8 The American Geologist. J"i>'> 1^04. 
and biogenesis that the questions of time relations among or- 
ganisms, of range, distribution, paleography, were largely ex- 
cluded. This is so singular as to be notable, for Beecher was 
essentially without academic training in biologic science ; he 
was, however, trained and experienced in stratigraphic paleon- 
tology, or at least in its requirements. Wherein he had no 
interest he had little sympathy, though he did not lack in ap- 
preciation. He was a forcible illustration of the fact, and to it 
he himself would occasionally refer, that for excellorxe of 
achievement in the strictly biologic problems of paleontology a 
geological training is a more essential equipment than a bio- 
logic one, for witn the latter only the student never becomes 
thoroughly at home amongst the fossils or ever ceases to be- 
moan the loss of the soft parts ; never fully apprehending a fos- 
sil as a joint product of biologic and geologic agencies The 
correctness of this expression is certified to on every hand in 
the history of the science he loved best and cultivated m.ost. 
It is a very satisfactory reflection that a' mentality of un- 
usual power of origination can be so brought under the in- 
fluence of another as to become as much the creature of cir- 
cumstances as an intellect of lesser powers. I can not see where- 
in Dr. Beecher acquired much from his intercourse with either 
of the great systematic paleontologists. Hall or jMarsh, that 
modified the fruitage of his intellectual powers, but on the 
other hand a definite directive impulse was given to him by his 
close association with the late professor Alpheus Hyatt. This 
profound student of biogenesis and most delightful personality 
irradiated and transfused that receptive mind so that one might 
say Dr. Beecher had become the apostle of the Hyattian meth- 
od and in the expression give honor to both. The applica- 
tion of the recapitulation concept and the values of growth 
and decline are the foundation of . the classifications of the 
Brachiopoda and Trilobita which Beecher promulgated . Of 
these the former was the less revolutionary of accuston:ed no- 
tions, but the latter rests on a ohilosophy that can not pi^cfitably 
be challenged, and had his life been prolonged its author would 
have perfected its details. The classifications which have re- 
sulted from the application of these principles of biogenesis 
and auxology are distinctively impressed with the individual 
characteristics of their authors. We may concede throe such 
