io8 The Life and Writings of 



rejoinders were not always of a courteous nature. On 

 this matter Doctor Gray, reviewing Rafinesque s botani 

 cal writings, in 1841, wrote as follows: 



&quot; It is indeed a subject of regret, that the courtesy which prevails 

 among the botanists of the present day, (who are careful to adopt 

 the names proposed by those who even suggest a new genus,) 

 was not more usual with us some twenty years ago. Many of 

 Rafinesque s names should have been adopted; some as matter of 

 courtesy, and others in accordance with strict rule. But it must 

 be remembered, that the rule of priority in publication was not 

 then universally recognized among botanists, at least as in present 

 practice, (the prevalence of which is chiefly to be ascribed to the 

 influence of De Candolle;) the older name being preferred coeteris 

 paribus, but not otherwise. It is also true, that many scattered 

 papers of Rafinesque were overlooked by those who would have 

 been fully disposed to do justice to his labors, had they been 

 acquainted with them; and a large portion of the genera proposed 

 in his reviews of Pursh, Nuttall, Bigelow, &c., were founded on 

 their characters of plants which were doubtfully referred to the 

 genera in which they were placed, or were stated to disagree in 

 some particular from the other species.&quot;* 



There is opportunity for some careful botanical stu 

 dent permanently to place the Rafinesquian genera into 

 their true relation to the work of others. Whether the 

 results will be largely valuable does not matter ; it has 

 now become a simple question of priority and of justice. 

 The work of a man who has been grossly neglected will 



* American Journal Science, Vol. XL,, p. 234, 1841. 



