cS*. ( \

SIDNEY FREDERIC HARMER

1862-1950

Sir Sidney Harmer, who died at Cambridge on 22 October 1950 at the age of eighty-eight, must have been one of the last survivors of the brilliant group of young zoologists who gathered round F. M. Balfour in the renascence of the Cambridge School of Zoology some seventy years ago.

At that time the main trend of biological thought was towards the historical or phylogenetic interpretation of morphology and embryology, an interpretation that has almost ceased to interest the younger biologists of the present day, who, nevertheless, are ready to take many of its conclusions for granted. Those of us who are old enough to remember the thrill with which we heard of Harmer’s demonstration of the chordate affinities of Cephalodiscus, or his almost equally exciting discovery of embryonic fission in Polyzoa, may sometimes wonder whether there is anything left to discover that would awaken as keen an interest in the youngest of our colleagues.

Harmer’s main interest, however, was in taxonomy or systematics, a subject that was no more fashionable among academic zoologists in his day than it is in ours, and one cannot avoid the feeling that much of his work has been under­valued in consequence. His conception of systematics was far removed from the narrow specialism that the word is often held to imply. His knowledge, especially but not exclusively of the Invertebrata, was extraordinarily wide and detailed, and the present writer, as a student of Crustacea, has been many times surprised by, and indebted to, his unexpected familiarity with a group to which he had never devoted special study.

Sidney Frederick Harmer, born on 9 March 1862, was a son of Frederic William Harmer of Norwich and was the second of five children. He came of an old Norfolk family, many of whom took Orders, the most noteworthy being Thomas Harmer (1714-1788), an eminent Nonconformist divine, author of Harmer’s Observations on Scriptures and other works. The family was connected by marriage with the Colmans and other well-known Norfolk families.

F. W. Harmer was a wool merchant and manufacturer in Norwich and was prominent in the public life of his native city, becoming Mayor from 1887-1888. His hobby was the study of geology, to which he made many important contribu­tions. He studied especially the Pliocene and later deposits of East Anglia and was the author of a great monograph on The Pliocene Mollusca of Great Britain published by the Palaeontographical Society. With the late Searles Wood he published a map of the glacial deposits of Norfolk and Suffolk, the first drift map of its kind in the world. His son has recorded that in his case ‘an early taste for natural history was encouraged by his father’.

After attending a day school at Norwich, Sidney Harmer was sent to Amersham Hall, near Reading, from which, at the age of seventeen, he won a mathematical

359

scholarship at University College, London. There he came under the influence of Ray Lankester in zoology and of F. W. Oliver in botany. He graduated B.Sc. in the University of London in 1881, and in the same year he won an Open Scholarship at King’s College, Cambridge. One of the notes he has left on his Cambridge period reads ‘Greatly influenced by Francis Balfour and Professor A. Newton*.

One little incident connected with this period deserves mention in passing. For the greater part of his life he was a keen cyclist, from the early days of the high bicycle till, well advanced in years, he learned to drive a car. One day, when he had been sitting an end-of-term examination at University College in London, he decided to ride home that night to Norwich, no light undertaking on a ‘penny-farthing’ machine, over the roads of the period, and without lights. It was a fine moonlit night and he arrived home for breakfast. On the way he stopped at Cambridge and saw the Chapel of King’s for the first time in the moonlight. The impression it made was so strong that he determined on the spot to continue his studies at Cambridge and to seek admission to King’s College. In this, a few years later, he was successful. His devotion to, and affection for his college and, in particular, its chapel, were lifelong, and, even in old age, he was enthusiastic in showing them to visitors.

Harmer took Part I of the Natural Sciences Tripos in 1883 and Part II in 1884 with first-class honours in both parts. In 1883 he spent some time at the Marine Biological Station at Roscoff, in Brittany, under Professor Lacaze Duthiers, studying the embryology of some of the Polyzoa, and the results of this work were published in a French periodical in 1888. He took his B.A. in 1884 and proceeded to the M.A. in 1887. He received the Sc.D. in 1897. In 1886 he was elected to a fellowship at King’s College and in 1890 he was appointed Assistant Tutor. From 1885 he had been University Lecturer in Advanced Invertebrate Morphology and in 1892 he succeeded J. W. Clarke as Superintendent of the University Museum of Zoology. All these appointments he held until 1908 when he left Cambridge for London on being appointed Keeper of Zoology in the British Museum (Natural History).

The close of Harmer’s Cambridge period marked a change of direction in his scientific work as well as a change in his domestic life. Apart from his teach­ing, much of his attention had been claimed by his work in the University Museum of Zoology, where his scrupulous attention to detail had notable results.

