_ . . :.,a x . .. .. H .r..
. ........r”f.. . A.“ . n r . . H . .. . . . . . . be JWWH€$. . Z... I. H . .. . Q
. . . . 5..
w ‘3:
551
7%
. 4
~ .v
x
.
‘
g:
.
.2“
'2
A.
9
A
AW
. .. . v, . .1 . . . 21."... ...... 4... E.
N... .,... w. . . .1 .rwi/ r... . a. .. . . WJQR... ..
h min”? wawwyjri .#M..'WWM_N.N»Q Wrfiw... .r 4‘1»..-
. . ....§....W%w....¢..... ..........W........ .. f .. . . 1.25 .. . ¢ .. . . . . . . . .. . . .1“... .
.fififif. . 3%)"? . : . . .. . . .w... H . .gfi, .1. I.” . Kw...” .. . .. . . . .
?~¢M/.Mi 2 MA,
..-.
1.“.
$5..
I
#0
. f . .. .1 ..
. . - . .firwiz ...._.... . f . . .. g .f ........?.»M. . iW/w fig.
. . s..~ h.1§.“;“v.f.. 4 . ..
; .f 5.. . “W 6»... . a . . .. .. a? Iv. . . .r/w ( . fifir-Mvflg ~10; . .
. . . . . . . a
I
.k f. .
a
1
. . .. ..f.r. ... r w/
. , . 2.1». . 9;. .. .. . vi... .. .. .. . .
wwwfié a! 64%.” Ah"? “an; . . .. . xw. . . . . . . . . .
. 1..-... .. . . .
v . .
.nu .
. . ‘1.
. .. W. 9...£$. 1%.. .....;.w.,. . . .. .. . .
’ .. . , 1/
u .w ..
é. ..
. . a
M
xv
.
x?
J. . 1.9%.
'0. mum.s..;fi.k
I
. .. r
. .. .d’rfr
I
9w f4f.“ .
. . . . . . .r. if? v . .. . . ...w,.v..w1...... $1.. . 5 .. . .
{hi
2.). .. . .w... .
. %K&,%$.irwmaw%f . . . . . .
. :f: w. .........;..;.M.. . . - 2.}.
. .. .. .w.”...........
. . . . . . .112“. .1»... .. :11. . .x....#..,.&.,...
..»..v.%.#. .. .. ..,».,.»€.. 4.... z. . . .. . ‘ 4. . .. .. fwW 1» . v ... a . . . 8.9.1 with».
. .é .. . u an . . .e .
I
.. . .. 3.3%...
/. .. . .. .51. . .... .. .. .Zfrk. . .. . . ..
I , . . , l .. .. .. H .. .¢.w..~v.,.». .. .. ... .
> .w. W... “MI-w. .r ...1 .. .. Kw A, .1 . - . mu, m)
.M é... ; .
— n
. .V Max?
N.
,
I”! V
'5;
L4}
. .U .r» .... n .._ . .. ...H.,.M.J..MM..H.».
A... I. ... . $4.,
if.
,
. . . . ~... .r
\ .z/mltwze _. . A.» 0....
:19.
vi?!
. m
w;
~ MWQJ/fl
. . .. ./.
. l... . f/
3. .. . . If... . UAW”...
{filo Afiiwyv 5.... . m... .
)4
w...» .
. . m.
. I... e a?!»
.. . .. Wimfiwfia
.)
.v/ ‘. 4 A.
.w K???
.7...
.. . . .1 fl p/;.,év. v .4 . .
. . ; .. . . Q... ......
.fl . . .. I . .. 4M”: r. . . Jr Aw,
,y’
/
K.
o
.r .1. .
I.» . . . 9.3....
. . Z . w . .. . .. mmwwmnw
.efifxx . ... . . win-WA»
‘ .a/
- I
5%;
’1‘
$5,,
,1};
J
1""
$5.57!?"
4;
1' ’»
4

5.
ar’
v. . .. 8/... ..
. .. .. . .. . $y.......,..$..
We»? .wv v.
.4"
._
v
r!
2’"
M,
.4
if»
.r

[If 19/?
..
w
a
g;
_ -
f'
f
; {i
* :36???
I ’ .
6;?
A.
. . .,.....”.m.... .4 . .
. . . . . . 2. u9%.v......
. . . . . .._ . . .. . . .- .. .. zrf. 4A..
<2. .. . . . . . . . . . .
jigsx
5.“...
J
1W».
1‘-
g.
'1
. ... J p.219. lip.
K .f,£r. fwd;
“WW. 5. .. .. .. . .r .%wm~w. xrwhm .flédfiwwwwwhww,wv.f .
1...:
_ . i.
.f .. w
.. a 9,? . . . . :w..§.-fl
. _ . . .... .771... I .. . .24.. .
.5111, , . whim. £29 . . .
,r . .
. m. r. v a J
.. g... A....................,....W...w.....
4...
. w.
. . . . . v19.) ,
.. .. $.35 .
. . . £1”. 1.... mg”... ..
r .4 . .. .1...“ ... .
. ..... W... ..,.. . .. .
~ 3,
w. i .
r
- , . .. .GWWWHQNH .3. .5 .. .. . 9 M. 3...
fig w...¢..;.w€7 Mm»??? .94”? /...§....ww,,..~ a. .2. .
x- 4v . 1. . J
r
5
(:5
,.
: “w
. 2 .. . . .v
r f . >0...“ .i. .. vqfimfimihfi.
.2 A. . r .f. N. Na... .. .
a p v. . . Zr &. .21. . 0.5%. . . Z |.. . . .
.4 . ,M 5 .954 . .51... w? e. 1 1
¢ I .‘1 .
.. .
r. .
“:43: . 1..


‘ .1... 1,. .s. . 2. v... f»: .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .1 .. . . . . . . . ... ...ww%..¢. >
. v v...” ;...r|../.¢ . . . . . .. .. ..: . . , . .. mg.w...wfl 41%....” .. . k .... . . .. . . . . . . (1%. s. .. .. A83... . .
.p . . . . .. . . . a... ..... a w w :1. Im... : .1 f... . . . .. . 1.3.) .\ an. .11. 513 .
. .. v . v“ (XV 1%.", 2 6%.WJW4' . a)» $M¢Mafi JxHMWHPwt. .. . .. ... . . 1.. hi... i .r». a» F. ._ . 1 .. up .. .. .. . 4. n . .9... \ d1wfififi
A”. .. . . . . . . . .. ..H . . . . . .. . .4 . . a . . 5.»... H... rum, » . .1-.. 3.2%....)
..m.... .. ... .. .. .. . . . . . . m... an. s. .. . d. 1..-...
. .. dawn? . . , . EXWPIQVXFJH. fr... l .
. I. 2.. 9 a? i.
+3
l_.













