their otherwise rather inexplicable absence from the +seas of the Cretaceous period would be accounted for. + +“On the other hand, it should be observed that the teeth of the +Zeuglodonts approximate more to a carnivorous than to an ungulate type.” + +This difficulty with regard to the teeth is indeed one which it is +impossible to disregard, since it is scarcely credible that grinding +teeth such as characterise herbivorous mammals of all descriptions +could ever have been modified into the teeth of whales, either living +or extinct. There is, moreover, the unmistakable resemblance presented +by the cheek-teeth of the aforesaid extinct zeuglodons to those of +Carnivora. Both these facts seem to point to the derivation of toothed +whales, at any rate, from flesh-eating rather than herbivorous mammals; +although they have certainly no relationship with the eared seals. + +Since the foregoing passage was written it has been practically +demonstrated that the toothed whales, at any rate, are the descendants +of primitive Carnivora. Professor E. Fraas, of Stuttgart, and Dr. C. +W. Andrews, of the British Museum, have, for instance, shown that the +zeuglodons are derived from the Eocene group of Carnivora known as +Creodontia; while there is every reason for regarding the zeuglodons +themselves as the ancestors of modern toothed whales. + + + + +CHAPTER VII + +ANTHROPOLOGICAL WORK + + +The study of the physical characters of the various native races of the +human species—that is to say, anthropology, in contradistinction to +ethnology—occupied a very prominent position in Sir William Flower’s +scientific career; and it is difficult to say whether this or the study +of whales was the branch of biology on which his greatest interest was +concentrated. Perhaps we might say that the two together formed his +especially favourite subjects. Whereas, however, as we have seen in the +last chapter, he was studying the Cetacea at least as early as the year +1864, when papers from his pen were published, anthropology does not +appear to have been seriously taken up by him till considerably later +in life; the first papers and lectures by him that have come under the +writer’s notice dating from 1878. + +As regards the special departments of this science to which Sir William +devoted a large share of attention, we may mention, in the first place, +the discovery of the best methods of accurately determining the capacity +of the human cranium, and the drawing-up of formulæ for “indexes” to +serve as a basis for comparing the cranial measurements of different +races. Secondly, we may take the classification of these races as one of +his most important lines of investigation. While, in the third place, +may be noticed his partiality for the study of the inferior races of +mankind, more especially those belonging to the black, or Negro, branch +of the species; dwarf races, like the Central African Akkas, and the +Andaman Islanders, or exterminated types, like the Tasmanians, having +apparently a very strong claim on his interest. And here it may be +mentioned that not only is anthropology largely indebted to Flower for +his published works on this subject, but likewise for the energy he +displayed in collecting specimens of the osteology of dwindling races, +while there was yet time. It was at his initiation that Sir Joseph Fayrer +was induced to use his influence with the Indian authorities for the +purpose of securing skulls and skeletons of Andamanese for the Museum of +the Royal College of Surgeons. The result of this was the acquisition of +a fine series of specimens of the osteology of this fast-disappearing +race, at a time when it was still comparatively uncontaminated and +undeteriorated by contact with Europeans. That such contact must +inevitably lead, sooner or later, to the disappearance of the inferior, +or “non-adaptive” races of mankind, was a favourite dictum of Sir +William’s; and its truth has been confirmed by the events of the last few +years. + +If not actually the earliest, the first really important contribution to +anthropology on Flower’s part was a Friday Evening lecture “On the Native +Races of the Pacific Ocean,” delivered at the Royal Institution on 31st +May 1878, and published in the _Proceedings_ of that body for the same +year. In this lecture Sir William described the native races of Oceania, +or those inhabiting the islands, inclusive of Australia, scattered +through the great ocean tract bounded on the east and west respectively +by the continents of America and Asia. The subject was treated very +largely upon the basis of the collection of skulls and skeletons in the +Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons; yet the lecturer was careful to +point out that even this extensive series was wholly insufficient for +the purpose of forming a classification of mankind founded on physical +structure. + +“It can only afford certain indications, valuable as far as they go, +from which a provisional, or approximative system may be built up. Very +many, indeed the majority of the islands, are totally unrepresented in +it; others are illustrated by only one or two individuals.” “Were the +collection anything like representative,” it is added later, “it would +probably be found possible to distinguish the natives of each island, or, +at all events, of each group of islands, by cranial characters alone.” + +Special attention was in this course directed to the Australians on the +one hand, and to the frizzly-haired Melanesians, or Oceanic Negroes +(as distinct from the straight-haired Polynesians) on the other. +That the Melanesians were the primitive denizens of the greater part +of Oceania, and that the original area they once inhabited has been +much circumscribed by Polynesian invasion, the lecturer was fully +convinced; and the great difficulty of distinguishing in some instances +to what extent this invasion has led, in certain cases, to a mixture +of the two stocks, was earnestly insisted upon. At the conclusion of +his discourse Flower commented very strongly on the urgent need of +making anthropological collections in these islands forthwith; and, +although perhaps his prophecy of impending extermination was a little +exaggerated, it is no less urgent at the present day. + +“In another half century,” he said, “the Australians, the Melanesians, +the Maories, and most of the Polynesians will have followed the +Tasmanians to the grave. We shall well merit the reproach of future +generations if we neglect our present opportunities of gathering together +every fragment of knowledge that can still be saved, of their languages, +customs, social polity, manufactures, and arts. The preservation of +tangible evidence of their physical structure is, if possible, still +more important; and surely this may be expected of that nation, above +all others, which by its commercial enterprise and wide-spread maritime +dominion has done, and is doing, far more than any in effecting that +distinctive revolution.” + +What are we doing at the present day, it may be asked, to avoid this +reproach? If we may judge by the slowness with which anthropological +specimens came into the national collections (and it is difficult to +select a better test), the answer must surely be, I am afraid, in the +negative. + +Of a still more popular type than the preceding was a lecture on the +“Races of Men,” delivered by Flower in the City Hall, Glasgow, on 28th +November 1878, and published as a separate pamphlet. + +The third, and perhaps the most interesting lecture given by Flower +during the year under consideration, was the one at Manchester on +November 30th, on the “Aborigines of Tasmania,” which is published in the +tenth series of _Manchester Science