Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 62.djvu/522

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

biology was not fully determined before they went to him. I think it will be possible to show in due time, that the critical period for the biologist is much earlier than some of us have supposed, is, in fact, during the years of childhood. This would agree with Dr. Halsted's opinion, expressed above, about mathematicians. The list of those who received no university training is significantly long, including Ashmead, Beutenmüller, W. Brewster, F. M. Chapman, Cockerell, Coquillett, D. G. Elliott, Gill, Lucas, McGee, Miss Rathbun, Ridgway, Schuchert, Simpson, J. B. Smith, Thayer, C. D. Walcott, Whitfield and Uhler. On the other hand, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Cornell, Amherst, Michigan and a few others have long lists of prominent graduates, and the list of those who studied in Germany is surprisingly large. In all, 56 institutions in the United States are represented in my list, mostly by only one or two names. There is plenty of evidence that first-class men may come from institutions which do not ordinarily turn out zoologists of any sort, or perhaps ordinarily do turn them out, in a different sense.

Dr. D. S. Jordan is the man who comes first into our mind as a gift from Agassiz. He himself is always ready to insist upon his obligations to that great naturalist; but the following information, kindly supplied to me by Dr. Jordan, shows that he was a good biologist before he ever saw the master.

When a boy I lived on a farm in western New York. I was very early interested in the local botany and had made a collection of the local fauna before I entered college. At college I developed this as a thesis, called 'The Fauna of Wyoming County, New York,' for a master's degree. I was also very much interested in the breeding of sheep, and from my twelfth year to the time I went to college I gave considerable attention to this, having a pretty fair knowledge of all matters pertaining to a flock of sheep. Very soon after entering Cornell I was made laboratory assistant in botany, and was ultimately promoted to an instructorship. I did not take up zoology as a serious matter until after I had left Cornell. At Penikese I was instructor in marine botany. Agassiz thought that I ought to do some work of an entirely different sort, and placed me in charge of the work of collecting fishes, asking me to study the habits of the different forms. On going to Wisconsin—where marine botany is scanty—I was advised by him to take up the anatomy of fishes and especially of the ganoid forms. I did a good deal of work on birds, but deliberately chose fishes because the group was comparatively little known and apparently offered a wide field. The influence of Agassiz was a great element in my scientific progress. Not less great was that of Agassiz's student, Charles F. Hartt, several years ago professor of geology at Cornell—a subject in which I did a good deal of work. (Litt., October 25, 1901.)

It is perhaps by his general influence upon the country that Agassiz did most to promote the study of biology in America. Such a man always attracts to his person the enthusiastic young men who are able to benefit most by his teaching, but who would probably have made good biologists in any case. For most of these, the turning point had been