374 Ohio Shells. 



graph," published in Philadelphia, October, 1831, the following 



passages. 



" Hardly a dozen species of North American fluviatile bivalve shells had been 

 mentioned by Bosc, Lamark, Say, and Lesueur, before 1820, when I described, in a 

 special and ample monograph, 75 species of them, with 40 varieties, mostly dis- 

 covered by myself, in my travels of 1818 and 1819, and figured 28 of them." 



"Since 1820, several American conchologists have attempted to notice, describe, 

 or figure these shells. Barnes in 1823. Lea, Say, and Eaton, later still. They had 

 a fine field before them, in elucidating them by good figures, and describing the 

 new kinds ; but led astray by various motives, they have neglected to verify, or 



properly notice my previous labours, although they -were kno-wn to tliem. Mr. 



u, above all, inexcusable. I had respectfully noticed, in 1820, his previous labours; 

 but he has never mentioned mine, and knows so little of the animals of these shells, 

 as to have mistaken their mouth for their tail, and their anterior for the posterior 

 part of the shells ! 



" If he had seen these atwnals alive, feeding, movi?i^, andtvatched their habits, 

 at J have done repeatedly, he would not have fallen into such a blunder." 



" This continuation will be a supplement to Mr. Poulson's translation of my 

 monograph of 1820. I mean to give in it my shells, under my own names, in>- 

 posed as soon as found in 1821 and 1822 chiefly ; the undoubted right of a pre- 

 vious discoverer and explorer. If some of them aie already well named and de- 

 scribed, let their names be compared^ and the oldest or best prevail, as those of my 

 old monograph ought in all cases," 



The whole question as to the quantum of injustice done to 

 professor Rafinesque, lies in the compass of a nutshell ; either his 

 discoveries in 1820 preceded those of the conchologists he has 

 alluded to, or they did not ; and they have been describing and 

 naming shells he had previously described and named, or they 

 have not. We must presume his monograph was known to them, 

 as it was notorious, both in Europe and this country ; and a true 

 son of nature never pretends to occupy ground with permanent 

 views, of which the pre-emption rights hav^e not been examined 

 into, and extinguished. Those who act otherwise, are conchologi- 

 cal squatters, and are subject to a declaration of ejectment being 

 filed against them. Into this matter we shall not further enter, 

 as we have reason to believe that one of our correspondents, 

 better fitted to do justice to the subject, is likely to give us his 

 views on it ere long. 



Professor Rafinesque has no reason to reproach Messrs. Short 

 and Eaton with injustice to him, as they have given him full 

 credit ; there is an air of candour and intelligence about their 

 paper, which recommends it highly. They appear to be familiar 

 with the labours of all the American conchologists, and their own 