Lectures_. In this discourse Flower +traced the sad story of European intercourse with this interesting +people and their final extermination; pointing out that the last male +died in 1869, and the last female in 1876. At the time this lecture was +delivered four complete skeletons of Tasmanians of both sexes had been +obtained and sent to England by the late Mr. Merton Allport, of Hobart. +Of these, two were then in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, +while the third was in the collection of the late Dr. Barnard Davis, +and the fourth in that of the Anthropological Institute of London. Dr. +Davis’s specimen came to the Museum of the College of Surgeons after +the owner’s death; and it was a great source of satisfaction to Sir +William that, in after years, he obtained the Anthropological Institute’s +specimen (which is remarkable for retaining the inter-frontal suture of +the skull) for the Natural History Museum. Somewhat less than thirty +Tasmanian skulls were at this time known to exist in England, and a few +have been since acquired for public collections. Flower dwelt upon the +close affinity of the Tasmanians to the Melanesians (although the skulls +of the two are perfectly distinguishable), and their wide difference from +their Australian neighbours. + +Perhaps, however, the most important contribution made by Flower to +anthropology in 1878 was his paper on the “Methods and Results of +Measurements of the Capacity of Human Crania,” which appeared in the +_Report_ of the British Association for that year and also in _Nature_. + +This was paving the way for the first part of the valuable “Catalogue of +Osteological Specimens in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons +of England,” which appeared in the following year, and is entirely +devoted to man. This accurate and laborious work was very far from being +a mere catalogue of the contents of this section of the museum under the +author’s charge, for it is in fact to a great extent a manual of the +methods employed in human craniology; tables and figures being given of +the manner in which the measurement of skulls are made, and the method of +calculating “cranial indexes.” For taking the cubical capacity of skulls +Flower employed mustard-seed, and the “craniometer” invented by Mr. Busk. +In the introduction is given a general sketch of the osteology of man, +followed by a dissertation on his dentition, and this, in turn, by an +account of the special osteological and dental features of the various +native races of the human species. + +Earlier in the same year Flower had entered in some degree on the domain +of ethnology by contributing to the _Journal_ of the Anthropological +Institute a paper illustrating the “Mode of Preserving the Dead in +Darnley Island and in South Australia,” figuring the mummified body of a +Melanesian from the above-named island. Another paper of somewhat similar +nature from Flower’s pen was published in the same journal for 1881, +dealing with a collection of monumental heads and artificially deformed +crania of Melanesians from the Island of Mallicollo, in the New Hebrides. +These preserved heads have attracted the attention of Europeans ever +since Cook’s visit to the island in 1774; and appear to be quite unique. + +“Whatever the special motive among the Mallicollese,” wrote Flower, +“whether they are the objects of worship or merely of affectionate +regard, it must be very difficult for a passing traveller without +intimate knowledge of the language and of the condition of mind and +thought of the people to ascertain; but the custom is obviously analogous +to many others which have prevailed throughout all historical times and +in many nations, manifesting itself among other forms in the mummified +bodies of the ancient Egyptians, and which has received its most æsthetic +expression in the marble busts placed over the mouldering bones in a +Christian cathedral.” + +Reverting to 1879, we find in the _Journal_ of the Anthropological +Institute for that year an important and interesting paper by Flower on +the “Osteology and Affinities of the Natives of the Andaman Islands,” +a subject to which the author made a further contribution in the same +journal for November 1884. In the first of these communications the +author gave the results of the examination of nineteen skeletons and a +large series of skulls, while in the second he was able to amplify these, +and thus to render his averages more trustworthy by the details of no +less than ten additional skeletons. As in all his other papers of this +nature, Sir William first traced in considerable detail the history of +European intercourse with the Andamanese, or “Mincopies,” as they were +often called at one time, and then proceeded to point out the external +and osteological features of these interesting and diminutive people. +Relying to a great extent on the “frizzly,” or “woolly” character of +their hair, Flower was fully convinced that these people belong to the +Negro branch of the human family. + +“With the Oceanic Negroes, or Melanesians, as they are now commonly +called, we might naturally suppose they had the most in common. But this +is not the case. Although the Melanesians vary much in stature, none are +so small as the Andamanese, and some are fully equal to the average of +the species. Their crania, whenever they are met with in a pure state, +are remarkably long, narrow, and high.... The pure Fijians are perhaps +the most dolichocephalic [long-headed] race in the world, and the New +Caledonians and the New Hebrideans come near them. In this respect they +are therefore as distinct as possible from the Andamanese.... As is well +known, the African frizzly-haired races are mostly of moderate or tall +stature, but there are among them some, as the Bushmen of the South, +and others less known from the Central regions, as diminutive as the +Andamanese.” + +The lecturer then went on to state that although African Negroes were, +as a rule, of the long-headed type, yet there were even then indications +of the existence of round-headed races in the heart of the continent. +In conclusion, it was added that although their very rounded skulls +probably formed a special feature of the Andamanese, yet that he regarded +the “Negritos,” or group of which that race formed a section, “as +representing an infantile, undeveloped or primitive form of the type +from which the African Negroes on the one hand, and the Melanesians on +the other, with all their various modifications, may have sprung. Even +their very geographical position, in the centre of the great area of +distribution of the frizzly-haired races, seems to favour this view. +We may, therefore, regard them as little-modified descendants of an +extremely ancient race, the ancestors of all the Negro tribes.” + +On the other hand, it was suggested that long isolation and restriction +to a confined area might have led to physical degeneration, so that the +peculiarities of the Andamanese type might be of comparatively recent +origin. + +Another interesting race to which Sir William devoted special attention +was the Fijians, who, as already incidentally mentioned, offer the most +extreme contrast to the round-headed Andamanese, by the extreme length +and narrowness of their skulls. His paper on the “Cranial Characters +of the Natives of the Fiji Islands,” appeared in the _Journal_ of the +Anthropological Institute for 1880; and was illustrated, like the one +on the Andamanese, with carefully drawn figures of typical skulls. +After mentioning that nothing definite was known with regard to the +anthropology of one of the islands of the Fiji, or Viti, group, the +author added that “with regard to Viti Levu, all the