98 The Life and Writings of 



Annales, and so this work becomes of historic impor 

 tance to the student of mollusca. Only recently there 

 has been made an attempt to interpret Rafinesque s 

 descriptions and figures from abundant material col 

 lected at the Falls of the Ohio, and the results appear 

 to be commensurable with those reached by the students 

 of the fishes. There are, indeed, the same short and 

 often faulty diagnoses, the same disregard of formal 

 notes that should have been made on the spot, the 

 same crudity in generalization that affords just subject 

 of criticism to the student of fishes. But Rafinesque s 

 conchologic nomenclature appears to be better under 

 stood than does that of his fishes; at least this is true 

 outside of the family of Unionidce. In this connection 

 the remark made by President Jordan, in his report on 

 the Fishes of Ohio,* may be quoted as especially appli 

 cable to the work which Rafinesque did in the mollusca: 



&quot;... I may say that Rafinesque s work as a whole is bad enough, 

 and bad in a peculiarly original and exasperating way, but that 

 it is much better than some of its critics have considered it, and 

 that the trouble it has occasioned in nomenclature is due to a 

 large extent to causes not inherent in the character of the work. 

 A certain amount of conservative odium always attaches to a 

 writer who attempts to form natural genera out of time-honored 

 artificial combinations.&quot; 



* Geological Survey of Ohio, Vol. IV, Zoology and Botany, p. 741, 1882. 



