INTRODUCTION. 43 



were based. The leadmg fault of his character as a 

 naturahst was, a behef in the specific difference of all 

 natural objects which present any variations among them- 

 selves, even of the most unimportant characters ; and a 

 passion for combining mto new groups, according to real 

 and ob\'ious affinities, when such existed, or to fancied or 

 trifling ones in their absence, all the objects which came 

 witlun his observation. His gi-oups consequently were 

 of very mieqvial value ; and Avhile some of them were 

 combined according to their natural and fixed relations, 

 others were brought together by resemblances perceived 

 only by himself. He possessed, however, a peculiar 

 facility m the formation of the language of nomenclatm'e, 

 and liis generic and specific terms might, with advantage 

 to science, be imitated by some of the naturalists of the 

 present day. The adoption in one of his works of this 

 motto, 



" De Linne le genie il a choisi pour guitle," 



shows that he imitated the brief and comprehensive style 

 of Linnajus ; but in his hands it often became obscure, 

 and rendered it difficult to recognise the subjects of his 

 descriptions. 



M. Rafinesque appears to have been well received in 

 the United States. His claims to a standing as a natu- 

 ralist were at once admitted, and he immediately com- 

 menced taking an active part among the few who were 

 investigating its natural history. His name fre(piently 

 appears in the record of the early proceedings of the 

 Lyceum of Natural History in New York, and many 