evidence we possess +shows that the people who inhabit the interior of the island present +in their cranial conformation a remarkable purity of type, and that +this type conforms in the main with that of the Melanesian islands +generally; indeed they may be regarded as the most characteristic, almost +exaggerated, expressions of this type, for in ‘hypersistenocephaly’ +(extreme narrowness of skull), they exceed the natives of Fati, in the +New Hebrides, to which the term was first applied. + +“The intermixture of Tongans or other Polynesian blood with the Fijian, +appears to be confined to the smaller islands, and even in these not to +have very greatly modified the prevailing cranial characteristics.” + +At the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, +held at York in the autumn of 1881, Professor Flower, as Chairman of the +Department, read an address to the Anthropological Department on the +study and progress of anthropology, more especially in this country; at +the conclusion of which he urged the strong claim of the Anthropological +Institute of Great Britain and Ireland to the support of all interested +in that subject. Three years later (1884) he gave, as President, an +address “On the Aims and Prospects of the Study of Anthropology,” before +the last-named body, at the Anniversary Meeting in January. Here again +the speaker directed attention to the comparatively small degree of +interest taken in this country in this most important science, and urged +that not only scientific students, but wealthy men, ought to do something +towards aiding its progress. “Our insular position, maritime supremacy, +numerous dependencies, and ramifying commerce, have given us,” he +remarked, “unusually favourable opportunities for the formation of such +collections—opportunities which, unfortunately, in past times have not +been used so fully as might be desired.” A change, indeed, it was added, +had of late years come over matters in this respect; but, while fully +admitting this, it can scarcely be maintained that even at the present +day we are doing all that we might in this direction. + +Between the years 1879 and 1885 inclusive, Flower appears to have +devoted much of his attention to elaborating a satisfactory biological +classification of the various races of mankind. In the former he drew up +a preliminary scheme of this nature, which was published in the _British +Medical Journal_ for 1879 and 1880, under the title of “Anatomical +Characters of the Races of Man.” Impressed with the importance of +having some well-marked feature, other than those afforded by the +skull, by means of which the skeletons of such races could easily be +distinguished, he turned his attention to the scapula, or shoulder-blade, +and in 1880, with the assistance of Dr. J. G. Garson, published in the +_Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_ a paper “On the Scapular Index +as a Race-Character in Man.” On the whole, although the number of +skeletons examined was confessedly insufficient, the results obtained +were decidedly satisfactory, and agreed fairly well with those of other +observers. The Australians and Andamanese, for instance, accorded in this +respect with the Negro type. On the other hand, Bushman skeletons, as had +been observed in Paris, approached in this respect to the Caucasian type, +while the Tasmanians were unexpectedly found to differ markedly from the +other black races in their scapular index. + +In 1884, in a paper published in the _Journal_ of the Anthropological +Society, Sir William recorded the results of a large series of +observations in regard to the value of the size of the teeth as a +race-character, and was enabled, by means of a “dental index,” to +divide the human species into a “Microdont,” or small-toothed group, +a “Mesodont” group and a “Macrodont,” or large-toothed group. In the +first group were included Europeans and other members of the Caucasian +stock, as well as Polynesians, and many of the non-Aryan tribes of +Central and Southern India. In the second group came Chinese, American +Indians, Malays, and African Negroes; while in the third were included +Melanesians, Andamanese, Australians, and Tasmanians. If it be borne +in mind, as explained in the original paper, that the teeth in African +Negroes are actually larger than in Europeans, although the “index” is +reduced by the great length of the base of the cranium (which forms a +factor in the index) in the former, the results accord remarkably well +with the under-mentioned classification of the human species, which is +indeed partly based on the character in question. + +“The Classification of the Varieties of the Human Species” is the title +of Flower’s Presidential Address to the Anniversary Meeting of the +Anthropological Institute, held in January 1885. In this scheme the +species was divided into three main stocks, or branches, namely (1) the +Negroid, or black; (2) the Mongolian, or yellow; and (3) the Caucasian, +or white. In the first were included the African or typical Negroes, +the Hottentots and Bushmen, the Oceanic Negroes or Melanesians, and the +Negritos of the Andaman Islands and other parts of Asia; the Australians +being provisionally classed near the Melanesians. The second, or +Mongolian, branch was taken to include the Eskimo, the typical Mongols of +Central and Northern Asia, the brown Polynesians or “Kanakas,” and the +so-called American Indians, from the great lakes of Canada to Patagonia +and Tierra del Fuego. In the third, or Caucasian, group were classed, of +course, all the remaining representatives of the human race, including +Europeans, the ancient Egyptians, and the modern fellahin of the Nile +delta, the natives of India, the Ainu of Japan, and the Veddas of Ceylon. + +In the main, this classification has been very generally accepted by +anthropologists, although exception has naturally been taken to some of +the items. The Australians, for instance, which differ markedly from +all the undoubted representatives of the Negroid branch, form a case in +point. Sir William was inclined to think that these people do not form +a distinct race at all, but that they may be derived from a Melanesian +stock, modified by a strong infusion of some other race, probably a low +Caucasian type, more or less nearly allied to the Veddas of Ceylon or +some of the Dravidian races of Southern or Central India. It is added, +however, that the Australians may possibly be mainly sprung from a +very primitive type, from which the frizzly-haired Negroes branched +off; frizzly hair being probably a specialised feature not the common +attribute of the ancestral man; confirmation of this last supposition +being afforded, it may be mentioned, by the straight hair of the man-like +apes. + +Neither of the above theories is, however, altogether satisfactory; +and it has been suggested by some writers that the Australians, like +the Veddas of Ceylon, and the Indian Dravidians, are a very primitive +Caucasian type. Against this, is their scapular index, their large teeth, +and projecting jaws (which must not be confused with protrusion of the +lips alone). Until, however, we know which of the three great human +branches was the one which traces its origin back to ape-like creatures, +it is almost impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on this +puzzling question. + +Another point in regard to which Flower’s classification has met with +adverse criticism is the position assigned to the brown Polynesians, +which some authorities believe to be mainly of Caucasian origin, and +accordingly term Indonesians. + +Taken as a whole there can, however, be no question but that the +classification proposed by Sir William was an extremely valuable +contribution to systematic anthropology. + +The last two really important contributions to anthropology made by +Sir William were both published in 1888: the one, under the title of +“The Pygmy Races of Man,” in the _Proceedings_ of the Royal Institution +(forming an address); and the other, entitled “Description of Two +Skeletons of Akkas, a Pygmy Race from Central Africa,” in the _Journal_ +of the Anthropological Institute. The second of these two communications +dealt with two imperfect skeletons—male and female—of the pigmy African +race known as Akkas, obtained by the late Dr. Emin Pasha at Monbotto +during his last expedition. The female specimen, which is the least +imperfect of the two, and is said to be that of a very old individual, +is now mounted in the Natural History Museum. In general character, +the skulls were found to come very close to the Negro type; it is true +they are somewhat less elongated, but the relative breadth proved to +be much less than the describer was led to expect from what had been +previously written with regard to the craniology of this tribe. The whole +skeleton fully confirmed earlier statements that the Akkas are the +most diminutive living people. They are quite distinct from the African +Bushmen (characterised, among other features, by their tawny skins), and +also from the Asiatic Negritos, as represented by the Andamanese; and +they accordingly seem rightly referred to a distinct branch of the Negro +stock, for which the name Negrillo has been suggested. + +In the first of the two papers cited above, Sir William gave a general +account of all the races of mankind which can be included under the title +of “pigmies,” such as the Bushmen, Negrillos, and Negritos. As regards +the second group he wrote as follows:— + +“The fact now seems clearly demonstrated that at various spots across +the great African Continent, within a few degrees north and south of the +Equator, extending from the Atlantic coast to near the shores of the +Albert Nyanza (30° E. long.) and perhaps ... even further to the east, +south of the Galla land, are still surviving, in scattered districts, +communities of these small Negroes, all much resembling each other in +size, appearance, and habits, and dwelling mostly apart from their +taller neighbours, by whom they are everywhere surrounded.... In many +parts, especially at the west, they are obviously holding their own with +difficulty, if not actually disappearing, and there is much about their +condition of civilisation, and the situations in which they are found, +to induce us to look upon them, as in the case of the Bushmen in the +south and the Negritos in the east, as the remains of a population which +occupied the land before the incoming of the present dominant races. If +the account of the Nasamenians, related by Herodotus, be accepted as +historical, the river they came to, ‘flowing from west to east,’ must +have been the Niger, and the northward range of the dwarfish people far +more extensive twenty-three centuries ago than it is at the present time.” + +Sir William’s only remaining anthropological paper of any importance +appears to be one on skulls of the aboriginal natives of Jamaica, +published in the _Journal_ of the Anthropological Institute for 1890. + +It should not, however, be forgotten that, as more fully narrated in an +earlier chapter, one of the last acts of Sir William’s scientific career +was to organise the arrangement of the anthropological series in the +Natural History Branch of the British Museum—an undertaking of which he +was not spared to witness the completion (so far as anything of this +nature can be said to be anywhere near “complete”). + +If he had left nothing but his anthropological labours to bear testimony +to his zeal for science and his capacity for organisation, Sir William +Flower would have deserved well of posterity. And it should be recorded +to his credit that the majority of naturalists, at all events in this +country, are employing, with some minor modifications, not only his +anthropological classification, but that of mammals in general. It is +true that both these schemes were based on the labours and ideas of his +predecessors, but it was reserved for him to so modify and improve them +as to lead to the almost universal acceptation with which they have been +received. + + + + +CHAPTER VIII + +MUSEUM AND MISCELLANEOUS WORK + + +Much of the substance of this chapter has been already alluded to in the +earlier portions of the present volume; but it has been found convenient +to give Sir William’s views on the objects and arrangement of museums +somewhat more fully in this place, while reference is also made to +various items of miscellaneous work which do not fall within the scope of +either of the three previous chapters. + +Of Flower’s hereditary interest in the crusade against tight +bearing-reins, and his official connection with the Anti-Bearing-Rein +Association, sufficient mention has been already made in the first +chapter. It will likewise be unnecessary in this place to do more than +mention his _Diagrams of the Nerves of the Human Body_ published in 1861, +to his “Supplement to the Catalogue of the Pathological Series in the +Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons,” issued in 1863, and to certain +articles on surgical subjects contributed by him at an early portion of +his career. All these, coupled with the practical experience he gained +during his Crimean service, indicate, however, that had Sir William +decided to devote his energies and talents to surgery as a permanent +occupation, there is little doubt he would have risen to high eminence in +that profession. + +The little work entitled _Fashion in Deformity_, is based on a Friday +Evening lecture at the Royal Institution, delivered on 7th May 1880, +and first published in the _Proceedings_ of the Institution for the +same year. In its separate, and more fully illustrated form, it was +issued in 1881. This is certainly one of Flower’s most original efforts, +touching upon ground much of which has received but little notice from +either earlier or later writers. The subjects discussed include the +origin of fashion; mutilations of domesticated animals by man for the +sake of fashion; fashion in hair and in finger-nails; tattooing; fashion +in noses, ears, lips, teeth, and head, the latter being illustrated by +the curious custom prevalent among certain widely sundered races of +forcibly compressing the cranium in infancy by means of bandages, so as +to permanently modify and alter its contour to a greater or less degree. +Analogous to this compression of the head is the crippling by bandages of +the feet of Chinese female infants, which is described in some detail. +But the author is of opinion that European nations are scarcely less to +blame in the matter of distorting the feet for the sake of fashion; and +pointed-toed and high-heeled boots and shoes come in for his most severe +condemnation. Neither, as mentioned in the first chapter, was he less +scathing in his diatribes against the corset and tight-lacing. That the +last-mentioned article of female attire is likewise charged in certain +instances with being the inducing cause of cancer was however probably +unknown to him. + +That these strictures against the prevalent fashions of our own days +had little or no practical result (certainly none in the case of the +female sex), may be taken for granted. The work has, however, a very +considerable amount of interest as illustrating a number of instances of +the manner in which uncivilised nations modify and mutilate various parts +of the body for the sake of what they are pleased to regard as ornament, +or fashion; and is therefore a