IILIILILU
l. ‘ uu



a...



.._.
m.-


\\
Q

“Nb: k
. a
._._


“=5.
..u...n
W..-
G
r.
E
g
I
;'
..
.6 ..O.I.|.IIUUQI.I.Q.OU.I I \I ll 0‘“. :II I I I
.,........,.“............
..5::Eiiiéfifii .A... A»!
icl [Q I ii'l‘)‘
I
I.\\..l.l.\\l.
v
.w...




r


. '
..
if“














L1)
452@
.7???
Iéf‘





[TEN MEMORIAM


Emlyn Ahammigagher
, 'try‘


PHILADELPHIA
PUBLISHED BY THE COMMITTEE m CHARGE
June, 1895
COMMITTEE 1N CHARGE OF PUBLICATION.

EDWARD D. COPE, PH. D.,
Representing the American Philosophical Society.
AMOS P. BROWN, PH. D.,
Representing the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
J. PERCY MOORE,
Representing the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries.
PHILIP P. CALVERT,
Representing the University of Pennsylvania, Secretary of the Ryder
Memorial Meeting.
3101111 Qbum mater.
Born near Loudon, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, February 29, 1852.
Educated in the schools of the neighborhood of his birthplace; at
Vineland, New Jersey, 1867; at the State Normal School, Millersville,
Pennsylvania, 1867—1869 and summers of 1870—1874.
Taught in country schools near Loudon, Pennsylvania, winters of 1870-
I874»
Jessup Fund student at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
October, 1875—March, 1880.
Embryologist to the United States Fish Commission, April, 1880—
autumn of I886.
Professor of Comparative Embryology in the University of Pennsylva-
nia, October 6, 1886—March 26, 1895.
Received the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Philosophy from the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, june, 1887.
Died in Philadelphia, March 26, I895.
MEMORIAL MEETING.
A meeting in memory Of Professor Ryder, par-
ticipated in by members of the University of Pennsyl-
vania, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
the American Philosophical Society and the United
States Fish Commission, and others, was held in the
hall of the Academy, Logan Square, Philadelphia, on
the evening of Wednesday, April 10, I89 5, at 8 o’clock.
The meeting was organized by the appointment Of General
Isaac J. Wistar as Chairman, and Philip P. Calvert as Secretary.
The Chairman in taking the chair said : “ This meeting has
been called by the Faculty of the School of Biology of the
University of Pennsylvania on behalf of a number of the scientific
institutions of the city, to consider and express its sense of the
great loss that has been sustained by them and by the cause of
science and learning at large, in the recent death of Professor
John Adam Ryder.
“That accomplished biologist and true and loyal friend has
been taken from us in the prime of his age and the ripeness of
his genius, just as he was approaching, or rather arriving at, the
fullness of a world-wide and well-deserved scientific fame. But
there are present here this evening so many eminent men who are
critically familiar with his researches and discoveries, that it is
unnecessary for me to consume your time by any observations
that will come far more forcibly from them.
“I therefore simply announce, that this meeting having been
duly organized, is now prepared to receive such appropriate
communications as may be submitted, and to take such action as
it may deem proper.”
6
FIRST ADDRESS.
DR. RYDER’S RELATIONS TO THE ACADEMY
OF NATURAL SCIENCES.
BY DR. HARRISON ALLEN.
In 1875, exactly one score of years ago, John A. Ryder began
his work at the Academy. Six of these years were spent in the
service of the Government. The remaining fourteen were in
close communion with these halls. The museum and library
were the scenes of his many labors.
At one time his friends feared that he was covering too large
a field. Doubtless, the fear would have been sustained if Ryder
had pursued his studies along conventional lines. But we must
not judge him by such a standard. His mental attitude was well
poised. The Objects that “swam into his ken ” came from a
wide space. So long as he was searching for the results of vital
forces on the economy, it mattered little to him whether it was
the teeth of mammals, the tails or scales of fishes, or the move-
ments of protoplasm in a rhizopod that illustrated these actions.
While arranging the collections of the Academy as a Jessup
Fund student, he found material for his studies in teeth of
quadrupeds ; while on excursions in the city park, in the smaller
articulated animals feeding on fungi or swimming in the pools;
While on the Fish Commission, in the oyster and its parasites and
the movements of fishes ; as professor of histology and embryology
at the University, in the preparation of specimens for courses of
instruction.
What were the mental forces that operated in Ryder to make
him what he was? This is of interest, for the result of compara-
tive studies is to aid us in knowing ourselves. How strange is
the phenomenon ! First, a young student coming to the Academy
so absolutely unknown that his first application to a position on
the Jessup Fund was deferred. Second, his obtaining the position
and setting to work on the collection, re-arranging and cleansing
specimens, re-filling jars and cataloguing. Third, after a career
of four years attracting the attention of Professor Baird and
7
leaving the city to accept an appointment on the Fish Commission.
Fourth, returning to Philadelphia in 1887 and again in frequent-
ing the Academy, no longer working on its collections, but
consulting its library and speaking at its meetings as a University
professor. SO we find Ryder at the beginning and at the end of
his career part of the Academy. But where, in this chain of
circumstances, do we find the factors which gave to Ryder those
things which distinguished him? Almost precisely the same
conditions (so far as the Academy and the University were
concerned) were met with in Leidy. Yet how different were the
two men ! Indeed, so little did Leidy understand Ryder that he
endeavored (with the most kindly motive) to dissuade him from
a career of study. Leidy knew that men who are dependent
on science for a livelihood secure fewer prizes in the struggle for
maintenance than do those in any other learned calling. This
statement is yet true, and it had special force twenty years ago.
Thus while the Academy gave Ryder incalculable aid (the
soil, indeed, in which he grew), the influences which determined
the character of his work were extraneous. These were in brief
the influences of the theory Of evolution as applied to living
things, which brightening the horizon Of science relieved it of
all mists, such as the theories of Oken and its many variants,
before men of Ryder’s age looked toward the dawn for inspiration.
In America, to use Professor Packard’s expression, a neo-
Lamarckian phase of the theory of evolution arose. It held to
an insistence of mechanical causes in modifying the shapes of
organisms. Its advocates were Alpheus Hyatt and Edward D.
Cope, men whom Darwin did not understand, but Ryder did; and,
while he is in no respect a disciple to either of these distinguished
men, his career was in a sense determined by them.
The forces which Ryder so eagerly studied were those which
tended, as he believed they did, to modify endlessly the bodies in
which they are exercised. The living body is compared by him
to a machine in motion, which changes the shape of the machine
itself by virtue of the motions ; he believed that such changes are
transmitted to offspring, and in this way organisms tend to endless
variation. Nothing is fixed but the initial necessity to change.
Dr. Ryder might have done well had he confined himself
more than he did to the study of species and genera. His papers
8
in this line were excellent. He announced several forms of
Thysanura, Myriapods, fresh water crustaceans, and a new fresh
water polyp. He revised the account of the sturgeons of our
eastern waters, and resuscitated Le Sueur’s Accz'jfiezzser bz'evz'rosirz's,
an old specimen of which (probably part of the material on which
the species was named) was found by Ryder in the Museum of the
Academy. .
In competent hands the elucidation of species is not, as it has
opprobriously been said to be, a dullard’s task of taking an
inventory of nature, but the study of the ultimate forms which
those organisms assume which breed true. The shifting Of color-
schemes, the exhibition of the effects of retardation or precocity in
the development of the individual, the effects Of food and climate
on size in whole or in parts, and of other causes by which minute
diiferentiations are started and maintained, are of unending
interest, and worthy of the best powers of the naturalist. If
Ryder had been more closely identified than he was with the
careers of the great academicians who had preceded him, he
wOuld in no whit have detracted from the value of his philosophical
labors. One cannot but regret, if for no other reason than for his
health’s sake, that he discontinued those fruitful excursions to
our woods, ponds and rivers, by which he contributed so notably
to our micro-fauna.
With nameless regret, we note in what degree his exceptional
powers were wasted. We see him in training as an oyster
culturist, or busy with details of affairs on the Fish Commission.
We see him giving his substance of energy to undergraduate
instruction. Why do we insist that penknives are appropriate
tools to fell oaks? that pedagogy is a suitable career for a man
who has rare gifts for investigation? We may never see, nor the
world see the like of Ryder again. Why did we not get all that
was possible from him while he was here, and leave the tasks of
teaching undergraduates to those equally earnest with himself, to
teachers as capable as himself, but who did not possess a tithe of
his ability as an inquirer after truth? Teaching it is true gave
him his maintenance, one which he preferred to any other. Alas!
that there is no larger Jessup Fund for matured students as well as
tyros 1 No complaint is here made that as compared with other
students Ryder had not received due consideration. Nevertheless,
9
bureau employment and teaching are not the best uses to which
we can put exceptionally endowed men. Ryder was patient
and dignified. He was not a Pegasus chafing in his harness, but
as one consecrated to the calling of his choice, and on whose heart
the lowliest duties on itself did lay. But we are the losers. We
cannot but be saddened, at the knowledge that he did not live to
put in form and substance the results of his profound labors. His
work is like an unfinished house webbed in scaffolding, with heaps
of building material scattered about the ground. The spirits to
which Ryder’s was kin (the Keats, the Mozarts), visit us at long
intervals, and when they come, we treat them as though they
were ordinary mortals after all.