Of his ability as a teacher, one of his pupils, Sir John Graham Kerr, has said, ‘his teaching was admirably designed to give a balanced and judicial summary of existing knowledge of the particular section of the Animal Kingdom with which he was dealing, while at the same time inculcating these ideals to be aimed at in all scientific work—industry, patience and accuracy in observation, clarity and precision in record, and abhorrence of hurried clutching at results ’ (Nature, 25 November 1950, p. 888).

Throughout this period his published papers, apart from a few dealing with invertebrates of special interest such as Dinophilus, and two on fossil vertebrates

360 Obituary Notices

from East Anglian Post-pliocene deposits, were chiefly concerned with the Polyzoa, especially their morphology and classification. Reference has already been made to his discovery of embryonic fission in the Cyclostome Polyzoa, which anticipated by a few years Marchal’s demonstration of the same pheno­menon in parasitic Hymenoptera. Nowadays monozygotic polyembryony is known to occur normally in a few mammals and not very rarely in the human species. In reference to another paper of this period the writer is permitted to quote from a letter received from Dr Anna Hastings, who was formerly in charge of the collection of Polyzoa in the British Museum. Speaking from the point of view of a specialist on the group, she says:

‘I regard his paper on the Morphology of the Cheilostomata (1902) as very important and characteristic. It is a study of the frontal wall, operculum and compensation sac of the Cheilostomata Ascophora. He examines these structures in a number of species and gives his usual lucid, accurate, thorough account of them, illustrated, as always, with beautiful drawings. Then he enumerates succinctly the types of structure he has recognised and comments on the accordance of his conclusions with the palaeonto­logical evidence and on the bearing of his results on the classification of the group and he leaves it there without attempting a reclassification. It is only in recent years that it has been recognized that the features so unassumingly indicated may be of fundamental importance in the reclassi­fication that will have to be made when our knowledge is ripe.’

When the Challenger expedition returned to this country in 1876, the vast collections obtained by it were sent to Edinburgh, there to be sorted out under the supervision of Sir John Murray and distributed to the specialists who were to prepare the reports on them. From time to time the able team of young men whom Murray had got together found themselves at a loss to determine the appropriate place in which to classify some of the specimens that came before them. The most notable of these was the specimen to which the name discus dodecalophus was afterwards given. The specimen was sent in turn to several of the specialists studying various groups of Invertebrata, but was disowned by all of them. Finally, it came into the hands of W. C. 1VI Intosh of St Andrews, who was studying the Polychaeta and who prepared a report upon it giving a detailed and accurate description of its structure, but confessing himself puzzled as to its affinities. He did, however, suggest a relationship with Allman’s Rhabdopleura (a conjecture afterwards confirmed by Fowler), placing the two genera in the Polyzoa as constituting a section to which Allman had given the name Aspidophora. It was no doubt this reference to the Polyzoa that led to the specimen being submitted to Harmer who was already known for his researches on that group. Harmer wrote a brief Appendix (illustrated with four text-figures) to M ‘Intosh’s report in which he demonstrated the agreement in all essentials of Cephalodiscus with Balanoglossus to which much attention had just then been drawn by Bateson’s researches. It was at this time also that great advances were being made (largely at Cambridge) in the technique

Sidney Frederic Harmer 361

of serial section-cutting. This technique was probably not quite appreciated at the time at St Andrews and without it the elucidation of the structure was hardly possible. At any rate Harmer’s modest Appendix to MTntosh’s report seems to have been accepted as conclusive by all subsequent writers on the subject.

Before leaving the Cambridge period, however, something must be said of more personal history. He married, in 1891, Laura Russell Howell, daughter of Arthur Pearce Howell of the Bengal Civil Service. There were four children of the marriage. The elder son, Russell Thomas, born in 1896, after passing through Uppingham and Woolwich with distinction, received a commission in the regular army and was severely wounded in France in 1918. Thereafter he resigned his commission and entered the family business. His death at the age of forty-four was a heavy blow to his already ageing parents. The younger son, Frederic Evelyn, born in 1905, was at King’s College where he took a first class in Economics and in both parts of the Mathematical Tripos (with a star in Part II). He is now engaged in business but served in the Treasury during and after the war and received the C.M.G. in the Birthday Honours list in 1945. Of the two daughters, one died in early childhood. The other, Iris Mary, M.A., M.B., B.S., M.R.C.P., married, in 1929, John H. Gaddum, F.R.S., Professor of Pharmacology at Edinburgh.