valuable contribution to ethnology. + +The address delivered by Flower at the meeting of the Church Congress, +held at Reading in 1883, on the bearing of recent scientific advances on +the Christian faith, has likewise been alluded to in the first chapter. +It will therefore suffice here to quote a portion of the concluding +paragraph, which demonstrates that nothing among modern discoveries had +served to shake in the very slightest degree the author’s profound belief +in all the essential truths of the faith of his forefathers. + +“Science,” he observes, “has thrown some light, little enough at present, +but ever increasing, and for which we should all be thankful, upon the +processes or methods by which the world in which we dwell has been +brought into its present condition. The wonder and mystery of Creation +remain as wonderful and mysterious as before. Of the origin of the whole, +science tells us nothing. It is still as impossible as ever to conceive +that such a world, governed by laws, the operations of which have led to +such mighty results, and are attended by such future promise, could have +originated without the intervention of some power external to itself. If +the succession of small miracles, supposed to regulate the operations of +nature, no longer satisfies us, have we not substituted for them one of +immeasurable greatness and grandeur?” + +Although he does not say so in so many words, there is little doubt +(reading between the lines) that Flower regarded the evolution of +animated Nature as part of a preordained divine plan, and that he had +little, if any, faith in such theories as “survival of the fittest,” as +the true explanation of Nature’s riddle. + +This address, like most of the other addresses and papers discussed in +this chapter, is reprinted in _Essays on Museums_. + +We pass now to the concluding portion of our subject, namely Flower’s +influence and example in modifying and advancing previous conceptions as +to the functions and objects of museums, and the mode and manner in which +their contents should be arranged and distributed: on the one hand for +the purpose of instructing and interesting the public, and on the other +for advancing the study of biological science. In many respects this was +perhaps the most important item in Flower’s life-work; and he may be said +to have created the art of museum development and display. + +In regard to the value and importance of his labours in this respect, no +better testimony can be adduced than that given by such a distinguished +adept in this kind of work as Professor E. Ray Lankester, the present +Director of the Natural History Departments of the British Museum. + +“The arrangement and exhibition of specimens designed and carried out by +Flower in both instances,” writes Professor Lankester, after alluding to +his predecessor’s labours first at the Royal College of Surgeons, and +afterwards at the British Museum, “was so definite an improvement on +previous methods, that he deserves to be considered as an originator +and inventor in museum work. His methods have not only met with general +approval, and their application with admiration, but they have been +largely adapted and copied by other Curators and Directors of public +museums both at home and abroad.” + +Much has been said with regard to Flower’s views on museum arrangement in +the chapter devoted to his official connection with the British Museum. +It may, however, be permissible to repeat that in his epoch-making +address on museum organisation, delivered before the British Association +in 1889, he insisted, in the case of large central public museums, on the +absolute necessity of separating the study from the exhibition series; +and likewise on the limited number and careful selection of the specimens +which should be shown to the public in the latter, and the prime +importance of carefully-written and simply-worded descriptive labels for +each group of specimens, if not, indeed, for each individual specimen. +His idea was, in fact, that the specimens should illustrate the labels +rather than the labels the specimens. A limited number, rather than +an extensive series, of exhibited specimens, and ample room for each, +were also features in his progress of reform. Not less emphatic was Sir +William on the importance of combining the extinct with the living forms +in our museums; but this, as stated elsewhere, he was unable to carry out +in the national collection. + +It was, however, by no means only in our great national museums that +Flower took so much interest, and advocated (and to a great extent +succeeded in carrying out) such sweeping and beneficial changes. He +was equally convinced of the supreme importance and value, as educating +media, of school and county museums, if organised and kept up on proper +and rational lines; and he did all that lay in his power to promote the +establishment, extension, or development of institutions of this nature. + +At the request of the Head-Master, in 1889, Flower furnished some written +advice as to the best method of arranging a museum at Eton College, and +these were published as an article in _Nature_ for that year, under the +title of “School Museums.” The writer observed that the subjects best +adapted for such a museum are zoology, botany, mineralogy, and geology; +adding that “everything in the museum should have some distinct object, +coming under one or other of the above subjects, and under one or other +of the series defined below, and everything else should be rigorously +excluded. The Curator’s business will be quite as much to keep useless +specimens out of the museum as to acquire those that are useful.” It was +further urged that the “Index Museum,” in the Natural History Museum, +furnished the best guide to the lines on which a school museum should be +furnished and arranged, but that the exhibits should be restricted to a +simpler and less detailed series. + +Under the title of “Natural History as a Vocation,” Sir William published +in _Chambers’ Journal_ for April 1897 an article dealing with biology +as a profession, and also discussing the best means of encouraging and +directing the “collecting instinct,” which is so marked a feature in +some boys. This article is reprinted in _Essays on Museums_, under the +title of “Boys’ Museums.” It serves to show that Flower considered the +aforesaid “collecting instinct” worthy, under certain restrictions, of +every encouragement. + +Since the appearance of Flower’s article pointing out their value and +importance, natural history museums have been established at many, if not +most, of our public schools besides Eton. Those at Marlborough, Rugby, +and Haileybury may be specially noticed as being, to a great extent, +arranged on the lines advocated by Sir William. + +As regards county and other local museums, Flower in the article under +the latter title, published in _Essays on Museums_, advocated that these, +in addition to natural history specimens, should likewise illustrate the +archæology, and indeed the general history of the district; obsolete +implements, such as flint-and-steel and candle-snuffers, if of local +origin, legitimately finding a place within its walls. The natural +history of the locality, needless to say, should be well illustrated, and +so arranged and named that any visitor can easily identify every creature +and plant he may have met with during his rambles in the district. + +The subject of administration is next discussed, when after fully +admitting the value of volunteer assistance, the writer lays it down as +imperative that a competent paid Curator must be engaged if the museum is +to be really useful and to properly fulfil its purpose. + +Now that so many