“On 1st July [1899] the Presidentship of the Society became vacant by the death of Sir William Flower who had filled the office for more than twenty years. During this period Sir William Flower had regularly occupied the Presidential chair, and had been constantly engaged on committees and on other matters connected with the Society’s affairs. In Sir William Flower the Society lost a zoologist of the highest ability and a most able and energetic President. To succeed him the Council selected His Grace the Duke of Bedford as President, and their choice was confirmed at the Anniversary Meeting in 1900.” CHAPTER V GENERAL ZOOLOGICAL WORK In the course of the preceding chapters numerous more or less incidental references have been made to the contributions of Sir William Flower to biological literature, as well as to his many improvements in museum organisation and arrangement. The more detailed discussion of these has, however, been reserved for the present and succeeding chapters, of which the first two are devoted to the zoological and the third to the anthropological side of his work, while in the fourth his views in regard to museums and certain other subjects are taken into consideration. Regarding the general scientific work of Flower, it must be confessed at the outset that this is characterised in the main by its conscientious carefulness and exactness, rather than by brilliancy of thought, conception, or style. Great attention to detail, both as regards the work itself and in reference to authorities (which were always most carefully verified), is indeed one of the leading features of his labours; but there is no epoch-making discovery or comprehensive generalisation which can be associated with his name. In connection with his careful attention to small and apparently trivial points of detail, the following passage from Professor Ray Lankester’s obituary notice in _Nature_ may be appropriately quoted:— “He did his own work with his own hands, and I have the best reason to know that he was so deeply shocked and distressed by the inaccuracy which unfortunately crept into some of the work of his distinguished predecessor, Owen, through the employment of dissectors and draughtsmen, whose work he did not sufficiently supervise, that he himself determined to be exceptionally careful and accurate in his own records and notes.” In another passage of his notice the same writer observes that:— “Caution and reticence in generalisation certainly distinguish all Flower’s scientific writings. Whilst he was on this account necessarily not known as the author of stirring hypotheses, his statements of fact gained in weight by his reputation for judgment and accuracy.”