Jury 13, 1899] 
approve of tight-lacing, high-heeled shoes, and other 
monstrosities of clothing. “Another way in which Sir 
William Flower gave voluntarily a large amount of 
valuable work to the community was as President first 
of the Anthropological Institute, and then of the 
Zoological Society—a post which he held until his death. 
Such services in our scientific societies are given without 
any remuneration, and they can only be repaid by the 
grateful acknowledgment of those interested in the 
progress of the branches of science thus benefited. 
To revert to the two chief lines of Sir William Flower’s 
life-work. He first became generally known in the 
scientific world by joining the band of young anatomists 
who supported Huxley in his rejection of the statements 
made by Owen as to the differences between the 
brain of man and of apes. Like the other mem- 
bers of that group—Turner, Humphrey, and Rolleston 
—Flower published an important contribution to the 
controversy. This memoir, entitled “Observations 
on the Posterior Lobes of the Quadrumana,” was 
printed in the Philosophical Transactions in 1862 ; and 
about the same time Flower wrote also on “the brain of 
the Siamang” in the Natural History Review. His 
most numerous contributions to anatomical science relate 
to the Cetacea, which was his favourite group. After 
the deaths of P. J. Van Beneden and Gervais, he was 
only rivalled in his knowledge of whales by Sir William 
Turner, of Edinburgh. 
Flower to have been able to complete the admirable 
exhibition of whales at the Natural History Museum 
before his retirement—an exhibition which is not only 
unequalled, but is not even attempted in any other museum 
in Europe or America. Next to the Cetacea, the subject 
on which Flower worked and wrote most was physical 
anthropology. His catalogue of the anthropological 
series in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons | 
and its introductory chapter have served as classics to 
amount of patient research. Separate papers by him on 
the osteology of the Andaman Islanders and of the 
Fijians are of great value on account of the large amount 
of material dealt with, and the caution and judgment 
shown in drawing conclusions. 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 state- | 
ment of fact gained in weight by his reputation for judg- 
ment and accuracy. The most important discovery in 
anatomical science which we owe to him is that of the 
existence of but one successional molar in the marsupial 
Mammals. This sharply defined and important fact was 
only one, but the most striking, of the results of a long, 
conscientious and painstaking study of the dentition of 
the Mammalia. 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 7hylacoleo carnifex by Owen was not a carnivor, 
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 prepared by Dr. Henry Wood- | 
ward. Another thoroughly original and elaborate piece 
of work which should, I think, be especially remembered 
the attempt to bring order and system into the study 
of the forms presented by the lobes of the liver in the 
Mammalia, an effort which has not, perhaps, as yet borne 
all the fruit of which it is capable. 
In such a brief notice as the present a complete biblio- 
graphy of Sir William Flower’s contributions to anat- 
omical science cannot be given, but a fair notion of his 
great activity in research can be obtained from a selected 
list. Relating to the Cetacea, I would cite the following 
NO. 1550, VOL. 60] 
It was a special satisfaction to | 
MABRORE 
253 
papers from the Proceedings of the Zoological Society :— 
On a lesser Fin-whale (Balzenoptera rostrata) stranded 
on the Norfolk Coast (1864) ; the skeletons of Whales in 
the Principal Museums of Holland and Belgium (1864) ; 
on a new species of Grampus from Tasmania (1864) ; on 
Physalus Sibbaldii (1865) ; on Pseudorca meridionalis, 
1865 ; on a Fin-whale stranded in Pevensey Bay (1865) ; 
the probable identity of Balzenoptera Carolinee and 
Physalus Sibbaldii (1868) ; on the Whales of the genus 
Hyperoodon (1882) ; on the Characters and Divisions of 
the Family Delphinide (1883) ; then in the 7ramsactions 
of the same Society, the fine illustrated papers on the 
skeleton of Inia Geoffrensis (1869) ; on the osteology of 
the Cachalot (1869) ; on the skeleton of a Chinese White 
Dolphin (1872); on Risso’s Dolphin (1873); on recent 
Ziphioid Whales (1878); on two species of British 
Dolphins (1880) ; and the translation of and introduction 
to Eschricht’s treatise published by the Ray Society. 
Also in the Proceedings of the Royal Institution, Whales 
Past and Present, and their probable origin (1883). 
Relating to physical anthropology, Sir William Flower’s 
most important works are the following :—The Catalogue 
of Specimens in the Museum of the Royal College of 
Surgeons, 1879 and 1884 (already referred to above), in 
the Journal of the Anthropological Institute ; the oste- 
ology of the natives of the Andaman Islands (1879) ; 
the osteology of the Fijians (1880); the osteology 
of the Mallicolese (1881); the aims and prospects of 
the Study of Anthropology (1884) ; the Classification of 
the Varieties of the Human Species (1885) ; on the size 
| of Teeth asa character of Race (1886) ; in the Proceedings 
of the Royal Institution (a Friday evening discourse) on 
the Native Races of the Pacific (1878) ; and in the Man- 
| chester Science Lectures, a discourse on the aborigines 
of Tasmania (1866). 
Ranging over other groups of Mammals, I would cite 
{ _ the following papers :—On a newly-discovered extinct 
English anthropologists, and are the result of an immense | 
Mammal (Homalodontotherium) from Patagonia (PA7/. 
Trans., 1873) ; Description of the skull of a species of 
Halitherium from the Red Crag of Suffolk (Quart. Journ. 
Geol. Soc., 1874); on the remains of Hyzenarctos in the 
Red Crag of Suffolk (zézd., 1877). From the Proceedings 
of the Zoological Society: papers on the anatomy of 
Galago (1862); of Pithecia monachus (1862); on the 
brain of the Echidna (1864), on the brain of the 
Red Howling Monkey (1864); on the anatomy of 
Hyomoschus (1867) ; on the development of the teeth 
in the Armadilloes (1868) ; on the characters of the 
base of the cranium and the classification of the order 
Carnivora (1869); on the anatomy of Proteles cris- 
tatus (1869); and on that of Aelurus fulgens (1870) ; 
and of the two-spotted Paradoxure (1872); and of the 
Musk Deer (1875) ; on the cranial and dental characters 
of the existing species of Rhinoceros (1876) ; and on the 
mutual affinities of the animals composing the order 
Edentata (1882). 
Of a more general character are his articles in the 
“Encyclopedia Britannica”:—On the anatomy and 
zoology of the Horse, Kangaroo, Lemur, Lion, Mam- 
malia, Mastodon, Megatherium, Otter, Platypus, Rhin- 
oceros, Seal, Swine, Tapir, &c. These have formed the 
basis of a very useful volume on the Mammalia pub- 
lished by Messrs. Black, whilst the compact little volume 
c L | on the osteology of the Mammalia by Sir William 
in attempting to survey Flower’s anatomical labours, is | 
Flower is known to all University students. The last 
volume which came from his pen is one of the best and 
most interesting, namely that called “The Horse: a 
study in natural history,” published in 1892. 
Having thus indicated (and only “indicated” by no 
means “enumerated” r “fully set down”) the labours 
of Sir William Blower. th anatomical research, I pass 
to a brief consideration of his work as a museum curator, 
which probably took up more of his time and energy 
than he was able to give to original investigations. This 
