Edward Dri?iker Cope. — King. 9 
Prof. Cope was a man of quick decision, boundless energy, 
and great independence in thought and expression. He had 
keen and accurate powers of observation and a marvelous 
memory embracing the most minute details. Strong in his 
convictions, he was fearless in his criticism of men and in- 
stitutions when he was convinced that he was upholding the 
right; yet he was ever ready to admit a mistake or correct an 
error when it had been proven that he was in the wrong. He 
possessed tireless perserverance — an attribute always essential 
to good scientific work — and when absorbed in his investiga- 
tions he was completely forgetful of his own personal comfort, 
going for long periods without food or rest. 
Undoubtedly Cope's greatest genius showed itself in his 
quick recognition of the theoretical significance of each of 
his brilliant discoveries and of their relation to the whole 
structure of science. His generalizations have often, at first, 
been discredited, sometimes ignored; yet they have frequentlv 
been substantiated by evidence brought forward on the . dis- 
covery of new fossil forms and have been accepted by those 
who had vigorously opposed them. 
Prof. Cope's capacity for work was enormous, and his 
published works fill many large volumes. Dr. Baur writes 
of him, "There never has been a naturalist who has published 
so many papers upon the taxonomy, morphology and palaeon- 
tology of the Amphibia and Reptilia as professor Cope." His 
writings were by no means confined to these subjects, as a 
glance at the bibliography accompanying this sketch will 
show. He has described nearly 1,000 species of fossil verte- 
brates and with every description there is an accurate con- 
ception of the relation of the form described to other extinct 
and living forms. 
In his writings. Cope is always concise and intelligible. ,He 
states clearly his opinion of the value of certain marked 
features of his specimen and of the position and relations of 
the form described. He has been severely criticised for his 
hasty conclusions, inconsistency and the frequency with which 
he changed his views; but he was always admired by friends 
and opponents alike for firmly upholding and defending what 
he considered to be the truth. His opinions were changed 
only when new evidence appeared that made another view 
seem nearer the true interpretation of the facts. 
I 
