Flower’s zoological studies related entirely to the vertebrates and almost exclusively to mammals, although he devoted a few papers, such as the one on the gular pouch of the great bustard, and that on the skull of a cassowary, to birds. Other groups, I believe, he never touched. In the earlier years of his scientific career, at anyrate, his labours were in the main devoted to the anatomical aspect of zoology, such subjects as the dentition, osteology, and the structure and characters of the brain and viscera claiming a much larger share of his attention than was bestowed on the myology. In latter years the classification of the major groups of the mammalia received much attention from Flower. Not that he was in any way what is nowadays called a systematist in zoology, that is to say, he took no active part in describing new species (not to mention sub-species, which had scarcely begun to be recognised by naturalists in his day), or the redefining of generic groups, and other work of this nature. Indeed, as mentioned in the chapter devoted to his career at the College of Surgeons, he was extremely conservative in this respect, and strongly opposed to the modern fondness for small generic groups, and also for changing generic names which, from long association, have come almost to be regarded as household words and integral parts of the English language. The substitution of the name _Procavia_, for _Hyrax_, the familiar title of the Klipdass, was, for instance, very repugnant to him, although loyally accepted when found to be coming into general use. As a matter of fact, so far as my information goes, with the exception of certain whales and dolphins, and one extinct sea-cow (_Halitherium_), Flower never named a new species of animal, nor, I think, did he ever propose a new generic term. Indeed, so opposed was he to any interference with names of the latter description in general use, that when several such were replaced by alternative ones in the _Study of Mammals_, it was expressly stipulated by him that the responsibility for such substitution should rest solely with the present writer.[3]