THE NAUTILUS. 75 



proposed until such time as certain important and probably 

 conclusive facts can be obtained. 



The recent tendency to revive the long buried names of 

 Rafinesque without argument or explanation seems to me to be 

 a rather regrettable one. I am quite willing to ' ' give the devil 

 his due", when it has been made to conclusively appear that it 

 is his due. But to upset the accepted nomenclature of over 

 half a century, based upon recognizable descriptions and figures, 

 without any attempt to explain why it is done is very unfortu- 

 nate and almost an abuse of bibliographic research. It is too 

 much, at this late day, to ask the busy modern student to put 

 aside his own work and to wallow in the Rafinesquean " Slough 

 of Despond " in an attempt to workout for himself the reasons, 

 which have influenced the rehabilitation of his species. While 

 it is probably quite likely that there are some of Rafinesque' s 

 species that can be recognized, (and if they can, they should 

 be), it is certainly not asking too much that those advocating 

 so radical a change should in every instance give in detail the 

 process of reasoning that has brought them to the conclusions 

 that they have adopted. It is only in this way that those, who 

 are willing to give a careful and candid consideration to the 

 question and who are ready to be convinced, if the facts adduced 

 justify the conclusion, can be expected to give any serious atten- 

 tion to the questions involved. There was altogether too much 

 of the " ipse dixit " seventy years ago, when Say and Conrad 

 were disagreeing with themselves and each other in their at- 

 tempts to secure the recognition of Rafinesque's species, to in- 

 cline any one at the present time to reopen the old controversy 

 without having a clear, impartial and impersonal statement of 

 facts and arguments bearing upon each species. 



So far as the viridis of Rafinesque is concerned, I have had 

 occasion to go over the questions involved with some care. 



I have had considerable correspondence with Mr. Frierson on 

 the subject. He has favored me with detailed statements of his 

 reasons for identifying that species with Lea's compressa. I 

 have imposed on him my reasons for questioning his conclu- 

 sions. As neither of us has succeeded in convincing the other, 

 it would seem to be a fair inference that the subject is not entirely 

 free from doubt. 