T be following z‘elegmzn and lezfz‘er were read .-
WASHINGTON, April IO, 1895.
RYDER MEMORIAL COMMITTEE,
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
Regret that absence of Commissioner McDonald prevents
his attending memorial meeting tO-night.
HERBERT A. GILL,
Aez‘z'ng Commissioner U. S. Fish Commission.

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, COLUMBIA COLLEGE.
NEW YORK, April 9, I895.
EDWARD J. NOLAN, Secretary,
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
My dear Sir: I deeply regret that a broken arm will prevent
me attending the meeting upon Wednesday, April 10, in memory
Of my highly esteemed friend, the late Professor John A. Ryder.
I write to express my deep sense Of personal loss in the man who
had so many attractive qualities, and my feeling that American
biology has suffered a heavy blow. Professor Ryder was a man
Of rare qualities of mind and spirit; his work was full Of the
marks of real genius. Many of us have experienced the inspira-
tion springing from his unusual suggestiveness, besides drawing
largely from his solid observations of fact, both in embryology
and in the subject of animal mechanics, Of which he had made
such an exhaustive study. On behalf of my“ colleagues at
O ’ O'(‘..
' . Q 0"
O (
r (0'. .
IO
Columbia and the New York Academy of Sciences, Professor
Wilson, Dr. Bashford Dean and others, I desire to extend the most
sincere sympathy with the loss which the Philadelphia Academy
and the University of Pennsylvania have sustained in the death of
Professor Ryder, who had hardly begun to complete his work.
I am,
Very respectfully yours,
HENRY F. OSBORN.

