214 Naturalist at Large 



reefs were carried on later in life, and resulted in the ac- 

 cumulation of an enormous number of data which have 

 been useful, but he died without ever correlating and 

 synthesizing his findings for the benefit of others. And 

 therefore, Mr. Lowell concluded, Louis was the greater 

 man. 



Professor Stanley Gardiner conveyed more informa- 

 tion as to the probable origin of atolls in the little bulletin 

 published by the Museum in Cambridge than was con- 

 tained in the many memoirs of Alexander Agassiz. No doubt 

 Mr. Agassiz's untimely death kept him from completing 

 his work, but the fact remains that he did not finish it. Both 

 men were artists. Here, in my opinion, Alexander un- 

 questionably excelled. Both did important work in embry- 

 ology, and here again I think Alexander's work is superior. 

 For one reason, it was done with more modern microscopic 

 equipment than was available when his father did his work 

 on the embryology of the turtles. 



Both were really great taxonomists. Louis Agassiz's 

 work on the fossil fishes stands to this day. His descriptions 

 have never been excelled. The classifications have of neces- 

 sity changed with the advance of knowledge, but his great 

 volumes on the fossil fishes, written when he was a young 

 man, are extraordinarily fine contributions to knowl- 

 edge. Alexander's work on the sea urchins, of which 

 group he was the world's authority, stands out with the 

 same preeminent brilliance as his father's work on the 

 fossil fishes. To this point I think we may truthfully say 

 that both men have run neck and neck, with Louis a Httle 

 in the lead, in that his geological work was far more im- 

 portanr. 



