1912-13.] Obituary Notices. 337 
collections under his charge revolutionised our knowledge of palaeozoic 
ichthyology. 
In order to form some idea of the thoroughness of his methods we may 
recall his conception of palaeontology as a branch of science. He maintained 
that scientific palaeontology is essentially a part of zoology or botany, and 
that without a thorough knowledge of recent biology no one can hope to 
produce work of any value in palaeontology. He went further, and con- 
tended that, if additional light is to be thrown on the question of evolution, 
it is through palaeontology, working hand in hand with recent morphology 
and embryology, that the light must come. 
In his own sphere of fossil ichthyology his work was of the highest 
value both to the zoologist and the geologist. As a zoologist he studied 
the osteology and phylogenetic relationships of the fossil fishes. But his 
investigations did not rest there. He next tried to ascertain their vertical 
range and lateral distribution with the view of aiding the geologist in 
working out the stratigraphy of the rock formations. At the same time he 
examined closely the relation between the fish remains and the sediments 
in which they occurred, in order to throw light on the physical conditions 
that prevailed during their deposition. A scheme of research so com- 
prehensive demanded from Hr Traquair patient, continuous, and minute 
investigation, He was slow and deliberate in his work, he was frequently 
accused of being dilatory ; but this trait was largely due to his reluctance to 
commit himself to definite conclusions until he had exhausted all available 
evidence. 
When Dr Traquair began his researches in Edinburgh in 1873, the 
study of fossil ichthyology had assumed a critical phase. Agassiz had laid 
its foundations in his classic work, Recherches sur les poissons fossiles, 
which was begun in 1833 and completed in 1843. He therein established 
a new classification of fishes according to their scales, arranging them in 
four orders — Ganoidei, Placoidei, Gtenoidei, and Cycloidei. In 1844 Muller 
pointed out the unsatisfactory nature of this system and advanced an 
independent one which was adopted by some zoologists. But the classifica- 
tion of Agassiz held the field. It was widely accepted by geologists and 
palaeontologists on the ground of its convenience. A few years of detailed 
study of the osteology of several Carboniferous fishes led Dr Traquair to 
reject this classification altogether. In 1879 he thus expressed his views. 
He frankly admitted that the name of Agassiz would go down to posterity 
as that of one of the greatest naturalists of the nineteenth century. “ But,” 
he added, “it is hardly possible for the zoologist of the present day to 
suppress some feelings of wonder that a man so well versed in general 
