When I took up duty in the University of Melbourne as professor of physiology in March 1904 I soon discovered that the students had little knowledge of the chemistry which is most serviceable in physiology, pathology and medicine—the chemistry of the carbon compounds or organic chemistry as it is called. This is no reflection on the abilities and energy of Professor Masson, for the field of chemistry is so enormous that no man could possibly be master in or keep in touch with research progress in all its branches. Masson, who had made important contributions to physical chemistry and was a brilliant expositor in this division of chemical science, naturally had placed most emphasis on his favourite subject. Consequently I found it necessary to give instruction, theoretical and practical, in elementary organic chemistry. Before long I discovered that it was impossible to keep up to date in the literature of physiology and supervise any chemical teaching, so I advocated as strongly as I could the appointment of a lecturer in biochemistry in my department. This proposal met with opposition from Professor Masson, who asserted that any chemical teaching and research should be under his direction. This was a perfectly natural attitude and I now realize that I made the mistake of calling the subject biochemistry, for what I wanted was nothing like the biochemistry as it is today; it would have been better had I followed the suggestion of E. H. Starling and labelled it chemical physiology. However, my suggestion was adopted, and Professor Frederick Gowland Hopkins (afterwards knighted and elected President of the Royal Society) was asked to choose a suitable candidate. He nominated one of his pupils, A. C. H. Rothera, who was medically qualified and had undergone some training in chemical technique in Hopkins’ laboratory. Rothera was appointed in 1906 and took charge of most of the teaching in biochemistry in my Department, and this duty he performed admirably. Finding that our students received no special instruction in pharmacology he instituted of his own accord a series of lectures illustrated with animal experiments, and wrote a small textbook on the subject which was well received. He did some useful research as well, and now Rothera’s test for aceto-acetic acid and acetone, about 60 times more sensitive than the test it displaced, will be found in medical textbooks the world over. He investigated the active principle in pituri and declared that it was a near derivative of nicotine if indeed not that alkaloid itself. His method for settling suspended clay particles in water-holes is still being put into use by Australian farmers.

Rothera was a simple-minded researcher and teacher, a good colleague and a thoroughly likeable fellow. He possessed more than a trace of naiveté which had often amusing or even startling results. For instance, he gave a popular lecture illustrated with lantern slides in which he likened the human body to a sausage machine the realism of the pictures of the end-product produced a chilly silence in the audience. Once when live and uninjured wild rabbits were bought by a University department for research purposes and boys with ferrets and nets reaped a bright harvest, Rothera conceived a plan for laying an appetising bait of jam containing enough chloral to send the rabbits to sleep but not to kill. He asked my permission to experiment in my country property at Warrandyte and this I readily gave. So the bait was laid one summer evening and next morning we set out to pick up the rabbits; but though the bait had gone not a rabbit was to be seen. That morning my neighbour, Mrs. Neilson, beheld a curious phenomenon; the sun was high in the sky but her poultry were all sound asleep on their perches. She threw grain and made a clucking noise but to no purpose. The rooster opened one eye and then shut it, and being a greedy bird fell off the perch dead.