institutions of this nature are under the control of +the County Councils, and their expenses defrayed out of the rates, the +following passage has a most important bearing on the management of +local museums:— + +“The scope of the museum,” observes Sir William, “should be strictly +defined and limited; there must be nothing like the general miscellaneous +collection of ‘curiosities,’ thrown indiscriminately together, which +constituted the old-fashioned country museum. I think we are all agreed +as to the local character predominating. One section should contain +antiquities and illustrations of local manners and customs; another +section, local natural history, zoology, botany, and geology. The +boundaries of the county will afford a good limit for both. Everything +not occurring in a state of nature within that boundary should be +rigorously excluded. In addition to this, it may be desirable to have a +small general collection designed and arranged specially for elementary +instruction in science.” + +These words of warning deserve, in the present writer’s opinion, more +attention than they have yet received at the hands of those responsible +for the administration of not a few local museums. + +It may be added that Flower was of opinion that ordinary local museums +should not undertake original research work, which should be reserved +for the larger establishments in our chief cities and the metropolis. +With the means at their disposal—often insufficient even for the proper +functions—local museums should have quite enough to do in illustrating +local products. + +Not that Sir William Flower was of opinion that, in our larger cities, +museums of a totally different nature from the local museum on the one +hand and from the general museum on the other, may not have a justifiable +_locus standi_. This is amply demonstrated by his remarks (republished +in _Essays on Museums_) on the occasion of the opening of the Booth +Museum at Brighton, in November 1890, which contains one of the finest +and best mounted collection of British birds in the kingdom. + + + + +FOOTNOTES + + +[1] The writer is indebted to the Secretary of the Middlesex Hospital for +these particulars. + +[2] At the cost of a gap in the systematic series, a step has been +subsequently made in this direction by the transference of the elephants +and sea-cows to the Geological Department. + +[3] An American writer has recently attributed, quite unjustifiably, the +names in question to Flower. + +[4] The present writer has the less compunction in making this assertion, +seeing that he himself is responsible for naming no inconsiderable number +of these so-called sub-species of mammals. + +[5] _Scottish Review_, April, 1900, p. 5. + +[6] From the extract from Professor M’Intosh’s notice of Flower’s work +above cited, it might be inferred that Owen first proposed the terms +Archencephala, Gyrencephala, etc., at the Cambridge Meeting of the +British Association in 1862. This is not so, as these terms were used by +him in a paper read before the Linnæan Society in 1857, and also in his +Reade Lecture “On the Classification and Geographical Distribution of the +Mammalia,” delivered at Cambridge on 10th May, 1859, and published in +London (by J. W. Parker) as a separate volume the same year. + +[7] _American Journal of Science_, vol. xi. p. 336 (1901). + + + + +APPENDIX A + +SOME BIOGRAPHICAL AND OBITUARY NOTICES OF SIR WILLIAM FLOWER. + + +_The Biograph and Review_, vol. vi. No. 31 (1881). + +_Medical News_, 16th December 1881. + +_Contemporary Medical Men_, London, 1887. + +_The Times_, 3rd July 1899. + +_The Spectator_, July 1899. + +_Nature_, 13th July 1889. Professor E. R. Lankester. + +_Natural Science_, August 1899. R. Lydekker. + +_Geological Magazine_, August 1899. Dr. H. Woodward. + +_Scottish Review_, April 1900. Professor M’Intosh. + +“Year-book” of the Royal Society, 1901. W. C. M. + +“Sir William Henry Flower, K.C.B.; A Personal Memoir.” By C. J. Cornish. +London, 1904. + + + + +APPENDIX B + +LIST OF THE MORE IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS OF SIR WILLIAM FLOWER. + + +A. BOOKS AND SEPARATE PAMPHLETS. + +1. “Diagrams of the Nerves of the Human Body, Exhibiting their Origin, +Divisions, and Connections.” London, 1861. + +2. “A Supplement to the Catalogue of the Pathological Series in the +Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons.” London, 1863. + +3. “Introductory Lectures to the Course of Comparative Anatomy, delivered +at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1870.” London, 1870. + +4. “An Introduction to the Osteology of the Mammalia,” being the +substance of the course of lectures delivered at the Royal College of +Surgeons of England in 1870. London, 1870. Second edition, 1876. Third +edition (revised with the assistance of Hans Gadow), 1885. + +5. “Catalogue of the Specimens illustrating the Osteology and Dentition +of Vertebrated Animals, Recent and Extinct, contained in the Museum of +the Royal College of Surgeons of England.” London. Part I. Man (1879); +Part II. Mammalia (1884), written in conjunction with Dr. J. G. Garson. + +6. “Fashion in Deformity, as Illustrated in the Customs of Barbarous and +Civilised Races.” (_Nature_ series). London, 1881. Also published in the +_Proceedings_ of the Royal Institution for 1880. + +7. “Recent Advances in Natural Science, in their Relation to the +Christian Faith.” A paper read before the Church Congress, 1885. London, +1885. + +8. “Recent Memoirs on the Cetacea,” by Eschricht, Reinhardt, and +Lilljeborg. A Translation. London (Ray Society), 1866. + +9. “List of the Specimens of Cetacea in the Zoological Department of the +British Museum.” London, 1885. + +10. “An Introduction to the Study of Mammals Living and Extinct” (written +in collaboration with R. Lydekker). London, 1891. + +11. “The Horse: a Study in Natural History.” London, 1891. + +12. “Essays on Museums and Other Subjects connected with Natural +History.” London, 1898. + + +B. ZOOLOGICAL AND ANATOMICAL MEMOIRS, ARTICLES, AND NOTES PUBLISHED IN +SCIENTIFIC SERIALS, ETC. + + +_a. In the “Philosophical Transactions” of the Royal Society of London._ + +13. “Observations on the Posterior Lobes of the Cerebrum of the +Quadrumana, with the Description of the Brain of a Galago,” vol. clii. +pp. 185-201 (1862). Abstract in _Proc. Roy. Soc._, vol. xi. pp. 376-381 +(1860). + +14. “On the Commissures of the Cerebral Hemispheres of the Marsupialia +and Monotremata, as compared with those of the Placental Mammals,” vol. +clv. pp. 633-651 (1865). Abstract in _Proc. Roy. Soc._, vol. xiv. pp. +71-74 (1865.) + +15. “On the Development and Succession of the Teeth in the Marsupialia,” +vol. clvii. pp. 631-642 (1867). Abstract in _Proc. Roy. Soc._, vol. xv. +pp. 464-468 (1867), and in _Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist._, vol. xx. pp. 129-133 +(1867.) + +16. “On a Newly-discovered Extinct Mammal from Patagonia +(_Homalodontotherium cunninghami_),” vol. clxiv. pp. 173-182 (1874). +Abstract in _Proc. Roy. Soc._, vol. xxi. p. 383 (1873). + +17. “Seals and Cetaceans from Kerguelen Island (_Transit of Venus +Expeditions_, 1874 and 1875),” vol. clxviii. pp. 95-100 (1876). + + +_b. In the “Proceedings” of the Royal Society of London._ + +18. Reply to Professor Owen’s paper: “On Zoological Names of +Characteristic Parts and Homological Interpretations and Beginnings, +especially in reference to Connecting Fibres of the Brain,” vol. xiv. pp. +134-139 (1865). + + +_c. In the “Transactions” of the Zoological Society of London._ + +19. “On the Brain of the Javan Loris (_Stenops javanicus_, Illig.),” vol. +v. pp. 103-111 (1866). + +20. “Description of the Skeleton of _Inia geoffroyensis_, and of the +Skull of _Pontoporia