1915] Lewis William Fetzer 5 



breviation, while the aim of the present book is to show that per- 

 spicuity can be best gained by amplification, if need be, and method- 

 ical arrangement." 



Thus, for example, in the case of aluminum acetate we find, first, 

 the principles (underlying the method) ; second, appHcations (of 

 the method) ; third, the various methods; and fourth, the precautions 

 (to be observed) . Truly a noble viewpoint, and one which undoubt- 

 edly called for many sacrifices. 



As a bibhographer Storer had few equals. One is especially 

 impressed with this f act when examining " The First OutHnes of a 

 Dictionary of Sohibilities," prefaced in 1862 and published in 1864. 

 This work, probably the only one of its kind in the EngHsh lan- 

 guage at the time, and today still a veritable mine of information, 

 surely was a labor of love, and a monument to one who deemed it a 

 pleasure to lessen the bürden of others. 



When the Bussey Institution, a School of Agriculture and Horti- 

 culture, was finally organized in 1870, Francis Humphreys Storer 

 was chosen on November 25, 1870, to be its Professor of Agricul- 

 tural Chemistry, and in 1871 he became Dean. In this capacity 

 Storer was at his best and it marked the beginning of an era of 

 much fruitful and fundamental agricultural research. The found- 

 ing of the Bussey Institution was, to Storer, " the nearest thing to 

 an agricultural experiment Station in Massachusetts." 



The Status of Professor S. W. Johnson of the Sheffield Scien- 

 tific School of Yale University, was very similar to that of Profes- 

 sor Storer at Harvard. Many of the ideas of the two savants 

 were alike.^ Thus in 1878, under date of April 26, Storer writes : 

 "I noted (even before you wrote) what you say of Miller's cows 

 vs. meal. 'Tis just what I would have said myself." Again, in 

 a letter dated April 3, 1880, to Samuel W. Johnson, we note the 

 f ollowing : " I am glad you hold your ' luff ' in respect to the con- 

 ventional method of stating analyses of fodder. There is no sense 

 in trying to refine this thing beyond the possibly practical. We are 

 hardly more ripe than Einhof and Sprengel were for the complete 

 analysis of rough fodders, and there is a semblance of — (let us say 



2 See " From the Letter Files of S. W. Johnson," by Elizabeth A. Osborne, 

 Yale University Press, 1913. 