SECOND ADDRESS.
DR. RYDER’S WORK WITH THE UNITED STATES
FISH COMMISSION.
BY DR. BASHFORD DEAN.
It is my privilege tO-night, ladies and gentlemen, to speak of
the work of Professor Ryder on the behalf of the United States
Commission of Fisheries.
And it is by no means an easy task to state briefly the
importance of his long services to this department of the govern-
ment, for one cannot forget that he has given his best years and
his best work for its advancement. During the past twenty years
Dr. Ryder has been one of the most faithful contributors to its
scientific researches: his publications have identified themselves
with the Fishery Commission, and have notably helped to give
its reports and bulletins a standard value among the zoologists at
home and abroad.
I have heard it said that Dr. Ryder had in his scientific work
grown up with the Commission ; it might, I think, be said even as
justly that the Commission had in a measure grown up with him.
Those who have not followed the history of the Fish Commission-
cannot appreciate the difficulties encountered by Professor Baird in
its organization, not only in creating the interest in its behalf to
prompt the necessary governmental support, but even more
diflicult, to make its aims at once practical and scientific ; to teach
the community that in order to make the Fish Commission of
actual value it was necessary to know more thoroughly the
subjects it dealt with : of the living, feeding and breeding habits
of the fish, and:.turn (If their food organisms. To have dealt
. !.
Q . .Q.Y I,
II
only with the practical side of the problems would have been
inimical to the practice as well as to the theory of the Commis-
sion; those who had studied the problems of the work would
have shown clearly the fallacies of so short-sighted a course.
It was the good fortune of Professor Baird and of the Com-
mission that Dr. Ryder was called upon to participate in its work;
for there had been found one who could at once foresee the
situation and encounter it. The subjects of his investigation
dealt with the most practical matters, but their treatment was
noteworthy in its scientific value. Thus while his studies on the
life history of the oyster gave applications of great value to the
oyster culturists, his results on the purely embryological side were
of no less importance. And while his studies on the breeding
and development of the food fishes were most fruitful in their
practical results, they threw a flood of light on some of the
obscure problems of vertebrate embryology. And it is profoundly
to his credit that in all Of his many researches he had never lost
to sight the search of the natural laws in his quest for the
practical. His was the true spirit of research, and it is significant,
perhaps, that in his very last paper in the Commission’s Bulletin
he expressly formulates the position of the biologist, quoting from
Emerson that “to a sound judgment the most abstract truth is
the most practical.” He might well show that without the study
of the purely scientific problem of “spontaneous generation”
there might have been today no antiseptics in surgery.
Dr. Ryder’s contributions to the publications of the Commis-
sion were voluminous, as many as a half dozen memoirs to a
yearly volume. Their scientific merit is attested by the many
references to them in the kindred researches of every land. But
the care he exercised in their preparation can only be appreciated
by the zoologists, and by those especially who have known him
at his work.
In his relations with the Commission, Professor Ryder merited
the entire confidence and esteem of every one connected with it—
from the commissioner to the humblest attendant—this, perhaps,
he had owed as much to his personality as to his efforts. During
the administration Of Professor Baird what was practically the
entire charge of the investigation of the living habits of fish and
shellfish was intrusted to his care ; the Wood’s _Holl Station was
12.
placed in his charge, and in the smallest details his suggestions
were followed. And after the death of Professor Baird, when
Colonel Marshall McDonald was placed at the head of the Fish
Commission, the personal relations of Dr. Ryder to the Commis-
sion were even, if possible, more closely drawn. To the younger
zoologists, Professor Ryder was always the warmest friend, aiding
them in their work, never too busy to counsel them, and always
with a store of information regarding remote references, or analo-
gies, pertinent in their present work. And in this regard, I my-
self, as well doubtless as many others here to-night, shall ever
have the most grateful memories. Indeed, I know that when the
studies encroached on his particular work, so far from sparing of
his own results, he would go out of his way to afford the others
his assistance and advice.
In short, one who had known Professor Ryder, could not
help noticing that he was one out of a multitude in the purpose
and method of his studies. His efforts, his ceaseless diligence,
his enthusiasm Were centred in his work—his personality was
forgotten, and his aims were ever for the cause of biological
studies. His life was a time to work, a time to get better, more
truthful, more important results, not a time in which to build for
himself monuments. His own results of study when long past,
were allowed to disappear until they were needed in a kindred
research. When I was last with him at Wood’s Holl, he half
promised to collect a complete list of his publications relating to
fishery subjects, for the benefit of the younger workers, but he had
long demurred saying that he had not retained copies of his own
writings, that it would not be an easy matter to collect the scat-
tered references, and that in fact, he doubted whether.the result
would be worthy of the effort.
The Fish Commission cannot, I feel, pay too warm a tribute
to his memory. His talents, his faithfulness, his personality, will
surely live ever in the minds of his colleagues. And what his
offices were to the Commission, will not be less worthily esteemed
as years pass by.
I 3
THIRD ADDRESS.
DR. RYDER AND THE SCHOOL OF BIOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
BY DR. HORACE JAYNE.

It is surely most fitting that a few words should be said
concerning the events connected with Dr. Ryder’s coming to the
University, and that phase of his life and work which is only
known to those who were associated with him when he began his
career as a teacher in that institution. At the close of the college
year of 1886, the success of the attempt to establish a School of
Biology ,at the University had been demonstrated. It was the
close of the first full year, for the Laboratory building was com-
pleted so late in the session of 1884-8 5, that few students—other
than those already in attendance—could avail themselves of its
privileges, and it was not until the autumn of 1885, that we had
what might be called an entering class. The experience of the
year had shown clearly our educational opportunities, and had
pointed out the needs of the students and our deficiencies.
It was seen that a large and attractive field of work lay open
for us, a field that existed in few institutions, and one that would
well repay careful cultivation. The work was to prepare students
by biological instruction for the subsequent study of medicine. The
neighborhood of a large medical school and the fact that upon our
staff of teachers were many Of its graduates, most of whom were
also engaged in teaching medical students, naturally pointed out
the need of such elementary courses in comparative anatomy and
botany for medical students, as well as for those fitting themselves
for medical studies. It was decided to enter upon this special
field. An introductory course in microscopic mammalian anatomy
was established, and the zoological and botanical work was
adjusted with this end in view. It was then seen that a course
was needed which would give the student a thorough knoWledge
of comparative microscopic anatomy, together with the develop-
ment of the tissues and Of the different kinds of animal forms.
Such courses were needed also for the students who were pursuing
biological subjects for their own sake with a view to research or
I4
subsequent teaching. A new man was to be secured to take charge
_ of these subjects, and fortunately for us that new man was John
A. Ryder.
His connection with the school had been hoped for from its
inception, but of that he of course was ignorant. I had known
him for some years. We met for the first time while he was a
Jessup student in this Academy, and I was engaged in arranging
part of the collections of the Entomological Society. He impressed
me at that time with his fund of information on all topics, and his
ardent zeal for study. Later, as a medical student, I was directed
to him as the only person in Philadelphia familiar with the meth-
ods of paraffine embedding and the cutting of serial sections.
During the winter of my residence at the Johns Hopkins
University, on {frequent trips to Washington, I had a favorable
opportunity for knowing Dr. Ryder better. In the discussion of
plans for the establishment of a biological school which began
about this time, his name was frequently mentioned, and always
with affection and with the hope that some day he might be
with us.
His appointment was not therefore a new idea, nor was it
dictated solely by our thorough appreciation of his ability and
scientific reputation. It was the wish of his friends, that one who
received his training in Philadelphia and in these halls, should be
retained for Philadelphia and freed from outside cares, be able to
develop his own work and extend his career for which he gave so
much promise. How well he accomplished that you have already
heard.
I was requested therefore to see Dr. Ryder, who was then in
charge of the Fish Commission laboratories at Wood’s H011, and
given authority to secure him if he felt like leaving his govern-
ment position to enter upon educational work. After carefully
weighing the question he decided in our favor. He hesitated at
first, it is true, because he mistrusted his power to teach and han-
dle large classes of students—a mistrust which was never Shared
by his friends. His quiet dignity of manner, his absorption in
his subject, his desire to make very difficult subjects clear, all had
their effect upon his students, and I never had report of the
slightest disorder in his class-room or disrespect to him whom they
loved to call “ Uncle Jack.” His position was in some ways an
IS
enviable one and gave him much leisure for original research.
During the earlier years of his connection with us he taught six
hours a week in the laboratory, one term on histology and one
term on embryology, but gradually this increased by the develop-
ment of advanced work and original research by graduate students.
This was of special interest to him and every point made by his
students was reported to his colleagues with the same gratification
as if discovered by himself. He was essentially fa teacher. At
first he seemed to “talk over the heads,” of the students in his
elementary classes. He fully recognized this difficulty and spoke
freely concerning it. This he modified to some extent as time
went on, but he purposely retained an unusually high standard.
Every trust confided to him was cheerfully and promptly
performed. He was regular in his attendance upon faculty and
committee meetings, and I think never was absent without first
asking if especial business that needed his attention would be
brought up. He was exact and prompt in his reports of students
and spared no pains in presenting the claims of his department in
attractive shape for publication. It was a pleasure to work with
him for the advancement of the biological teaching and research
in Philadelphia, and his sound views, and advice will be missed
by all those who have that object at heart.
Of his traits as a colleague Dr. Wilson will speak. But even
those of the faculty whose lines of work separated them widely
from him, admired his learning and his devotion to science, and.
esteemed him for his gentle, kindly character.

