* 
” ef 
* 
234 Botanical Writings of Rafinesqu 
: : 7”. * 
+ “= * , 
tance are thrown out, new genera are proposed, and many enera 
_and species reclaimed on the ground of priority in publicatio et 
* 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 Rafi- 
nesque’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 ceteris paribus, but not otherwise. It is also true, that 
many of the scattered papers of Rafinesque were overlooked by 
those who would have been fully disposed to do justice to his la- 
bors, 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. 
One who, like Rafinesque, followed the easy rule of founding new 
genera upon all these species, could not fail to make now and 
then an excellent hit; but as he very seldom knew the plants 
themselves, he was unable to characterize his proposed genera, OF 
to advance our knowledge respecting them in the slightest degree. 
In his later publications, this practice is carried to so absurd an 
extent as entirely to defeat its object. | 
The Journal de Physique for 1819, also contains a memoir ent- 
titled Prodrome des nouveaux genres de plantes observées en 1817 
et 1818, dans Vinterieur des Etats-Unis d’ Amérique, which '8 
probably one of Rafinesque’s most creditable productions. It 
comprises fifty genera, founded mostly, but not entirely, upo? 
plants which he had seen, many of which, however, he had previr 
ously proposed, under the same or different names. The most 
favorable specimens are the following, viz. Nemopanthes, P mi 
Tanisia, Lobadiwm, Blephilia, Agroseris, Stylimnus, Ration 
and Lepachys (taken together, ) Cymopterus, Marathrum, Clin- 
tonia, Styrandra, Peltandra, Diarina, and Neuroloma. early 
half of these are not here proposed for the first time: in some 
cases he had been anticipated ; and in others the names were pre- 
te eit 
Le csiiaait i aomeimmmamridl 
ata 