Here may be inserted two reminiscences of Harmer’s early days at Cambridge for which the writer is indebted to Mr Henry Bury who was a contemporary in the Zoological Department. He writes:

‘Harmer was the first among the Cambridge zoologists to take to the binocular microscope, the use of which seems now almost universal. William Bateson had gone (? about 1885), as Balfour Scholar, to Siberia, where he had learned to speak, but not to read, Russian. When he returned he was delighted to find that Harmer, knowing nothing of the language to start with, had translated the titles of all the Russian pamphlets in the Balfour Library. This illustrates the trouble Harmer was always ready to take to get things neat and orderly.’

Before he left Cambridge, Harmer, with his friend Sir Arthur Shipley, had nearly completed their editing of the Cambridge Natural , which appearedin ten volumes between 1895 and 1909. This work is too well known to every British zoologist to need comment here. As is often the case with works of this kind, written by a number of authors, the various sections are of very unequal merit, but there will be no dissent from the statement that Harmer’s own contributions on the Polyzoa and the Hemichordata are among the most distinguished.

In 1909 Harmer took up his appointment as Keeper of Zoology in the British Museum (Natural History). The Keepership of Zoology had been combined with the Directorship during the term of office of Sir Ray Lankester, but he was succeeded as Director by Sir Lazarus Fletcher, the Keeper of Mineralogy, and Harmer was appointed to the revived post of Keeper of Zoology.

362 Obituary Notices

It may easily be supposed that he found the atmosphere of his new post very different from that of the one he had just left. In the first place he was required to attend to a vast amount of trivial administrative detail (not that this had been entirely absent in Cambridge) with completely inadequate clerical assistance, or with none at all. In the second place, the junior staff of the department, few of whom had any university training, were mostly narrow specialists, quite satisfied to ignore all the broader aspects of zoology, but yet all too ready to resent any of the higher posts being filled otherwise than by promotion from the lower grades. On the other hand the academic zoologists of London, very few of whom ever entered the Museum building, remained ignorant of its work and even thought that it contained nothing beyond the specimens exhibited in the public galleries. There were thus ample opportunities for the exercise of tact both within the Museum and outside, and no one could ever accuse Harmer of any deficiency in this respect. From the beginning he took an active and self- effacing part in the work of the various relevant scientific societies—the Royal (to which he was elected in 1898, served on Council, 1905-1906, and was Vice-President, 1922-1924), the Linnean, the Zoological, the Ray and the Marine Biological Association among others—as member of Council, Vice- President or President. From the Linnean Society, of which he was President in 1927-1931, he received the Linnean Gold Medal in 1934. He was President of Section D of the British Association at the Dublin meeting in 1908, when his presidential address dealt with the variations of the avicularia in the cheilostome Polyzoa. He suggested that an explanation of these might be possible in terms of Mendelian heredity.

In 1922 he was made an Honorary Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. He was an Honorary or Foreign Member of several foreign Academies and Societies, among others the Norwegian and Swedish Academies of Science, the Boston (U.S.A.) Natural History Society and the Societe zoologique de France. He was created K.B.E. in 1920.

It must have been directly after his arrival at the Museum that Harmer returned to the study of the Cetacea to which he had given some attention at Cambridge. One of his earlier published papers, written along with Mr T. Southwell, in 1893, was ‘Notes on a specimen of Sowerby’s Whale (Mesoplodon bidens), stranded on the Norfolk coast’. This might be regarded as the forerunner

of the great series of ‘Reports on Cetacea stranded on the British Coasts’ which he initiated and carried on for many years after coming to the Museum. When he became Keeper of Zoology, he had under his charge one of the greatest collec­tions of Cetacea, if not the very greatest, in the world. With the cooperation of the Board of Trade it was arranged that the coastguards should report to the Museum all Cetacea, large or small, stranded in their respective districts. Leaflets were prepared giving a summary of the distinguishing characters of the different species to enable the men to determine, at least provisionally, the specimens seen. When the reports were received at the Museum, if any of them seemed to require confirmation or to indicate rare or otherwise interesting species, a request was made for the specimen or part of it (a flipper, a lower

Sidney Frederic Harmer 363

jaw or a plate of baleen) to be sent to the Museum to enable a definite identifica­tion to be placed on record. This scheme, which has now been in operation for about thirty-eight years, has placed our knowledge of the British Cetacea and of their seasonal movements round our coasts on a new footing and has shown that a number of species previously supposed to be rare visitors are more or less regular inhabitants of our seas.