blainvillei_,” vol. vi. pp. 87-116 (1869). + +21. “On the Osteology of the Sperm-Whale or Cachalot (_Physeter +macrocephalus_),” vol. vi. pp. 309-372 (1869). + +22. “Description of the Skeleton of the Chinese White Dolphin (_Delphinus +sinensis_),” vol. vii. pp. 151-160 (1872). + +23. “On Risso’s Dolphin (_Grampus griseus_),” vol. viii. pp. 1-21 (1873). + +24. “On the Recent Ziphioid Whales, with a Description of the Skeleton +of _Berardius arnuxi_,” vol. viii. pp. 203-234 (1873). + +25. “A Further Contribution to the Knowledge of the Existing Ziphioid +Whales; Genus _Mesoplodon_,” vol. x. pp. 415-437 (1878). + + +_d. In the “Proceedings” of the Zoological Society of London._ + +26. “Notes on the Dissection of a Species of Galago,” 1852, pp. 73-75. + +27. “On the Structure of the Gizzard of the Nicobar Pigeon and +Granivorous Birds,” 1860, pp. 330-334. + +28. “Notes on the Anatomy of _Pithecia monachus_, Geoffr.,” 1862, pp. +326-333. + +29. “On the Optic Lobes of the Brain of the _Echidna_,” 1864, pp. 18-20. + +30. “On a Lesser Fin-Whale (_Balænoptera rostrata_, Fabr.) recently +stranded on the Norfolk Coast,” 1864, pp. 252-258. + +31. “On the Brain of the Red Howling Monkey (_Mycetes seniculus_, +Linn.),” 1864, pp. 335-338. + +32. “Notes on the Skeletons of Whales in the Principal Museums of Holland +and Belgium, with Descriptions of Two Species, apparently new to Science +(_Sibbaldius schlegeli_ and _Physalus latirostris_),” 1864, pp. 384-420. + +33. “On a New Species of Grampus (_Orca meridionalis_), from Tasmania,” +1864, pp. 420-426. + +34. “Note on _Pseudorca meridionalis_,” 1865, pp. 470-471. + +35. “On _Physalus sibbaldii_, Gray,” 1865, pp. 472-474. + +36. “Observations upon a Fin-Whale (_Physalus antiquorum_, Gray) recently +stranded in Pevensey Bay,” 1865, pp. 699-705. + +37. “On the Gular Pouch of the Great Bustard (_Otis tarda_, Linn.),” +1865, pp. 747-748. + +38. “Note on the Visceral Anatomy of _Hyomoschus aquaticus_,” 1867, pp. +954-960. + +39. “On the Probable Identity of the Fin-Whales described as _Balænoptera +carolinæ_, Malm., and _Physalus sibbaldii_, Gray,” 1868, pp. 187-189. + +40. “On the Development and Succession of the Teeth in the Armadillos,” +1868, pp. 378-380. + +41. “On the Value of the Characters of the Base of the Cranium in the +Classification of the Order Carnivora, and on the Systematic Position of +_Bassaris_ and Other Disputed Forms,” 1869, pp. 4-37. + +42. “Note on a Substance Ejected from the Stomach of a Hornbill,” 1869, +p. 150. + +43. “On the Anatomy of the _Proteles cristatus_, Sparmann,” 1869, pp. +474-496. + +44. “Additional Note on a Specimen of the Common Fin-Whale (_Physalus +antiquorum_, Gray, _Balænoptera musculus_, Auct.) Stranded in Langston +Harbour, November 1869,” 1870, pp. 330 and 331. + +45. “On the Anatomy of _Ælurus fulgens_, Fr. Cuv.,” 1870, pp. 752-769. + +46. “On the Skeleton of the Australian Cassowary,” 1871, pp. 32-35. + +47. “On the Occurrence of the Ringed or Marbled Seal (_Phoca hispida_) on +the Coast of Norfolk, with Remarks on the Synonymy of the Species,” 1861, +pp. 506-512. + +48. “Remarks on a Rare Australian Whale of the Genus _Ziphius_,” 1871, p. +631. + +49. “Note on the Anatomy of the Two-Spotted Paradoxure (_Nandinia +binotata_),” 1872, pp. 683 and 684. + +50. “On the Structure and Affinities of the Musk-deer, (_Moschus +moschiferus_, Linn.),” 1875, pp. 159-190. + +51. “Description of the Skull of a Species of _Xiphodon_, Cuvier,” 1876, +pp. 3-7. + +52. “On some Cranial and Dental Characters of the Existing Species of +Rhinoceros,” 1876, pp. 443-457. + +53. “Remarks upon _Ziphius novæ-zealandiæ_ and _Mesoplodon floweri_,” +1876, pp. 477 and 478. + +54. “On the Skull of a Rhinoceros (_R. lasiotis_, Scl.) from India,” +1878, pp. 634-636. + +55. “On the Common Dolphin (_Delphinus delphis_, Linn.),” 1879, pp. +382-384. + +56. “Remarks upon a Drawing of _Delphinus tursio_,” 1879, p. 386. + +57. “Remarks upon the Skull of a Female Otaria (_Otaria gillespii_),” +1879, p. 551. + +58. “Remarks upon the Skull of a Beluga, or White Whale (_Delphinapterus +leucas_),” 1879, pp. 667-669. + +59. “On the Cæcum of the Red Wolf (_Canis jubatus_, Desm.),” 1879, pp. +766 and 767. + +60. “On the Bush-Dog (_Icticyon venaticus_, Lund),” 1880, pp. 70-76. + +61. “On the Elephant-Seal (_Macrorhinus leoninus_, Linn.),” 1881, pp. +145-162. + +62. “Notes on the Habits of the Manatee,” 1881, pp. 453-456. + +63. “On the Mutual Affinities of the Animals composing the Order +Edentata,” 1882, pp. 358-367. + +64. “On the Cranium of a New Species of _Hyperöodon_, from the Australian +Seas,” 1882, pp. 392-396. + +65. “On the Skull of a Young Chimpanzee,” 1882, pp. 634-636. + +66. “On the Whales of the Genus _Hyperöodon_,” 1882, pp. 722-734. + +67. “On the Arrangement of the Orders and Families of existing Mammalia,” +1883, pp. 178-186. + +68. “On the Characters and Divisions of the Family _Delphinidæ_,” 1883, +pp. 466-513. + +69. “On a Specimen of Rudolphi’s Rorqual (_Balænoptera borealis_, Lesson) +lately taken on the Essex Coast,” 1883, pp. 513-517. + +70. “Remarks on the Burmese Elephant lately deposited in the Society’s +Gardens,” 1884, p. 44. + +71. “Remarks upon Four Skulls of the Common Bottle-nose Whale +(_Hyperöodon rostratus_), showing the Development, with Age, of the +Maxillary Crests,” 1884, p. 206. + +72. “Exhibition of a Mass of pure Spermaceti, obtained from the +‘head-matter’ of _Hyperöodon_,” 1884, p. 206. + +73. “Note on the Dentition of a young Capybara (_Hydrochærus capybara_),” +1884, pp. 252 and 253. + +74. “Note on the Names of Two Genera of _Delphinidæ_,” 1884, p. 417. + +75. “Remarks upon a Specimen of Rudolphi’s Rorqual (_Balænoptera +borealis_) taken in the Thames, 1887,” p. 564. + +76. “On the Pygmy Hippopotamus of Liberia (_Hippopotamus liberiensis_, +Morton), and its Claims to Distinct Generic Rank,” 1887, pp. 612-614. + +77. “Remarks upon a Specimen of a Japanese Cock, with Elongated Upper +Tail-coverts,” 1888, p. 248. + +78. “Remarks upon the Skin of the Face of a Male African Rhinoceros with +a Third Horn,” 1889, p. 448. + +79. “Remarks upon a Photograph of the Nest of a Hornbill (_Tocus +melanoleucus_), in which the Female was shown ‘walled in,’” 1890, p. 401. + +80. “Remarks on the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature,” 1896, pp. 319-320. + + +_e. In the “Natural History Review.”_ + +81. “On the Brain of the Siamang (_Hylobates syndactylus_, Raffles),” +1863, pp. 279-287. + +82. “Note on the Number of Cervical Vertebræ in the Sirenia,” 1864, pp. +259-264. + + +_f. In the “Journal of Anatomy and Physiology.”