FOURTH ADDRESS.
DR. RYDER’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE
OF EVOLUTION. '
_ BY PROFESSOR E. D. COPE.

Dr. Ryder’s studies were prosecuted with the deepest mysv
teries of life ever before him, and he sought their explanation
through the only hypothesis now available, the doctrine of
evolution. His contributions to this subject were important.
His mechanical talent led him to the explanation of the processes
of creation on mechanical grounds; and his skill in unraveling
16
the mechanisms of nature gave him especial advantages in the
pursuit. His work in this field may be divided into two periods.
First, that in which he occupied himself with the molar conditions
of structures and their probable causes ; and second, the later
one, in which he sought to measure the physical causes to which
the recondite processes of growth are due. He was firmly per-
suaded of the insufliciency of natural selection as the sole factor
at the basis of organic evolution, and opposed the first view of
Weismann and the neo-darwinians that acquired characters are
not inherited. He was even sometimes inclined to the doctrine that
structures may be in some cases wholly due to mechanical causes
operative in each generation by itself.
Taking up the development of his thought on these subjects,
the papers of his first period may be classified as endeavors to prove
the efficacy of use and disuse in modifying structures. He first in
1877 approached the problem of the cause of the reduction of the
number of digits in the mammalia ; the demonstration of the
descent from four digits, and the hypothesis of the descent from
five, having been already announced. He next applied the doc-
trine of use in explanation of the evolution of the enlarged incisor
teeth of rodent mammals, in the same year. In the following
year he published a more extended essay in which he showed the
direct relation between the jaw movements of the ungulate
mammalia, and the forms of the molar crowns, and advanced rea-
sons why the former had probably produced the latter. In 1889 he
showed that the segmentation of the soft rays of the fins Of fishes
are simply fractures due to fiexures, and that in the caudal fin they
possess approximately the same direction as the inter-myomeric
fissures. In 1892 he proposed a mechanical hypothesis of the
origin of the epidermic folds and Scales of the fishes, which con-
sists of a mathematical explanation of the results Of folding, due
to lateral flexures of the body, to which I called attention in the
case of the segmentation of the vertebral elements of the Rhachi-
tomous Stegocephali in 1884. As an incidental result of his
embryological researches, he proposed a mechanical theory of the
origin of the amnion in 1886 ; and mechanical explanations of the
different types of placentae in 1887. He announced the very
probable view that the form of the placenta is dependent on the
nature of its contact with the walls of the oviduct or uterus. His
I7
latest work on this subject remains unpublished. This was a
research as to the effect on embryonic growth of artificial strains
to which he subjected the blastodermic tissues of the chick. He
had already Obtained interesting results. In the special discus-
sion of the effects of disuse, his only paper is that on the coOssi-
fication of the vertebrae of the gigantic extinct Glyptodons in
relation to their unyielding carapaces.
If we now look to the attempts at a strict dynamical analysis
of these phenomena, made by Dr. Ryder, we see him in a con-
genial field. He first in I879, in the American Naturalist, pub-
lished a paper on the “Ultimate Physical Unit of Living Matter,”
in which he considered the dynamical theories already in the field,
and announced his adhesion to their intent and essence. He later
elaborated his views on this subject in a paper entitled, “ Energy
as a Factor in Organic Evolution,” in the proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society for 1893. Here he expounded
the eflects of surface tensions in organic matter under energetic
conditions, as a cause of segmentation ; as had been already con-
sidered in the case of vegetable cells by Schwendener. His special
applications of these views were made in a number of papers.
One of the most important of these is a “ Physiological Theory
of the Calcification of the Skeleton.” This is a highly original
essay, and he finds a mechanical hypothesis sufficient to explain
all the phenomena, the basis of the process being inherited. In
1893, he published a geometrico-mechanical explanation of the
form of the fowl’s egg.
Dr. Ryder’s views on the inheritance of acquired characters
were confirmed by his studies Of the deformed gold carp Of the
Japanese, to which he devoted himself for a time, and the results
of which he published. He also brought forward in confirmation
of them, the Observation of Von Brunn on the inheritance of worn
molars in the rat.
While he did not regard natural selection as the fundamental
factor in evolution, he did not deny its eflicacy in many cases.
In order to show the relation of different modes of life to the
struggle for existence, he made a mathematical calculation of the
chances of conflict under the various conditions of exposure to
which organisms are subject. He showed that the range of
difference is very great.
18
Finally, it may be asserted that Dr. Ryder’s contributions to
the explanations of the phenomena of animal evolution, have been
of a degree of importance disproportioned to the short span of life
which was his share. These contributions are characterized by
acuteness and true discrimination. His work will be a guide to
others, though few will probably equal him in the combination
Of mental qualities which rendered his work what it was. These
are mechanical genius, and unflagging perseverance.
My association with Professor Ryder during the years of his
residence in Philadelphia was close. Our lines of study crossed
and recrossed; and I may say that in him, I found a colleague
single-minded and fair, with whom it was always a pleasure to
work. Our difl'erences were amicable, as our agreements were
hearty. Science has suffered a most serious loss in his early
removal from her cult, and his friends have lost an ideal com-
panion. My own knowledge of Professor Ryder dated from his
entrance into the field, and it is only fitting to express my sense
of personal loss, in words which express but little.

FIFTH ADDRESS.
DR. RYDER AS A TEACHER.
BY MR. H. F. MOORE.