Dr F. C. Fraser, now in charge of the Cetacea in the Museum, allows the following to be quoted from a letter received from him:

‘The list of Harmer’s papers on Whales and Dolphins makes quite an impressive record, and I would not question any of his statements about Cetacea. I do feel, however, that the most valuable contribution he made was in adding very greatly to the number of specimens in the Museum. His initiation of the “Stranded Whales” scheme has brought a continuing flow of material here and enhanced the value of the collection so that it must be, if not the very best, at least one of the best in any museum in the world. Also, his contact with the people in the whaling industry was such that he acquired for the Museum many skeletons of the larger Whales, specimens difficult to obtain and even more difficult to transport when the possibility of getting them presents itself.’

Dr Fraser continues:

‘It is well known that the classification of the Delphinidae is in a most unsatisfactory state, and I have a feeling that one of Harmer’s reasons for returning to work on the Polyzoa in his later years was his failure to find a solution to the dolphin problem. There is evidence in his card-index, now in my charge, of an immense amount of work on the group which never reached the point of publication. Far more specimens than we possess are needed to get a proper idea of specific ranges. . . . It is no shame to Harmer that he failed to achieve more as far as cetacean taxonomy is con­cerned. The foundations laid by him for obtaining the necessary series of specimens should not be overlooked. Of course, Harmer’s Stranded Whales Reports contain a wealth of information about the species that come around our shores, and it is a tribute to him that, since I have been in the Museum, I have had to give information to America, Germany and Holland about the methods we use for getting records and specimens of stranded animals.’

It is not clear when the Colonial Office first asked for help from the Museum in connexion with the whaling industry, if, indeed, they did ask for it. All that seems to be recorded is that in 1913 Harmer prepared a ‘Memorandum relating to whales and whaling’ which was printed as a Colonial Office paper. Seven years later an ‘Interdepartmental Committee on Research and Development in the Dependencies of the Falkland Islands’ published a report which contained an important article, including recommendations for research, by Harmer (who was a member of the Committee) entitled ‘Memorandum on the present position of the southern whaling industry’. Dr N. A. Mackintosh, the present

364 Obituary Notices

Sidney Frederic Hartner 365Director of the ‘Discovery Investigations’, allows the following to be quoted from a personal letter:

‘The Discovery Committee was appointed in 1924 and Harmer was Vice-Chairman from the beginning. He was also Chairman of the Scientific Sub-Committee from the time it was first formed in 1927 after the return of the old Discovery. He resigned for reasons of health in 1942. . . . The Discovery Committee’s work was founded on the whole report [of the Interdepartmental Committee mentioned above], but it was Harmer’s article in particular which gave the initial impetus to the work on whales. It included a valuable summary of what was then known of the breeding and migrations of whales and, among other things, recommended the study of the corpora lutea of the ovaries which eventually led to very important results. This proposal, and perhaps others, was no doubt partly based on some preliminary work by Barrett Hamilton, but it has always seemed to me that the Committee’s work owed much to Harmer’s foresight and his judgement of the most promising lines of investigation. . . . I should say that Harmer’s principal contributions to the Committee’s work were in the early days and although he attended meetings fairly regularly he did not take such an active part in the later years.’

Dr Mackintosh also sends extracts from an unpublished obituary note in which he alludes to Harmer’s

‘valuable contributions to the work of the Discovery Committee, of which he was Vice-Chairman for eighteen years. . . . The methods of research which led to the most successful results were largely based on the original recommendations made by Harmer before the Committee was appointed. His sound advice and the detailed information on whales and the history of whaling which he had assembled at the British Museum were always at the disposal of the Committee’s staff, and his unobtrusive guidance and help in much of the general organization of the Discovery Investigations also contributed substantially to the oceanographical and faunistic work carried out in the Southern Ocean.’

The history and work of the Discovery Investigations have been reviewed by Dr Mackintosh in an address to the Royal Society Soc. A, 202,1-16; B, 137, 137-152) and need not be considered further here, but two branches of research in which Harmer took special interest may be mentioned. The first was the attempt to trace the migrations of whales by marking experi­ments analogous to those used in investigating the movements of fish and of birds. As whales obviously cannot be captured and released after marking, the method employed had to be that of shooting a mark into the body of the whale, trusting to its being found when the whale was finally killed and cut up. A full account of the methods employed and a summary of the results has been given by Professor A. C. Hardy ( Geographic , 96, 345-350). A great deal of experimenting had to be done before a suitable mark was designed.

