Concerning the papers at South Kensington, which, as part of the contents of your father's book-shelves, were given by him to the College, and now are arranged, numbered, and registered in order for use, there is evidence that in 1858 he, with his needles and eyeglass, had dissected and carefully figured the so-called pronephros of the Frog's tadpole, in a manner which as to accuracy of detail anticipated later discovery. Again, in the early '80's, he had observed and recorded in a drawing the prae-pulmonary aortic arch of the Amphibian, at a period antedating the researches of Boas, which in connection with its discovery placed the whole subject of the morphology of the pulmonary artery of the vertebrata on its final basis, and brought harmony into our ideas concerning it. Both these subjects lie at the root of modern advances in vertebrate morphology. Concerning the skull, he was in the '80's back to it with a will. His line of attack was through the lampreys and hags and the higher cartilaginous fishes, and he was following up a revolutionary conception (already hinted at in his Hunterian Lectures in 1864, and later in a Royal Society paper on Amphioxus in 1875), that the trabeculae cranii, judged by their relationships to the nerves, may represent a pair of prae-oral visceral arches. In his unpublished notes there is evidence that he was bringing to the support of this conclusion the discovery of a supposed 4th branch to the trigeminal nerve--the relationships of this (which he proposed to term the "hyporhinal" or palato-nasal division) and the ophthalmic (to have been termed the "orbitonasal" (A term already applied by him in 1875 to the corresponding nerve in the Batrachia. ("Encyclopaedia Britannica" 9th edition, volume 1 article "Amphibia."))) to the trabecular arch and a supposed prae-mandibular visceral cleft, being regarded as repetitional of those of the maxillary and mandibular divisions to the mandibular cleft. So far as I am aware, von Kupffer is the only observer who has given this startling conclusion support, in his famous "Studien" (Hf. I. Kopf Acipenser, Munchen, 1893), and from the nature of other recent work on the genesis of parts of the cranium hitherto thought to be wholly trabecular in origin, it might well be further upheld. As for the discovery of the nerve, I have been lately much interested to find that Mr. E. Phelps Allis, junior, an investigator who has done grand work in Cranial Morphology, has recently and independently arrived at a similar result. It was while working in my laboratory in July last that he mentioned the fact to me. Remembering that your father had published the aforementioned hints on the subject, and recalling conversations I had with him, it occurred to me to look into his unpublished manuscripts (then being sorted), if perchance he had gone further. And, behold! there is a lengthy attempt to write the matter up in full, in