communications. It was easier and statistically safer to limit the
inquiry to those Fellows who were living when the circulars were
issued--that is, to those whose names and addresses appear in the
"Royal Society's Year Book" of 1904. Some of them have since died,
full of honours, having done their duty to their generation; others
have since been elected; so the restriction given here to the term
"Modern Science" must be kept in mind.

Another and a strong motive for selecting the F.R.S. as subjects of
inquiry was that so long ago as 1863-1864 I had investigated the
antecedents of 180 of those who were then living, who were further
distinguished by one or other of certain specified and recognised
honours. My conclusions were briefly described in a Friday evening
lecture, February 27, 1864, before the Royal Institution. These,
together with the data on which they were founded, were published in
the same year in my book "English Men of Science." Readers who desire
fuller information as to the antecedents conducive to success that
are too briefly described further on should refer to the above book.

The epithet "noteworthy" is applied to achievements in all branches
of effort that rank among the members of any profession or calling as
equal, at least, to that which an F.R.S. holds among scientific men.
This affords a convenient and sufficiently definite standard of
merit. I could think of none more appropriate when addressing
scientific men, and it seems to have been generally understood in
the desired sense. It includes more than a half of those whose names
appear in the modern editions of "Who's Who," which are become less
discriminate than the earlier ones. "Noteworthiness" is ascribed,
without exception, to all whose names appear in the "Dictionary of
National Biography," but all of these were dead before the date of