Professor Hardy, in a letter, gives reminiscences of some of the early days of these experiments:

‘I have recollections of Harmer supervising the first experiments with a large cross-bow that was designed [by C. V. Boys] to fire whale-marks noiselessly so that the whales should not be scared by the sound of a gun; a venture that was finally given up. At one time he had a large oil-cloth model whale behind the Museum and I seem to remember him in morning coat, striped trousers and bowler hat, excitedly watching the first shots, which I believe I fired, with this very barbarous-looking mediaeval weapon.

It was afterwards found that the whales took no notice of the report of a gun, and the cross-bow was discarded.

The other line of research to which Harmer gave a great deal of attention and time was the analysis of the statistics collected by the various whaling companies. This was the subject of his Presidential address to the Linnean Society in 1930 in which he expressed very grave anxiety at the rapidly increasing rate of destruction of the Southern Whales.

In 1919 Sir Lazarus Fletcher retired from the Directorship of the Museum on reaching the age limit and the Principal Trustees appointed Harmer to the vacant post.

As Director, Harmer had, of course, wider opportunity for displaying the qualities which had made him a successful Keeper. It is true that some of us, his juniors, were sometimes inclined to make fun of his precise attention to details. Everything that passed through his hands was carefully recorded and elaborately indexed in his files. The present writer, as one of his successors in the Keepership, would like to record the immense advantage that he found in being able to turn up at once the full details of any business done when Harmer was Keeper.

After he became Director, Harmer must have found even less opportunity for his own research work than he had as Keeper, but it was soon after his promotion that the Discovery Investigations and related matters began, as recorded above, to claim more and more of his time and attention. One minor piece of research that he carried out seems worthy of mention. Every curator of a natural history museum knows by sad experience how the colours of many specimens fade when exposed to light, but there seem to be very few exact details on record. Harmer set himself to obtain some of these details. His experi­ments extended over a period of seven years and were especially designed to discover whether any protection could be got by the use of tinted glasses, particularly those that cut out the violet and ultra-violet rays of the spectrum. Series of identical specimens were prepared, comprising artificial pigments painted on paper and naturally coloured parts of animals—birds’ feathers, mammals’ fur and wings of Lepidoptera—and these were exposed under different protective glasses to various kinds and degrees of illumination ranging from direct sunlight to a forty-candle-power electric lamp. The detailed results must be read in Harmer’s own reports but a few may be mentioned. None of

366 Obituary Notices

the tinted glasses were found to give much protection except those that were too darkly coloured to be used in museum cases. Direct sunlight was, of course, the most damaging, but diffused daylight was very injurious, slightly more so than even very bright electric lamps. As was to be expected there were very great differences in the different natural colours as regards susceptibility to fading. Since Harmer’s time, however, the use of fluorescent lamps seems to have provided an answer to the problem.

In 1927 Harmer, having reached the age limit, retired from the Directorship, but continued to work fairly regularly at the Museum for some time, returning to his work on the Polyzoa and, in particular, to his study of the collections obtained by the Dutch Siboga expedition which had been in his hands for many years. He had reported on the Pterobranchia of this expedition in 1905; the first part of his report on the Polyzoa had been published in 1915, the second in 1926, and the third part now appeared in 1934. The fourth and concluding part was in active preparation at the outbreak of war and the drawings or corrected proofs for 24 out of the 33 plates were in Holland at the time of the German invasion. The probability that these, representing many years of work, would never be recovered, was a cause of acute anxiety to Harmer and, it is to be feared, contributed to the final breakdown. When, after the war, the drawings and plates were discovered, it was too late for him to do anything to them. Fortunately the text of the report, although not ready for printing, was practically all in manuscript and, by Harmer’s express desire, will be edited by his pupil Dr Anna Hastings.

In Harmer’s last years his memory failed and his mind became clouded. To the last, however, it is pleasant to know, he was still able to find interest and occupation in his garden.

The present writer has been allowed to see a number of private letters from former pupils and colleagues testifying to the warm regard and affection which he inspired in them. A distinguished contemporary (Dr G. P. Bidder) writes:

‘He had an overwhelming sense of duty and a complete disregard of the amount of labour which any duty demanded of him. A great kindness made him assume as duty the helping of other people, which he would do un­sparing of the work involved to himself. His immensely wide knowledge and unfailing good nature made “Ask Harmer” the solution of any baffling difficulty.’

Finally, a traditional story, for the literal veracity of which the present writer is unable to vouch. It is related that when the Trustees of the British Museum were considering the appointment of a Director, a very important person who was also a Cambridge man urged his appointment to the vacant post on the ground that ‘Nobody could possibly quarrel with Harmer’.

