8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRINCETON MEETING 



the fact that a knowledge of geology was not to be gained from the 

 lecture-room, but from study and observation in the field, Professor 

 Fontaine, on his recommendation to the Eector and Visitors of the Uni- 

 versity, was authorized to close the lecture work in geology on the last 

 day of April in each year and devote the remainder of the session to 

 work in the field with his students. For the conduct of this work an 

 appropriation defraying the necessary field expenses of himself and class 

 was granted by the University Board of Control. 



By thus devoting a part of each session and the summers to field work, 

 he accomplished a great deal of valuable work in all parts of the State. 

 His activity in this direction, extending over many years, is very forcibly 

 shown in the large number of field notebooks on file in the Department 

 of Geology in the University of Virginia. Unfortunately, the results of 

 his work were only partly published ; much the greater share of his notes 

 were never worked into shape for publication. 



Numerous published papers in scientific journals and in publications 

 of the United States Geological Survey and the United States National 

 Museum (see bibliography) are testimonials of the excellent work accom- 

 plished by him. These show a wide range of subjects treating of various 

 aspects of ^eolog}% mineralogy, and fossil botany. It was in the latter 

 field of investigation (paleobotany), more especially Mesozoic fossil 

 botany, however, that his most valuable contributions to science were 

 made and which won for him distinction in this country and abroad. 



Dr. F. H. Knowlton, of the United States National Museum and 

 Geological Survey, distinguished for his contributions to fossil botany, 

 very kindly furnished the following sketch of the paleobotanical work of 

 Professor Fontaine : 



"Professor Fontaine's most notable contributions to American science were 

 in the field of paleobotany, in which he was a more or less active factor for 

 almost a third of a century, namely, from 1874 to 1905. His first papers, 

 written while professor of physics and chemistry in the University of West 

 Virginia, were largely of a geological nature, dealing especially with the coal- 

 bearing Paleozoic section along New River, West Virginia, which he believed 

 to be of Devonian age — a view, however, which subsequent workers in the 

 field have not sustained. His use of fossil plants in these studies was com- 

 paratively slight, and his error in their intei-pretatiou was obviously due to in- 

 adequate material for comparison and lack of suitable library facilities. His 

 most important work in the Paleozoic field was a joint production with Dr. 

 I. C. White on 'The Permian or Upper Carboniferous Flora of West Virginia 

 and S. W. Pennsylvania,' issued in 1880, This forms a compact volume of 

 nearly 150 pages and 38 plates, published by the Second Geological Survey of 

 Pennsylvania. This was valuable pioneer work and laid the foundation of 

 much subsequent investigation. 