It is my sad duty this evening to speak of Dr. Ryder from
the standpoint of one who was his student.
Of my own unworthiness to represent his students, past and
present, this is neither the place nor the occasion to speak, but it
is not without a certain melancholy satisfaction that I accept this
opportunity to express publicly my deep sense of personal indebt-
edness to him and to his memory.
Those who have known him in other phases of his life have
usually failed to appreciate his character as a teacher. Many who
have heard his communications before the Philosophical Society,
the Academy of Natural Sciences, or the Biological Society of
Washington, have wondered at his fitness for the post which he
has filled with signal ability for the past nine years.
Remembering his Often abstruse communications before those
learned bodies, it has seemed to them almost impossible that he
I9
should be able to bring down the plane of his lectures to the level
demanded by the requirements of undergraduate instruction.
Widespread as was this belief, it was nevertheless far from a
true estimate. Speaking as one who was benefited by his elemen-
tary teachings, as one who availed himself of all that Dr. Ryder
had to offer in his regular courses in histology and embryology, I
can truly say that he in every way proved himself equal to the
requirements of a difficult position.
What he may have lacked in some of the usual attributes of
a successful teacher was more than amply compensated for by his
keen sympathy, his painstaking care and his skill with crayon
and pencil.
His blackboard sketches were a running illustration of his
speech; his speech a living explanation of his drawings, and
the two together served to make clear what either alone would
have perhaps left bathed in obscurity.
There was a reality, a definiteness about his lectures which
brought them home to us with a force which no perfunctory,
second-hand instruction could ;have attained. He made us feel
that he himself had seen things, and that we too could see and
know them if we willed.
The clearness of his treatment of the development of the
vertebral'column, of its modifications and the mechanical prob-
lems involved, recurs strongly to mind after the lapse of years
and such instances could be multiplied without number.
To illustrate points under discussion he drew freely upon his
vast knowledge of all fields of biological research. Usually this
method of treatment was of the utmost value to the earnest
student, but it must be admitted that occasionally it defeated its
own end by the very wealth of illustration.
During the past two years it has been Dr. Ryder’s custom to
occasionally address the Freshman class upon general biological
topics—segmentation, effects of parasitism and similar subjects.
These lectures were devoid of technicalities excepting such
as had been previously explained, and being enlivened by his
quaintly humorous illustrations were followed by the classes with
profound attention. That the students appreciated these lectures
and felt benefited by them, that, notwithstanding the newness of
the subject, they were able to absorb and understand his teachings,
20
was manifested by the high terms in which they often referred to
them.
Dr. Ryder’s appreciation of his own ability as a teacher
was extremely modest, as I had more than one occasion to learn.
During my own undergraduate course, when I know that some
Of us at least were feeling especially grateful to him for the light
which he had thrown upon our studies, he more than once
expressed to his assistants his dissatisfaction with his own lectures
and his disbelief in the efficiency of his own teaching. He was
not the man to make such statements unless he believed them,
and I was at the time much impressed by this insight into his
character. In his class-room he strove, and usually with success,
against his natural tendency to abstruseness which no one
regretted more than himself. He had great admiration for men
like Huxley and Tyndall who could write good science for the peo-
ple. Shortly before his death we were conversing upon the vigor
and the clearness of the writings of Professor Huxley, to whom Dr.
Ryder referred, on account of the beauty and strength of his
diction, as “the Shakespeare of English Science.” He was
deplorin g the technicalities with which scientific writings so Often
bristle and mentioning a well-known scientist he said, “ that
man has absolutely no regard for his readers,” and after a pause
he added, “I myself am much worse.” It was this appreciation
of his own limitations which enabled him to attain that success
as a teacher of which so many thought him denied.
His devotion to the stupid men of the class was Of the most
conscientious character, and I have known or heard of at least two
instances in which the recipients of his unceasing attention were
exceedingly repulsive tO the self-sacrificing teacher who sought to
aid them.
To his more earnest students, the after-class hour, the hour
of closer intercourse was always fraught with the greatest pleas-
ure and profit. Then he permitted himself to be drawn out ; he
opened up his vast magazine of intellectual good and whosoever
sought could partake thereof. Then we as undergraduates saw
him at his best and received our first insight into his true great-
ness, and at the same time, his true simplicity of character. He
apparently enjoyed these little gatherings as much as we did and
he often lingered, with us while his meal grew cold at home.
21
It was in this hour that we gradually formed those feelings
which we carried with us to our post-graduate work under his
direction.
In the direction of these higher studies Dr. Ryder found his
true forte both by nature and by training.
Here he could make his own personality more strongly felt:
his contact with his students was closer and his influence propor-
tionately greater. The stimulus of this close intercourse cannot
be understood, cannot be appreciated by one who has not been
under its sway, and it was in my opinion the most valuable, the
most lasting benefit which we derived from him. The informa-
tion he gave us might have been derived from another ; his per-
sonality was his own.
Looking back upon three years thus spent with him it is
dificult to pick out any one thing and say, “This did I obtain
from him and from him alone.” All that those years contained
is pervaded by a consciousness of his influence; an influence
which we admit with pride and gratitude.
To his older students and the younger members of the zoo-
logical faculty, Dr. Ryder’s presence formed a large part of the
life of the School of Biology. His face, it was, which most
frequently first greeted us upon our entrance into the building.
He once said that he knew the footstep of almost everyone con-
nected with the place and it was his curious custom to come to
his room door when a familiar tread sounded upon the stair.
If he had found a point of interest in his work, he usually
invited us to enter, and would unfold to us his hopes and aspira-
tions with the enthusiasm and simplicity of a youth. We were
usually informed of the progress of the many investigations
which he had under way, and we were thus made to feel the stim-
ulus of his own activity.
As a guide and mentor to those attempting investigation in
original fields, Dr. Ryder was invaluable. His information was
always exact; it never went half way and left us in a slough
deeper and wider than before. When necessary he carried us com-
pletely over and landed us safely on the other side ; or, more fre-
quently, he pointed out the stepping-stones by which we could
pursue our way unaided.
If he had not the desired information himself he always knew
22
where to find it. His bibliographical knowledge was astounding
even in fields in which he himself had done but little.
Never did we apply to him and find him wanting ; rarely
was the information sought not contained in the vast fund which
was ever freely placed at our disposal. His health was never too
poor, his time too precious, his own studies too exacting or im-
portant to cause him to turn a deaf ear to an appeal for assistance.
He spent a portion of the last two summers at Wood’s Holl,
where he delivered several lectures, which invited the earnest
attention of students and professors alike. Although he had no
official connection with the Wood’s Holl Laboratory, the students
gathered there from all the great colleges and universities of the
East soon learned his worth, and his advice and assistance were
sought and given unceasingly.
An account of Dr. Ryder’s relations to his students would be
incomplete, indeed, were it confined by college walls. His sym-
pathy, his many kindnesses ceased not with the boundaries of
his class-room, but were manifested in a thousand ways during
the time which should in all justice have been his own. Wher-
ever and whenever the occasion arose, with that utter self-abnega-
tion, which was his foremost characteristic, he exerted himself in
the interests of his students.
During the past summer, when the hand of pain and care
bore heavily upon him, when he was suffering with ill health, the
seriousness of which he failed to appreciate, he still had thought
for those who had been under his guidance. From the midst Of
his own troubles he could still stretch forth the helping hand to
aid a younger man on the road which he had chosen.
He entered to some extent into our social life, and this was
particularly the case during the summer spent at the Marine
Biological Laboratory at Sea Isle City. Rarely an evening passed
that he was not with some of us, and into our social pleasures he
entered as heartily as any. His fund of anecdotes was a varied
one, and many a pleasant evening was passed by the oceanside
listening to his stories of men and things.
Upon our return from the seashore some of the instructors
and students began to hold fOI'tnightly meetings, at the home of
one of the number, for the discussion of general biological topics.
To these meetings Dr. Ryder was invited and he soon became a
23
regular attendant. We undertook a critical study of Weissmann’s
“ Essays on Heredity” a subject of which Dr. Ryder was a
thorough master. Most of you are aware of the vigor with which
he opposed the Weissmannian doctrines, yet we found no one
keener to note or more willing to appreciate the good points of
the argument, and these little meetings added much to the respect
in which we held him.
Viewing him from so many sides, most of us grew to regard
7 him with feelings which upon first acquaintance we would have
supposed impossible. Loving him' for his qualities of heart,
trusting and respecting him for his absolute frankness, honoring
him for his eminent qualities of mind, his death came to us with
the shock of a personal bereavement and we now bow our heads
in reverence to his memory and mourn his loss.