In addition to the persons whose help has been acknowledged above, the writer of this notice must record his deep obligations to Lady Harmer, who has made available to him a great many facts and dates not included by Sir Sidney in the

Sidney Frederic Harmer 367

‘personal notes’ deposited by him with the Royal Society some years ago; to Mr F. E. Harmer, C.M.G.; to Sir John Sheppard, Provost of King’s College; and to many other former pupils and colleagues of Sir Sidney’s at Cambridge and in the Museum who have kindly supplied reminiscences, not all of which could be utilized.

The list of publications has been compiled by Miss P. L. Cook with assistance from other members of the Museum staff.

W. T. Calm an

368 Obituary Notices

L ist of Publications by S idney F. H armer

1884. Darkness and Eyes. Trans. Norfolk Nor N at. Soc. 3, 604—609.1884. On a method of silver staining of marine objects. M itt. Sta. 5,

445-446.1885. On the structure and development of Loxosoma. Quart. J . Micr. Set. (n.s.), 25,

261-337.1886. On the life-history of Pedicellina. Quart. J . Micr. Sci. (n.s.), 27, 239—263.1887. [Appendix to a Report by W. C. M ‘Intosh on Cephalodiscus .] Chall.

Rep. Zool. 20, 39—47.1888. L’Embryogenie des Bryozoaires Ectoproctes. Arch. Zool. exp. gen. Paris (2),

5, 443-458.1889. On a new species of Dinophilus. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 6, 359—360.1889. Notes on the anatomy of Dinophilus. J. M ar. Biol. Ass. U .K . (n.s.), 1, 119—143.1890. On the origin of the embryos in the ovicells of Cyclostomatous Polyzoa. Proc.

Camb. Phil. Soc. 7, 48.1890. Report on an exhibition of a living specimen of land planarian. Proc. Camb. Phil.

Soc. 7, 83.1891. On the regeneration of lost parts in Polyzoa. Rep. Brit. Ass. no. 60 (Leeds 1890.

Sect. D), pp. 862—863.1891. On the British species of Crisia. Quart. J . Micr. Sci. (n.s.), 32, 127—180.1891. On the nature of the excretory processes in marine Polyzoa. Proc. Camb. Phil.

Soc. 7, 219.1891. On the nature of the excretory processes in marine Polyzoa. Quart. J . Micr. Sci.

(n.s.), 33, 123-167.1892. On the embryology of the Ectoprocta. Stud. Camb. Morphol. Lab. 5, 1—15. [Trans­

lation of the paper in Arch. Zool. exp. gen. , 1888, q.v.]1893—1907. Report by the Superintendent of the Museum of Zoology and Comparative

Anatomy. Rep. Mus. Lect. Rms. Synd. Camb. no. 27 for 1892 to no. 41 for 1906.1893. On the occurrence of embryonic fission in Cyclostomatous Polyzoa. Quart. J.

Micr. Sci. (n.s.), 34, 199-241.1893. (With T . Southwell.) Notes on a specimen of Sowerby’s Whale (

bidens) stranded on the Norfolk coast. Ann. Mag. N at. Hist. (6), 11, 275—284.1895. Preliminary note on embryonic fission in Lichenopora. Proc. Roy. Soc. 57 ,188—192.1896. On the development of Lichenopora verrucaria Fabr. Quart. J . Micr. Sci. (n.s.),

39, 71-144.1896. Polyzoa. In The Cambridge Natural , 2, chapters xvii—xix, pp. 465—533.1897. Note on new or rare British Marine Polyzoa. J . M ar. Biol. Ass. U .K . (n.s.), 5,

51-53. J1897. On the casts of Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 9,

202-203.1897. Notes on Cyclostomatous Polyzoa. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 9, 208—214.

1897. On the notochord of Cephalodiscus. Zool. Lpz. 20, 342—346.1898. On the development of Tubulipora, and on some British and northern species of

this genus. Quart. J . Micr. Sci. (n.s.), 41, 73—157.1898. On some bones of a pelican from the Cambridgeshire fens. Trans. Norfolk Norw.

Nat. Soc. 6, 363—364.1899. On a specimen of Cervus belgrandi Lart. (C. verticornis Dawk.) from the Forest-

Bed of East Anglia. Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 15, 97—108.1899. On the occurrence of the ‘Well-Shrimp’, Niphargus, near Norwich. Trans.

Norfolk Norw. N at. Soc. 6, 489-491.1900. Note on the name Balanoglossus. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 10, 190—191.1900. A revision of the genus Steganoporella. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. (n.s.), 43, 225—297.1901. On the structure and classification of the Cheilostomatous Polyzoa. Proc. Camb.