_ + +83. “On the Homologies and Notation of the Teeth of the Mammalia,” vol. +iii. pp. 262-278 (1869); Abstract in _Rep. Brit. Assoc._, vol. xxxviii. +(Trans. of Sections), pp. 262-288 (1868). + +84. “On the Composition of the Carpus of the Dog,” series 2, vol. vi. pp. +62-64 (1870). + +85. “On the Correspondence between the Parts Composing the Shoulder and +the Pelvic Girdle of the Mammalia,” vol. vi. pp. 239-249 (1870). + +86. “Note on the Carpus of the Sloths,” vol. vii. pp. 255 and 256 (1873). + + +_g. In the “Quarterly Journal” of the Geological Society of London._ + +87. “On the Affinities and Probable Habits of the Extinct Australian +Marsupial, _Thylacoleo carnifex_, Owen,” vol. xxiv. pp. 307-319 (1868). + +88. “Description of the Skull of a Species of _Halitherium_ (_H. +canhami_) from the Red Crag of Suffolk,” vol. xxx. pp. 1-7 (1874). + +89. “Note on the Occurrence of Remains of _Hyænarctus_ in the Red Crag of +Suffolk,” vol. xxxiii. pp. 534-536 (1877). + + +_h. In the “Proceedings” of the Royal Institution._ + +90. “On Palæontological Evidence of Gradual Modification of Animal +Forms,” vol. vii. pp. 94-104 (1873). + +91. “The Extinct Animals of North America,” vol. viii. pp. 103-105 +(1876), and _Popular Science Review_, vol. xv. pp. 267-298 (1876). + +92. “On Whales, Past and Present, and their Probable Origin,” vol. x. pp. +360-376 (1883). + + +_i. In the “Report” of the British Association for the Advancement of +Science._ + +93. “On the Connexion of the Hyoid Arch with the Cranium,” vol. xl. +(Trans. of Sections), pp. 136 and 137 (1870). + +94. “A Century’s Progress in Zoological Knowledge,” vol. xlviii., pp. +549-558 (1878), and _Nature_, vol. xviii. pp. 419-423 (1878). + + +_j. In the Annals and Magazine of Natural History._ + +95. “On a Sub-Fossil Whale (_Eschrichtius robustus_) Discovered in +Cornwall,” ser. 4, vol. ix. pp. 440-442 (1872). + +96. “Extinct Lemurina,” ser. 4, vol. xvii. pp. 323-328 (1876). + + +_k. In the “Journal” of the Royal Colonial Institute._ + +97. “Whales and Whale Fisheries”: a Lecture delivered at the Royal +Colonial Institute on 8th January 1885 (1885). + + +_l. In Nature._ + +98. “On the Arrangement and Nomenclature of the Lobes of the Liver in +Mammalia,” vol. vi. pp. 346-365 (1872); and also _Rep. Brit. Assoc._, +vol. xlii. (Trans. of Sections), pp. 150 and 151 (1872). + +99. “On the Ziphioid Whales,” vol. v. pp. 103-106 (1872). + +100. “Museum Specimens for Teaching Purposes,” vol. xv. pp. 144-146, +184-186, and 204-206 (1876). + + +_m. In the “Transactions” of the Geological Society of Cornwall._ + +101. “On the Bones of a Whale found at Petuan,” 1872, 8 pp. + + +_n. In the “Bulletin” of the Brussels Academy._ + +102. “Sur le basin et le fémur d’une Balénoptère,” vol. xxi. pp. 131 and +132 (1866). + + +_o. In the “Medical Times” and “Gazette.”_ + +103. “Comparative Anatomy,” a Lecture, 1870. + +104. “Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy of the Organs of Digestion of +the Mammalia,” delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, in +February and March 1872. + + +_p. In the “Transactions” of the Odontological Society of London._ + +105. “On the First or Milk Dentition of the Mammalia,” vol. iii. pp. +211-232 (1871). + +106. “Note on the Specimens of Abnormal Dentition in the Museum of the +Royal College of Surgeons,” vol. xii. pp. 32-47 (1880). + + +_q. In the “British Medical Journal.”_ + +107. “Dentition of the Mammalia,” 1871. + +108. “History of Extinct Mammals, and their Relation to Existing Forms,” +1874. + +109. “The Anatomy of the Cetacea and Edentata,” 1881 and 1882. + + +_r. In the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” 9th Ed._ + +110. “The Horse,” vol. xii. pp. 172-181 (1881). + +111. “Mammalia” (_Insectivora_, _Chiroptera_ and _Rodentia_, by G. E. +Dobson), vol. xv. pp. 347-446 (1883). + +112. “Whale,” vol. xxiv. pp. 523-529 (1888). + +And other articles. + + +_s. In the “Report” of the Council of the Zoological Society._ + +113. “On the Progress of Zoology”: Address to the General Meeting held at +the Society’s Gardens, 16th June 1887. Appendix, 1887, pp. 37-67. + + +_t. In the “Transactions” of the Middlesex Natural History Society._ + +114. “Horns and Antlers,” 1887, pp. 1-10. + + +C. ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS. + + +_a. In the “Journal” of the Anthropological Institute._ + +115. “Illustrations of the Modes of Preserving the Dead in Darnley Island +and in South Australia,” vol. viii. pp. 389-394 (1879). + +116. “On the Osteology and Affinities of the Natives of the Andaman +Islands,” vol. ix. pp. 108-135 (1879). + +117. “On the Cranial Characters of the Natives of the Fiji Islands,” vol. +x. pp. 153-173 (1880). + +118. “On a Collection of Monumental Heads and Artificially deformed +Crania from the Island of Mallicollo, in the New Hebrides,” vol. xi. pp. +75-81 (1881). + +119. “On the Aims and Prospects of the Study of Anthropology,” vol. xiii. +pp. 488-501 (1884). + +120. “Additional Observations on the Osteology of the Natives of the +Andaman Islands,” vol. xiv. pp. 115-120 (1884). + +121. “On the size of the Teeth as a Character of Race,” vol. xiv. pp. +183-186 (1884). + +122. “On the Classification of the Varieties of the Human Species,” vol. +xiv. pp. 378-395 (1885). + +122A. “On a Nicobarese Skull,” vol. xvi. pp. 147-149 (1886). + +123. “Description of two Skeletons of Akkas, a Pygmy Race from Central +Africa,” vol. xviii. pp. 3-19 (1888). + +124. “On two Skulls from a Cave in Jamaica,” vol. xx. pp. 110-112 (1890). + + +_b. In the “Report” of the British Association._ + +125. “Methods and Results of Measurements of the Capacity of Human +Crania,” 1878, pp. 581, 582; and _Nature_, vol. xviii. pp. 480, 481 +(1878). + +126. “The Study and Progress of Anthropology” (Address to Anthrop. Dept. +of Zoological Section), 1881, pp. 682-689; and _Nature_, vol. xxiv. pp. +436-439 (1881). + + +_c. In “Nature.”_ + +127. “The Comparative Anatomy of Man” (Abstract of Lectures), vol. xx. +pp. 222-225, 244-246 (1879), and 267-269; vol. xxii. pp. 59-61, 78-80, +97-100 (1880). + + +_d. In the “British Medical Journal.”_ + +128. “The Anatomical Characters of the Races of Man,” 1879 and 1880. + + +_e. In the “Journal of Anatomy and Physiology.”_ + +129. “On the Scapular Index as a Race-Character in Man,” vol. xiv., pp. +13-17 (1880), written in co-operation with Dr. J. G. Garson. + + +_f. In the Manchester Science Lectures for the People._ + +130. “The Aborigines of Tasmania, an Extinct Race.” A Lecture delivered +in Hulme Town Hall, Manchester, 30th November 1878, ser. x. pp. 41-53. + + +_g. In “Report” of Glasgow Science Lectures Association._ + +131. “The Races of Man,” 53 pp. Glasgow (1878). + + +_h. In the “Proceedings” of the Royal Institution._ + +132. “The Native Races of the Pacific Ocean,” vol. viii. pp. 602-652 +(1878). + +133. “The Pygmy Races of Men,” vol. xii. pp. 266-283 (1888). + + +D. ON MUSEUMS AND MUSEUM ARRANGEMENTS. + +134. “The Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.” +Presidential Address to the Anatomical Section of the International +Medical Congress, held in London, 4th August 1881. [Reprinted in _Essays +on Museums_, as are the other papers and addresses quoted under this +heading.] + +135. “Museum Organisation.” Presidential Address to the British +Association for the Advancement of Science, at the Newcastle-on-Tyne +Meeting, 11th September 1889. _Rep. Brit. Assoc._, 1889. + +136. “School Museums: Suggestions for the Formation and Arrangement of +Natural History in connection with a Public School.” _Nature_, 26th +December 1889. + +137. “The Booth Museum.” Address at the Opening of the Booth Museum, +Brighton, 3rd November 1890. _Zoologist_, December 1890. + +138. “Local Museums.” From a letter in support of the establishment of a +County Museum for Buckinghamshire (24th November 1891), and an Address at +the Opening of the Perth Museum (29th November 1895). + +139. “Modern Museums.” Presidential Address to the Museums’ Association, +at the Meeting held in London, 3rd July 1893. _Museums’ Association +Journal_, 1893. + +140. “Natural History as a Vocation (Boys’ Museums).” _Chambers’s +Edinburgh Journal_, April 1897. + + +E. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES BY SIR WILLIAM FLOWER + + +_Mostly Republished in “Essays on Museums.”_ + +141. “Biographical Notice of Professor Rolleston.” _Proc. Roy. Soc._, +1882. + +142. Obituary Notice of George Busk. _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, vol. xvi., +p. 403 (1886). + +143. “Biographical Notice of Sir Richard Owen.” _Proc. Roy. Soc._, 1894. + +144. “Reminiscences of Professor Huxley.” _The North American Review_, +September 1895. + +145. “Eulogium on Charles Darwin.” Centenary Meeting of the Linnean +Society, 24th May 1888. + + EDINBURGH + COLSTON AND COY, LIMITED + PRINTERS + + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76480 *** |