PEEFACE. 



The purpose of this paper is to present a series of identifications of the 

 species of fresh- water fishes described by Rafinesque in his " Ichthyologia 

 Ohiensis" and elsewhere, made as a result of nearly three years of " field- 

 work" in the region fished in by Rafinesque. In most cases, fresh speci- 

 mens have been carefully compared with Kafinesque's accounts, and in 

 the more difficult groups, as the Cyprinidcc, Catostomidce, and Gentrarchidcv, 

 I have taken a full series of the species known to occur in this region 

 and compared Rafinesque's description with each specimen in turn, until 

 one was reached which showed no serious discrepancy. 



It is evident that many of Rafinesque's descriptions were drawn up 

 from memory, and that his measurements were made by the eye, with- 

 out the restraint of a tape-line. He indeed somewhere states that his 

 collections were made in the summer and accounts written up for pub- 

 lication during the winter. As a result of this, the descriptions are 

 often inexact, although usually striking. The numerous misprints in 

 his work are also, in some cases, a source of confusion. 



By making due allowance for these facts, and keeping in mind the 

 proposition, unjustly controverted by some writers, that Rafinesque 

 was not altogether a knave nor a fool, I have succeeded in identifying 

 more or less satisfactorily, nearly all of his species, and in restoring to 

 a number of his names their rightful priority. 



The species still remaining unidentified are of two sorts : First, species 

 really existing but not distinctively described, as Luxilus interruptus, 

 Rutilus co)npressus, etc., in which no really tangible characters are 

 given ; and, second, those like Aplocentnis calliops and Pogostoma leucops^ 

 described at second hand from " drawings by Mr. Audubon", presenting, 

 a grouping of characters applicable to no known fish. 



It is not my purpose here to enter into any discussion of the merits of 

 Rafinesque's work. That the Ichthyologia has been, and still is, a stum- 

 bling-block, is generally admitted. This is partly owing to errors of 

 observation on the part of the author, partly to the admixture of state- 

 ments derived from memory, imagination, or hearsay with statements 

 of fact, and, finally, in no slight degree to the fact that Rafinesque's 



5 