Phil. Soc. 11, 11-17.1901. Bryozoa in Britain. (Presidential address.) Trans. Norfolk Norw. Nat. Soc. 7,

115-137.1901. On some markings on the skin of a dolphin (Delphinus Trans. Norfolk

Norw. Nat. Soc. 7, 185-187.1902. Obituary of Henri de Lacaze-Duthiers. Proc. Roy. Soc. 75, 146; Yearb. Roy. Soc.

no. 6, pp. 245—250.1902. On the morphology of the Cheilostomata. Quart. J . Micr. Sci. (n.s.), 46, 263—350.1902. Polyzoa. In The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th ed. New volumes, 31, 826—830.1903. On new localities for Cephalodiscus. Zool. Anz. Lpz. 26, 593—594.1904. Hemichordata. In The Cambridge Natural , 7, chapter I, pp. 1-32.1904. Presidential address at the Norwich Conference. Mus. J. Lond. 4, I, pp. 3-22.1905. The Pterobranchia of the Siboga-Expedition, with an account of other species.

Rep. Siboga-Exp. 26 bis, 1—132.1909. Presidential address (Sect. D). Rep. Brit. Ass. no. 78 (Dublin, 1908), pp. 715—731.1910. Obituary of John Willis Clark. Mus. J. Lond. 10, 97—100.1910. Obituary of Thomas William Bridge. Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 82, vii-x.1911. Polyzoa. In The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed. 22, 42—45. 1911. The terms Polyzoa and Bryozoa. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. Sess. 123, pp. 70—71.1913. Memorandum relating to whales and whaling. Colonial Office , 7 November,

pp. 1—8.1913. The Polyzoa of waterworks. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 3, 426—457.1913. (With W. G. Ridewood.) Pterobranchia of the Scottish National Antarctic

Expedition (1902—1904). Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 49, 531—565.1914. Report on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts during 1913. Brit. Mus. (Nat.

Hist.), pp. 1—12, 3 maps.1914. Stranded whales, porpoises and dolphins. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Leaflet no. 135,

pp. 1—4.1914. (With D. G. L illie.) List of collecting stations. British Antarctic (Terra Nova)

Expedition, 1910. Natural History Report. Zoology, 2, 1, pp. 1-12.1915. Cetacea stranded on the British coasts during 1913 and 1914. The Challenger Soc.

1, 13, pp. 9—10.1915. On specimens of Cuvier’s Whale (Ziphius cavirostris) from the Irish coast. Proc.

Zool. Soc. Lond. 4, 559—566.1915. Report on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts during 1914. No. 2. Brit. Mus.

(Nat. Hist.), pp. 1—16.1915. The Polyzoa of the Siboga-Expedition. Part I. Entoprocta, Ctenostomata,

Cyclostomata. Rep. Siboga-Exp. 28a, 1—180.1915. [Appendix to J. D. F. Gilchrist. Observations on the Cape Cephalodiscus (C.

Gilchristi Ridewood) and some of its early stages.] Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (8), 16, 233-246.

1916. Report on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts during 1915. No. 3. Brit. Mus.(Nat. Hist.), pp. 1—12.

Sidney Frederic Harmer 369

1916. On a leech removed from the nasal cavity of a soldier from the Dardanelles.J. R. Nav. Med. Serv. 11, 1, pp. 34—36.

1916. Alcohol and alcoholometers. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Instructions for • no. 13, pp. 1—8.

1916. [Remarks in the discussion on C. E. Rousgelet’s paper, ‘Statoblasts of fresh-waterPolyzoa’.] J. R. Micr. Soc. pp. 143-145.

1917. Report on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts in 1916. No. 4. Brit. Mus. (Nat.Hist.), pp. 1—13.

1917. Skeletons, with special notes on the collection of specimens of Cetacea. Brit.Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London, Instructions for Collectors. No. 1a. Mammals, part 2,pp. 1—8.

1917. On Phoronis ovalis Strethill Wright. Quart, y. Micr. Sci. (n.s.), 62, 115—148.1918. Notes on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts during 1913—1917. Proc. Zool.

Soc. Lond. 1, 147—161.1918. Report on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts during 1917. No. 5. Brit. Mus.

(Nat. Hist.), pp. 1—21.1919. History of whaling in the South and statistical evidence of breeding periods

derived from foetal records. The Challenger Soc. I, 16, pp. 6—7.1919. Report on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts during 1918. No. 6. Brit. Mus.

