28 ICHTHYOLOGIA OHIENSIS 



less well done than that of Risso who immediately 

 preceded him. Risso better characterized his new 

 forms; Raflnesque, on the other hand, had already 

 lapsed into those careless methods of description 

 which have caused succeeding naturalists so much 

 trouble, and have led to so great a confusion in estab- 

 lishing certain facts in nomenclature. Nevertheless, 

 Rafinesque had already discovered the inadequacy of 

 the Cuverian system, and had boldly made the on- 

 slaught on the ranks of the artificial genera. What- 

 ever else may be finally decided concerning the work 

 of Rafinesque on the fishes of the Mediterranean, it 

 will always be allowed that he shares equally with 

 Lacepede, whose classic Histoire naturelle des Poissons 

 was not unknown to him, the distinction of breaking 

 up the old-time heterogeneous assemblages of the 

 Cuverian system and of thus determining the forma- 

 tion of generic subdivisions. Indeed, it is quite 

 probable that Rafinesque saw this necessity before 

 any other writer, since the subdivisions of Lacepede 

 are not, properly speaking, genera. Rafinesque seg- 

 regated the groups, suggested their terminology, 

 named the type, and in a very definite sense became 

 the father of the new regime. 



The Caratteri was followed by several other papers, 

 noted in the bibliography at the close of this volume, 

 all of which related, so far as they concerned ichthyo- 

 logic matters, to the fauna of the Mediterranean. 

 The institution of additional genera, and the descrip- 

 tion of new species, occupy most of these papers. 

 But, in all this work, there are certain facts which 

 the student must ever carry in mind in seeking to 

 unravel the maze of the Mediterranean fishes. It 

 should always be remembered that Rafinesque de- 