SIXTH ADDRESS.
DR. RYDER AS A COLLEAGUE.
BY. DR. w. P. WILSON.
I desire to say a word about Dr. Ryder as friend and colleague
in the University. I do this with pleasure, for during the seven
years or more that we were in almost daily intercourse, I have
only the most pleasant memories to look back upon.
I first met him in the latter part of 1887, at which time I
came to the University and found him already actively engaged
in instruction and investigation. I can remember well my first
impressions. We had not talked five minutes before he had led
me into the intricacies of one of the subjects which he was then
specially studying, and related to me the possible effect of new
discoveries in this direction.
At the very first meeting he showed his simplicity of life, his
industry, his energy and his eye single for the discovery of new
truth. I was drawn to him from the very first.
This, the first interview, showed me the broadness of his
views ; that he investigated and sought for new facts and truths in
no narrow horizon. He neither limited his thought or his investi-
gations to his own chosen field of zoology, but considered life as
24
a unit, as a whole, and often stepped outside of his own special
domain to follow up the development of facts which, he saw in his
broad vision, bore on the general development of his theories.
In his association with the Academy of Natural Sciences he
formed a habit of hastily reviewing the great mass of valuable
literature which finds its way to the library of this institution.
Whatever approached his own special work he read with care.
In his review of literature he collated facts from all directions.
His memory was an extraordinary one. Whatever he had
read he retained. This was always of the greatest service to
himself and his friends, for whatever question came uppermost or
whatever investigation was under discussion, he could readily tell
what had been written and what had been done.
Few men know the literature of their own chosen field as well
as he knew his. In the warmth and excitement of debate
over any topic in which he was deeply interested he had a most
extraordinary command of the English language. The most
complex and intricate terms replaced in the discussion the shorter
Anglo-Saxon words.
He was well equipped in modern languages. German authors
were his favorites, because more than all others they were work-
ing and publishing where he was most interested. The language
seemed almost as natural as his own. I learned that in early life,
when a mere child, along with his instruction in English, his
grandmother gave him daily lessons in German. After his return
from Germany he could not say enough in praise of the strong,
sturdy German character, and the spirit of true investigation,
there found on every hand, which seeks truth for its own sake.
He had a strong desire to popularize the natural sciences, and
to secure their introduction into our school system, but the
supreme bent of his mind for original investigation kept him aloof
from this field of work.
In his discussions he was fair to his antagonist, and stated
his opponent’s views with clearness. -
He desired full liberty of thought for himself and as fully ac-
credited it to Others. In his discoveries and investigations he did
not recognize-time nor days. In his general thought he was agnos-
tic. All days spent in adding to his knowledge were days well
spent. Whatever truth he arrived at became at once a part of
25
his mental stock of knowledge and was incorporated in his general
theory of life.
He was an omniverous reader, and gleaned facts from all
sources. The best anatomists, the best morphologists, the best
embryologists and physiologists on all sides of life were searched
for facts to add to his store. - He appropriated these and harmon-
ized them with his own views. Sometimes the new which came
to him clashed with the old which he had thought true. He was
very quick to balance, to compare, and to lop off from his theories
that which had least support. He did not do this with regret,
but seemed positively pleased to feel that he had gained something
in advance of what he had once held.
He had no use for that kind of consistency which compels
one to harmonize his thought of yesterday with that of to-day.
It did not in the least trouble him that he had given utterance in
his earlier writings to theories which he regarded later as unten-
able. This only showed that he was a studious, active, thinking,
progressive investigator. It illustrated the principle that the
discovery of every new truth has its retrospective influence on all
that went before it as surely as all that follows it ; that the leaven
of a new truth is the centre of a rapidly widening circle, which
soon includes all life and action.
But the most prominent features of Dr. Ryder’s life, felt, I
am sure, most strongly by his colleagues and intimate friends,
with whom he came in daily contact, making indelible impres-
sionsupon us all, were the following :
1. His extreme simplicity of life and utter avoidance of all
ostentation. He preferred his own quiet home, his laboratories at
the Biological School, the Academy of Natural Sciences, and
other localities where he met mainly his intimate friends, and
pursued his chosen field of thought, either in actual investigation
or in the presentation of carefully thought-out principles. He
rarely accepted invitations which took him from these fields of
activity. He shrank from all public demonstration or public
life of any kind. He hated forms and ceremonies, and was sure
not to appear where they were necessary. This was so much a
part of the tendency of his mind that a dress occasion of any kind
was distasteful to him, and made him ill at ease in mind, though
not in appearance. A new garment or suit of clothes was a
26
disagreeable necessity, which only passed away when the apparel '
became adapted to, and was a part of the wearer.
What he did he did quietly from his own convictions and
because it seemed to him best and right, with no mention of it to
others. No part of his acts or his life was put forward in any
way for show or observation of others.
2. His remarkable industry. He worked incessantly. He
often went home at night with the bare suggestion in his mind of
a new field of investigation. In the morning he returned with
lines Of argument marked out and with directions for investigation
well stated. He began at once this new investigation. It mattered
not how many other subjects were under treatment ; they were all
carried on from time to time as opportunity afforded, and week by
week new and valuable papers were presented at the American
Philosophical Society, the Academy and elsewhere for publication.
Those of us who had the pleasure of doing our work with
him and meeting him in daily intercourse, know well the value of
his life. It was a rare thing when we met him in the morning
not to find him aglow with some newly discovered principle, or
with some problem restated in better form, throwing light on the
work which was nearest his hand at the time.
If anything stood in the way of his work, his perseverance
and energy removed it. Impeded by a lack of knowledge in the
higher mathematics or physics in carrying to their legitimate ends
his theories in mechanical evolution, he immediately applied
himself to these subjects and the difficulties vanished. His
industry was supreme. He stimulated everyone to increased
activity about him. You found yourself pushed along in your
own work by the very force of the example before you.
But this very industry and energy which we so greatly admire,
in the end did him lasting injury. He seemed not to be able to
rest from his incessant investigations. When physically weak he
continued to study and write on topics which interested him,
to the exclusion of proper rest and recreation. His colleagues all
urged him to spend more time out of doors in healthful recreation,
but without avail.
During the last few months of his life I seldom met him that
we did not discuss the revision or enlargement of papers already
written or the production of new manuscripts, mostly on his
27
favorite subject of mechanical evolution. He had been at times
during the winter writing a book which he hoped soon to publish,
embodying his general views on evolution. The manuscripts for
this work, I believe, were nearly finished.
3. The third great feature of Dr. Ryder’s life was his
incessant craving after new facts and new truths. As in olden
times all roads led to Rome, so in his daily life and acts his main
efforts were all directed in various lines of original investigation.
_ You could not remain long with him and not catch the spirit
of this inspiration. From this point of view he was one of the
most stimulating men I have ever met. He searched for new
facts in every direction. The result was equally interesting to him
whether it had any practical bearing or not. The bare, naked
truth was sufficient. If it could be applied or not did not
increase or diminish its value in his eyes. That which had been
studied and investigated and stated as fact, had its greatest interest
to him, in its relation to what was yet unknown. .
By far the most interesting side of the University to him was
its post-graduate work, where he could stimulate his students to
original investigation. His undergraduate teaching, which he
did with care, was done as one would learn a language, in order
that it might open up the delightful unknown of the future.
4. Fourth, and strongest, among the principles which domina-
ted his remarkable career, was his intense desire to formulate a har-
monious theory of evolution and development of life. His whole
time was spent in collating facts from others and in discovering
new ones from his own investigations, in order that he might later
bring all together in one grand system. He hoped to make this
aggregation of facts and principles explain more fully the think-
ing, moving, existing universe about us.
Such a life as this, although apparently cut off in the very
midst of its greatest activities, does not cease to render great
service to mankind. Not one of us can think Of the simplicity
of his life and surroundings without being led to turn more
strongly away Irom the mere shadow of things. Not one of us
can contemplate his remarkable industry and energy without
being stimulated to labor harder and longer in our chosen fields
of work. Not one Of us that has come within the reach of his
grasp for new facts and truths but will be pushed on with more
.¢.'
28
persevering and higher aspirations, toward the solving of life’s
problems, parallel to his own. We shall accomplish vastly more
with the ever-present thought of his achievements in our minds.
Such an influence is immortal, for shall we not be inspired to pass
the same great qualities on to those who follow us?
It is true we have lost a valuable teacher, a valuable friend
and adviser, but his example and real life will remain forever
with us.

