and it's an account, one of a number of different accounts that I've seen, of a naturalist, a student, scientific student of Natural History, coming to this well known professor. Not sure how long ago this was, but it's, it's back in the days of cork stopper bottles. So it was quite a while ago, and this account was written 15 years after the after this person's experience. Not even sure who the writer is, but I'm just going to read it. And he says it was more than 15 years ago that I entered the laboratory of Professor Agassi and told him I had enrolled my name in the scientific school as a student of natural history. He asked me a few questions about my object in coming my antecedents, generally the mode in which I afterwards proposed to use the knowledge I might acquire, and finally, whether I wish to study any special branch. To the latter, I replied that while I wish to be well grounded in all departments of zoology, I proposed to devote myself specially to insects. When do you wish to begin? He asked. Now I replied. This seemed to please Him, and with an energetic very well, he reached from a shelf in a huge jar of specimens in yellow alcohol. Take this fish, he said, and look at it. We call it a Himalayan, by and by I'll ask you what you have seen with that. He left me, but in a moment, returned with explicit instructions as to the care of the object entrusted to me. No man is fit to be a naturalist, said, He who does not know how to take care of specimens, I was to keep the fish before me in a tin tray and occasionally moisten the surface with alcohol from the jar, always taking care to replace the stopper tightly. Those were not the days of ground glass stoppers and elegantly shaped exhibition jars. All the old students will recall the huge necklace glass bottles with their leaky wax, bare corks, half eaten by insects and begrimed with cellar dust. Entomology was a cleaner science than ichthyology, but the example of the professor who had unhesitatingly plunged to the bottom of the jar to produce the fish was infectious, and though this alcohol had a very ancient and fish like smell, I really dared not show any aversion within these sacred precincts and treated the alcohol as though it were pure water. Hopefully didn't drink it. Still I was conscious of a passing feeling of disappointment for gazing at a fish did not commend itself to an ardent entomologist. Entomology, of course, is the study of insects. My friends at home, too, were annoyed when they discovered that no amount of Ota cologne would drown the perfume, which haunted me like a shadow in 10 minutes, I had seen all that could be seen in that fish, and started in search of the professor who had, however, left the museum. And when I returned, after lingering over some of the odd animals stored in the upper compartment, my specimen was dry all over. I dashed the fluid over the fish as if to resuscitate it from a fainting fit, and looked with anxiety for a return of a normal, sloppy appearance. This little excitement over nothing was to be done but to return to a steadfast gaze at my mute companion. Half an hour passed, an hour another hour, the fish began to look loathsome. I turned it over and around, looked at it in the face, ghastly from behind, beneath, above, sideways, at three quarter view, just as ghastly. I was in despair. At an early hour, I concluded that lunch was necessary. So with infinite relief, the fish was carefully replaced in the jar, and for an hour I was free. On my return, I learned that Professor Agassi had been at the museum but had gone and would not return for several hours. My fellow students were too busy to be disturbed by continued conversation. Slowly, I drew forth that hideous fish with a feeling of desperation again, looked at it I might not use a magnifying glass. Instruments of all kind were interdicted. My two hands, my two eyes and the fish seemed to most limited field. I pushed my fingers down its throat to see how sharp its teeth were. I began to count the scales in the different rows, until I was convinced that this was nonsense. At last, a happy thought struck me. I would draw the fish, and now, with surprise, I began to discover new features in the creature. Just then, the professor returned, that is right. He said, a pencil is one of the best eyes. I'm glad to notice too that you keep your specimen wet and your bottle corked with these encouraging words, he added, well, what is it like? He listened attentively to my brief rehearsal of the structure of parts whose names are still unknown to me, the fringed Gill arches and moveable operculum, the pores of the head, fleshly lips and lidless eyes, the lateral line, the spinous fin and forked tail, the compressed and arched body. When I had finished, he waited as if expecting more, and then with an air of disappointment. You have not looked very carefully. Why he continued more earnestly, you haven't seen one of the most conspicuous features of the animal, which is as plainly before your eyes as the fish itself. Look again, look again, and he left me to my misery. I was piqued, I was mortified, still more of that wretched fish. But now I set myself to the TA. Ask with a will and discovered one new thing after another, until I saw how just the professor's criticism had been. The afternoon passed quickly, and when towards its close, the professor inquired, did you see it yet? No, I replied, I'm certain I do not, but I see how little I saw before that is next best. He said earnestly, but I won't hear you now, put away your fish and go home. Perhaps you will be ready with a better answer in the morning. I will examine you before you look at the fish. This was disconcerting. Not only must I think of my fish all night, studying without the object before me what this unknown but most visible feature might be, but also without reviewing my new discoveries, I must give an exact account of them. The next day, I had a bad memory, so I walked home by char the Charles River in a distracted state with my two perplexities. The cordial greeting from the professor the next morning was reassuring. He was a man who seemed to be quite as anxious as I was that I should see for myself what he saw. Do you perhaps mean I asked that the fish has symmetrical sides with paired organs? His thoroughly pleased, of course, of course, repaid the wakeful hours of the previous night, after he had discoursed most happily and enthusiastically as he always did, upon the importance of this point, I ventured to ask what I should do next. Oh, look at your fish, he said. And left me again to my own devices. In a little more than an hour he returned and heard my new catalog, catalog, that is good. That is good, he repeated. But that's not all go on. And so for three long days, he placed that fish before my eyes, forbidding me to look at anything else or to use any artificial aid. Look, look, look, was his repeated injunction. This was the best entomological lesson I ever had, a lesson whose influence was extended to the details of every subsequent study, a legacy the professor has left to me as he left it to many others, of inestimable value, which we could not buy, with which we cannot part. Of