OBITUARY NOTICES. XXI 



nia," which, together with an "Appendix on Hydrocarbon Com- 

 pounds/' by S. P. Sadtler, covered two hundred and sixty printed 

 pages. The following year he prepared a second " Preliminary Re- 

 port," covering thirty-one pages. Dr. Genth was also Chemist to 

 the Board of Agriculture of Pennsylvania, and did much by his 

 chemical investigations, and especially by his analysis of fertilizers 

 and other materials, to develop the agricultural industry of the State 

 and to maintain a high standard of excellence in all farm products. 



As a man of science Dr. Genth stood, among the first in this 

 country. As a chemist, especially in analytical work, he was well-nigh 

 without a peer, being completely familiar not only with the reactions 

 and analytical methods of separation and determination of the 

 ordinary elemental and compound ions, but, what is more remark- 

 able, of the rarer and less frequently occurring ones as well. But 

 this is not all. His scientific work was characterized by a, con- 

 scientiousness and fidelity to fact which was exceptional. No 

 labor seemed to him too great, if by it an added accuracy could 

 be secured. His knowledge of minerals was complete. Not only 

 did his acute vision aid his early training in recognizing their 

 nature at a glance, but his skill in observing their physical and 

 chemical properties gave him remarkable power in detecting new 

 species. Moreover, his devotion to scientific accuracy was so great 

 that most, if not all, of the differences he had with others involved 

 questions of fact rather than of opinion. Again, his mind had 

 acquired, by long practice, great facility in grasping the relations 

 of structural grouping, both in salts and in minerals, and the 

 rational formula of an ammonia-cobalt base or of a complex min- 

 eral species was at once clearly recognized from the empirical 

 results of his analysis. 



As a teacher, Dr. Genth was most successful. Apart from his 

 complete command of the subject, he took a great interest in his 

 good students and devoted himself assiduously to their advance- 

 ment. But for those who were studiously indifferent and careless, 

 to his credit be it said, he had but little regard. He was merciless 

 upon fraudulent work, particularly in analysis. The reputation 

 which he gave to his department in the University was deservedly 

 high. The large amount of research work which he did was never 

 allowed to interfere with his instruction, and those who were his 

 students remained ever afterward among his best friends. His 