(Nat. Hist.), pp. 1—24.1920. British whales, dolphins and porpoises. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Leaflet no. 123,

pp. 1—16.1920. Stranded whales, porpoises and dolphins. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Leaflet no. 135,

2nd ed. pp. 1—4.1920. Distinguishing features of the ‘Caa’ing’ whale and of bottle-nosed whales. Brit.

Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Leaflet no. 161, pp. 1—2.1920. Memorandum on the present position of the Southern whaling industry. In

Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Research and Development in the Dependencies of the Falkland Islands. Colonial Office Paper, pp. 69—83.

1921. Report on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts during 1919 and 1920. No. 7.Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), pp. 1—18.

1922. Modern whaling. (Abstract.) Rep.Brit. Ass. no. 89 (Edinburgh 1921. Sec. D),pp. 422—423.

1922. Subantarctic whales and whaling. (Abstract.) Not. Proc. Roy. Inst. 22, 537—541.1922. On Commerson’s dolphin and other species of Cephalorhynchus. Proc. Zool. Soc.

Lond. pp. 627—638.1922. Experiments in the fading of museum specimens. Mus. y . Lond. 21, 205—222.1923. Cervical vertebrae of a gigantic blue whale from Panama. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.

pp. 1085-1089.1923. Scientific investigation of the whaling problem. Nature, Lond. I l l , 540—541.1923. Report on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts during 1921 and 1922. No. 8.

Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), pp. 1—17.1923. On Cellularine and other Polyzoa. y . Linn. Soc. Lond. Zool. 35, 293—361.1923. ‘Extrait d’une lettre de Sir Sidney Harmer.’ In R. P. D ollfus. Bull. Soc. zool.

Fr. 48, 161-163.1923. The loss of colour in objects exposed to the light, y. R. Soc. Arts, 71, 144—149.1924. On Mesoplodon and other beaked whales. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. pp. 541—587.1924. Exhibition of a piece of ambergris from the Straits of Gibraltar. Proc. Zool. Soc.

Lond. p. 921.1924. Vertebra of a blue whale. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. pp. 1175—1176.1924. The food of dolphins. Nature, Lond. 113, 532.1925. Report on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts during 1923 and 1924. No. 9.

Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), pp. 1—24.1925. The blue whale. [Review of G. S. Miller’s paper. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 66, 1.]

Nature, Lond. 115, 283.

370 Obituary Notices

1925. The dinosaur region in Tanganyika Territory. Lond. 115, 638-639.1925. [Note on growth and natural death in Cetacea and Polyzoa—in discussion of a

paper by G. P. Bidder.] Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. Sess. 137, pp. 18-19.1926. A propos des ‘Belugas’. N a t u r e , Parisno. 2736, p. 165.1926. The Polyzoa of the Siboga-Expedition. Part II. Cheilostomata, Anasca. Rep.

Siboga-Exp. 28b, 181—501.1927. Glass figure of a whale from Greece. Brit. Mus. Quart. 1, 105—106.1927. Report on Cetacea stranded on the British coasts from 1913 to 1926. No. 10.

Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), pp. 1—91.1928. The buoyancy of whales. Nature, Lond. 121, 748.1928. Obituary of Sir Arthur Everett Shipley. Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 103, i—viii.1928. The history of whaling. (Presidential address.) Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. Sess. 140,

pp. 51—95.1928. Obituary of Sir Arthur Everett Shipley. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. Sess. 140, pp.

130-137.1929. Polyzoa. In The Encyclopaedia Britannica. 14th ed. 18, 194—197.1930. Polyzoa. (Presidential address.) Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. Sess. 141, pp. 68—118.1931. Southern whaling. (Presidential address.) Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. Sess. 142,

) pp. 85—163.1931. The false killer dolphin. Nature, Lond. 127, 60.1931. Recent work on Polyzoa. (Presidential address.) Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. Sess. 143,

pp. 113—168.1933. Notes on a young sperm-whale from the Bermuda Islands. [Appendix to a paper

by J. F. G. W heeler, pp. 407—409.] Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. pp. 409—410.1933. The genera of Reteporidae. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. pp. 615-627.1934. The use of Cellophane for covering dry microscopical slides. Ann. Mag. N at.

Hist. (10), 14, 319-320.1934. Publication of Nomina nuda. Nature, Lond. 134, 973.1934. The Polyzoa of the Siboga-Expedition. Part III. Cheilostomata, Ascophora. I.

Family Reteporidae. Rep. Siboga-Exp. 28c, 503—640.1947. On the relative merits of the names Bryozoa and Polyzoa as the name for the

Class in the Animal Kingdom now known by one or other of these names. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. Lond. 1, 230—231.

Sidney Frederic Harmer 371

2A