THE MAKING OF BIOLOGISTS. 5*5 



Illinois. Coquillett, Gilbert, Hatcher, L. 0. Howard, Kofoid, Nut- 

 ting, Eidgway, Simpson, Stanton, E. B. Wilson, Walcott. 



Ohio. Chittenden, Girty, Pratt, Schuchert, C. H. T. Townsend, 

 Ulrich, C. M. Weed. 



Connecticut. Benedict, Blatchley, Davenport, C. L. Franklin, H. 

 F. Osborn, Mrs. Slosson. 



Pennsylvania has given us Ashmead, Bruner, H. C. Chapman, Gar- 

 man, W. Stone and the late H. Strecker. From New Jersey we have 

 Beutenmiiller and F. M. Chapman; from Maine, Fernald, Verrill and 

 C. B. Wilson; from New Hampshire, Nelson; from Maryland, Uhler. 

 Iowa is the birth-place of Eastman, Evermann, McGee, Springer and 

 Pilsbry; Michigan of V. Bailey; Minnesota of C. L. and C. J. Herrick; 

 Wisconsin of H. Osborn, Bitter and W. M. Wheeler. The South is hardly 

 represented at all ; from South Carolina come J. A. Holmes and J. P. 

 Smith; from Kentucky, Morgan and Miss Sadie Price; Florida, Geor- 

 gia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia do 

 not appear on my list at all ! There are, I hope, some zoologists born 

 in these states of whom I have no statistics, but in any event the zoolog- 

 ical output of the southern states is wholly insignificant. This fact 

 suggests again the great influence of environment, whatever the blood; 

 and one may add that the tropical English colonies have deprived us of 

 the services of many a good man, who under more stimulating social 

 and climatic conditions promised much. 



The civilization of the West is so young that perhaps we ought not 

 to expect much of the native-born therein. As a matter of fact, the 

 showing is small indeed ; my records give only these names : Kansas, V. 

 L. Kellogg, Marlatt; Texas, Vaughan; California, T. S. Palmer. Of 

 course there are many others less well known ; indeed a very good crop 

 of young men and women, who will be prominent enough in the next 

 twenty years. Everything shows that California, in particular, will be 

 the center of great biological activity; but so far Colorado is by no 

 means doing her part. About fifteen years ago a small body of natu- 

 ralists founded the Colorado Biological Association, of which the present 

 writer was secretary; but the movement died in 1890, and to-day there 

 are not enough biologists in the state to revive it or found a new society 

 on similar lines. Even the professors in the state university seem to be 

 permitted rather than encouraged to engage in research. However, 

 Colorado has too much natural vigor to tolerate this inertia indefinitely ; 

 the time cannot be far distant when there will be an awakening. 



I have also catalogued the prominent zoologists under the names of 

 the schools, colleges and universities they attended; but the results are 

 perhaps not very significant. Of course every one knows that many of 

 our leading men (e. g., Jordan, Dall, Uhler, J. A. Allen, Scudder) 

 studied under Agassiz, but it may be doubted whether their interest in 



