3rt flDemovtam. 
73 
GEORGE STEWARDSON BRADY, F.R.S. 
Dr. G. S. Brady, who died at Sheffield on Christmas day, 
was born at Gateshead in 1832. The son of a surgeon, of 
Quaker stock (like so many another excellent naturalist), he 
followed his father's profession, and after studying at the 
Newcastle College of Medicine, he settled in Sunderland, where 
he was engaged in medical practice for close on half a century. 
His father's house has been described by one who knew him 
as ■ one of those charming Quaker abodes where strength 
and quietude sit side by side, and where homely plenty and 
orderly preciseness hide for, a moment from the stranger the 
intellectual activity which is filling the place.' In this home 
atmosphere G. S. Brady, like his brother, the late H. B. Brady, 
seems early to have turned his attention to Natural History, 
for in 1849 we find him becoming a member of the ‘ Tyne- 
side Naturalists’ Field Club.’ In 1875 he was appointed 
Professor of Natural History at the University of Durham 
College of Science in Newcastle, combining the duties of the 
chair with those of his medical practice until 1906, when he 
was compelled by the weight of years to retire from both. 
Apart from a few papers and addresses on more general 
subjects, G. S. Brady’s published work deals almost exclu- 
sively with the minute Crustacea that are commonly (though 
wrongly) grouped together as Entomostraca. A complete 
list of his papers would be a lengthy one, and we can only 
mention here his reports on the ‘ Challenger ’ Ostracoda (1880), 
and Copepoda (1883), the ‘Monograph of the free and semi- 
parasitic Copepoda of the British Isles ' (Ray Society, 3 vols., 
1878 -80), the monographs written in association with T. Rupert 
Jones and others on British Fossil Ostracoda (Palaeonto- 
graphical Society, 1874-84), and, in association with Canon 
A. M. Norman, the ‘ Monograph of the Marine and Freshwater 
Ostracoda of the North Atlantic and of North-western Europe 
(Royal Dublin Society, 1889 an d i8q6). 
Much of Brady’s work was that of a pioneer in a field where 
earlier labourers had been few, and where the well-beaten 
tracks of to-day did not exist. Like all pioneers he made 
mistakes which his successors have rectified. He was mainly 
a faunistic naturalist and not a morphologist in the modern 
sense, and it is not surprising that, with the lapse of time, 
many of his views on classification have proved inadequate. 
Nevertheless, he discovered and described a vast number of 
new and interesting forms, and he did more than any other 
single investigator to elucidate the Ostracod and Copepod 
fauna of the British seas. Certain German writers, while 
profiting by his labours, have thought fit to refer to his work 
in somewhat contemptuous terms. A juster estimate may 
1922 Feb. 1 
