A EULOGY OF HAY, DALE AED ALLEN. 
1 55 
of the then-known world of living beings. Here, again, he brought 
the study of anatomy and development to bear upon classification , 
practically adopting the modern division into Metabola and 
Ametabola—those which do and those which do not undergo 
metamorphosis—thus, as Kirby said, combining “ the system 
of Aristotle with that of Swammerdam and clearing the way 
for Linnaeus.” Although, in his letters, he protested that this 
work should rather have been undertaken by the younger 
William Derham, to whose lot it fell to edit it, the Methodus 
Insectorum, published in 1705 and the Historia Insectorum, 
issued in 1710, were both practically completed by Ray before 
his death. 
I must not omit to mention two carefully-edited volumes 
of travels, with catalogues of Levantine plants, a systematic 
rearrangement of his former European lists, and nearly all 
the English county lists in Gibson’s editions of Camden’s Bri¬ 
tannia ,which were published in 1693, 1694, and 1695 respectively, 
while the third volume of the Historia Plantarnm was also in 
preparation. 
But the end was come to the life of toil. He speaks of 
himself as a thin body, subject to colds, and whose lungs are 
apt to be affected, while his house was exposed to north-east 
winds ; as early as 1693, he speaks of sleeplessness ; and in 1704 
he expresses his doubt if he will ‘‘over-live this winter.” From 
October of that year, he was unable to work. On 7th January 
1705, he wrote a brief farewell letter to Sir Hans Sloane : we 
have the record of the visit of Mr. Pyke, rector of Black Notley, 
to the dying man, who professes himself in death, as in life, a 
priest of the Church of England ; and then we have Dale’s 
letters to Sloane’s apothecary, Petiver, on the 17th to say that 
he had paid his last visit to his friend the day before ; and then 
—doubtless in the ‘‘hall chamber” in which his mother had 
died 25 years before—about 10 in the morning of 17th January 
1705 (N.S.) the great naturalist passed away. 
I have mentioned journeys, experiments, dissections, and 
collections to show that, in spite of his prodigious literary 
research, Ray was no mere compiler, no mere critic of the labours 
of others. I have quoted the opinions of zoologists such as 
Cuvier, Kirby, and Newton and of foreign botanists, such as 
Sachs, as testimony to the permanent value of his work. I need 
