Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. 99 



I do not think that Rafinesque has always received 

 fair treatment at the hands of American conchologists. 

 He has been traduced, and in one instance, at least, a 

 concerted attempt has been made to ignore his work 

 and to reflect on his scientific reputation.* From these 

 facts it has resulted that others have been influenced 

 in forming their opinions of his work, not having the 

 opportunity, assuming that they had the inclination, to 



*My library contains a small pamphlet, with the following title: &quot;Cata 

 logue | of the | Unios \ Alasmodontas, and Anodontas \ of the \ Ohio River and 

 its Northern J&quot;ributaries, \ adopted by the \ Western Academy of Natural Sci 

 ences, \ of Cincinnati, January, 1849. | Cincinnati; \ Printed by J. A. & U. P. 



James, \ | &quot;. This small catalogue of nineteen pages recognizes sixty-seven 



species of these three subgenera. Of these species three of Unio are cred 

 ited to Rafinesque; a large number of the other names which he gave to 

 forms are listed under the synonymy of various species described by other 

 writers, notably Say, Hildreth, Barnes, and Lea. This pamphlet had its origin 

 in a determined attempt to recognize none of Rafinesque s species. A very 

 interesting fact connected with its design lies in the mention of a similar 

 matter by Dr. Lea, who says (Synopsis of the Family Unionidcz, 1870, p. xxx,) 

 that the Ohio naturalists, Hildreth, Kirtland, Ward, Buchanan, and Clark, also 

 made out a list in which they gave one species only to Rafinesque out of a 

 total of one hundred and nineteen! It is a fact of great moment to note 

 that possibly these gentlemen, who were interested as descriptive naturalists 

 in this same group, may have rendered not a fair judgment. It is also 

 important to note that Rafinesque s descriptions appear to have been drawn 

 so accurately that these gentlemen could recognize them, and place them as 

 synonyms under names which they and their friends had attempted to es 

 tablish. It will always be considered by future students that this treatment 

 of Rafinesque was unfair, unjustifiable, contrary to the true spirit of science, 

 and inimicable to the best interests of knowledge. The final classification 

 of the Unionidcz has yet to be made. 