On the conclusion of this address, Dr. J. M. Macfarlane moved
that the addresses be referred to the secretary to confer with a com-
mittee consisting of representatives to be appointed by each of the
bodies invited to take part in this meeting. The motion was
adopted and the meeting adjourned.
PHILIP P. CALVERT,
Secretary.




;






















































'UNI-viess‘lrxoeMJOHISAN; -
mull 1 mm 1 p =
~ .


\ .






Ml! ll. .
#—
.___---—
_ U .4 ,.
-=-=-:=-n












































.. . . a
.. .11
.. ‘mliu .
. .,
riiir-a.aa.
m. . PM . Ems... 1.3.... .
¢N . .Ass--
. w
. . . . ... l. ._... r. .... . . .. ;..... . .... .. r“ r. .. . . . . . .. . .. . I. .r l .. . . i. . . . . . .. ....:. .. . .
. ...
.. bE
. t
. z ... .... . ..
a an, I .. . . . . . . wanna . . . . .e .
.. EPA/1.1;; . I I .. . . . . . We... .
rust? . . . . . .. ..
. .1. an .

a
we
... .. .d ..H¢...35 .w .J..I.Q.?._....<.. . .. . Ends“ ..I w. M ...h..~r...... .. 4A.. . . . . . a» a“. .
we. MMFAW new». ... . Heb“
.fiw-awu.» 4 (. Ethyl-44¢. iv/Efl 5% 5.. ~ “VJ-.4!
. .. .Kpéfiwwfhnmmwmi Whip/“vs! ... .. w .
. . . .1m’f'tufi) h A
. v i. .
. 1 . .. ax... .
.. Mw. .-p . . ..l 3 pa ..L..c aw.wwi. .
. . J. . I . .. . . . a. . .Qa ..
. . . .. ore/0,1. X? a J. .
. . . . . . . v . ,. » .... . - f .
.. . . . 611mm . .. f I. an... $94. . . .
_ _P .. . ..s I N .
_ . . affirm. .
. Page
,.
4%".
I.
I!
it
5
J
a
s-
’ it
‘ fin
£36
:1
b
€
1‘
m2.
. .
.,.......... aaw
(We? 3%.».
. 4e -
FF“
1?“
.;.%
a“ an. I
a #55.
~ we
re?
l.
.. . .. (.1. . !.¢ vff .. . Ar .0?
.JWKW. .MMWWWMWH . I...» d. a) . .. 0.... . .flrf if .1“. . . . Inf .I. . . I... . . . . . 1.. .-. . ...es .ea. ..r ;Ev¢,.w. .... ... .. . ..-.~ .
. _ . as ..¢.w. awmmwnmwwww /
. ~>. .. ms.esmwmmen.
a.» 7W...
. .- . ... . . .. .. l... ... .. .Hwr n. “.4
. . . a .. . . . a... ., ._ . . .. 2..-. . the». 3am. . .. . .. . P. .. .. . . . . .
. . .. .w... w u .. . .. “Magus... A .9»... .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. ... . . .
»,.. nae. .. ..s.... .... ¢.. .... H,AEWeMWEEAwe .L. . ... Eamwww ... . .s , ;. . . a ... s P a ,
., _ . . . . . . . . .. . .. w... .,. .. . A. .. . . . ... .J. 1.801? . ._.. I . . . . . . .- renew... am
.. . .1... . . I .. .f .. . .. . I L . .1193. flaw...
. .... .... .. .. . .. J . . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. y.” 24%
n. . we}...
Zwmmer. .2“
.a
w .;.». .,.:.w.m..s. A . .....n ¢m...,j¢w,ea ...w Hl@u. .wm@..,.~ W... MW -f m. W~...swrm
_.


A
a. . .
I 4’ .4
.. I. a: . . Mi... , a...
a.
n: a? v}