THE FAMILY OF UISTIONID^^. XXIX 



sideration:" vol. i. p. 36: "that they are considered to be destitute of authority, and 

 entirely unworthy of notice." p. 48. 



Prof. Asa Gray considered Mr. R. as entirely unworthy of authority, stating that 

 "half his genera and species do not exist at present," and that he described in 

 "]S^atural History style twelve new species of tluinder and lightning." — Am. Jl. Set., 

 1841. 



Deshayes, Traite JElementaire, vol. ii. p. 198, says that Mr. R. has fallen into a 

 deplorable excess, inspiring no confidence, giving descriptions of that which he did 

 not knoAV. 



The following note is from one of the very best of authorities among recent 

 writers : — 



" It is mucli to be regretted that some modern naturalists have tried to And out and bring into use 

 the obscure genera of Risso and the worthless fabrications of Montfort and Rafinesque, which had better 

 have remained unknown." — Woodward's Budimentary Treatise^ p. 136. 



Did any naturalist ever believe in Mr. R.'s Tremesia patteldides, a trivalve shell 

 of the Ohio river ? (Monographic, p. 54, pi. 82, f. 22 and 24, in An. Gen. des 8ci. 

 Pliys. a Bruxelles, 1820) the three valves of which, with the soft parts, he describes 

 and figures in three views without pretending to have seen it, as he stated in the 

 Am. Monthly Mag. ; and that he described it from the information of Mr. Audubon, 

 who, it is believed, practised some joke upon him at Louisville, as appears in Mr. 

 Audubon's Memoirs. 



In regard to the Catalogue published last year by Baron Ferussac, in which he 

 gives precedence to many of Mr. Rafinesque's names, it must be remembered that this 

 has been done on the authority of others, and not from his inspection of the specimens 

 themselves. Had he known the manner in which these claims had been brought for- 

 ward, he certainly would have admitted them with doubt, if he admitted them at all. 



The observation of Prof. Agassiz in ArcJiiv far Naturgescliiclite, 1852, that "if 

 the American ISTaturalists had followed Rafinesque's track, instead of despising him 

 we should have gained a good while ago a treasure of important additions to the 

 anatomy of this family," will surprise most students of American .Natural History. 

 I am not aware that a single cotemporary writer considered him worthy of authority 

 or reliance of any kind. I so far disagree from Prof. Agassiz that I believe with 

 some of our most distinguished naturalists that if Mr. Rafinesque had never written 

 a word on the subject of American Malacology and other branches of Natural History, 

 we should have been more advanced than we are now; for even Prof. Agassiz himself 

 has been troubled to exhume Mr. Rafinesque's genera, as he states in this paper that 



