The “Method of Paleontology,” published in 1856, was the first of a long series of papers dealing with fossil creatures, the description of which fell to him as Naturalist to the Geological Survey.  By 1860 he had published twelve such papers, and by 1871 twenty-six more, or thirty-eight in sixteen years.

It was a curious irony of fate that led him into this position.  He writes in his Autobiography that, when Sir Henry de la Beche, the Director-General of the Geological Survey, offered him the post Forbes vacated of Paleontologist and Lecturer on Natural History,]

I refused the former point blank, and accepted the latter only provisionally, telling Sir Henry that I did not care for fossils, and that I should give up Natural History as soon as I could get a physiological post.  But I held the office for thirty-one years, and a large part of my work has been paleontological.

[Yet the diversion was not without great use.  A wide knowledge of paleontology offered a key to many problems that were hotly debated in the years of battle following the publication of the “Origin of Species” in 1859, as well as providing fresh subject-matter for the lectures in which he continued to give the lay world the results of his thought.

On the administrative and official side he laid before himself the organisation of the resources of the Museum of Practical Geology as an educational instrument.  This involved several years’ work in the arrangement of the specimens, so as to illustrate the paleontological lectures, and the writing of “introductions” to each section of the catalogue, which should be a guide to the students.  The “Method of Paleontology” mentioned above served as the prefatory essay to the whole catalogue, and was reprinted in 1869 by the Smithsonian Institute of Washington under the title of “Principles and Methods of Paleontology.”

This work led to his taking a lively interest in the organisation of museums in general, whether private, such as Sir Philip Egerton’s, which he visited in 1856; local, such as Warwick or Chester; or central, such as the British Museum or that at Manchester.

With regard to the British Museum, the question had arisen of removing the Natural History collections from the confined space and dusty surroundings of Great Russell Street.  A first memorial on the subject had been signed, not only by many non-scientific persons, but also by a number of botanists, who wished to see the British Museum Herbarium, etc., combined with the more accessible and more complete collections at Kew.  Owing apparently to official opposition, the Natural History sub-committee of the British Museum Trustees advised a treatment of the Botanical Department which commended itself to none of the leading botanists.  Consequently a number of botanists and zoologists took counsel together and drew up a fresh memorial from the strictly scientific point of view.  Huxley and Hooker took an active part in the agitation.] “It is no use,” [writes the former to his friend,] “putting any faith in the old buffers, hardened as they are in trespasses and sin.” [And again:—­]