34 ICHTHYOLOGIA OH IE N SIS 



time. The first of these has been mentioned in the 

 cases of the mythical species established " on the 

 authority of Mr. Audubon." The second consists in 

 the complete absence of authentic specimens. None 

 of the types exist. It has remained, therefore, for 

 the student to attempt to correlate the descriptions 

 of Rafinesque with those of later writers, some of 

 whom were in utter ignorance of his work, not to say 

 species, and whose later determinations and descrip- 

 tions are often based upon alcoholic materials. 



The limits within which Rafinesque collected 

 fresh- water fishes in the Ohio valley have been indi- 

 cated above. It should be a comparatively easy 

 matter to collect in the streams which furnished the 

 pioneer ichthyologist his data; but, so far as the 

 writer is informed, a single student only. President 

 David Starr Jordan, has sought thus to correlate the 

 various descriptions, and thus to determine the synon- 

 ymy. It is also very evident that Rafinesque did not 

 regard variations in coloration and minor characters 

 as such, but magnified them into facts having specific 

 values, so far as species go. This treatment is con- 

 sonant with that which he has accorded to numerous 

 plants, and which is in line with his love for genus 

 and species making. In the presence of a rich fauna, 

 and in the absence of a distinctive literature, this 

 may be condoned, though one must always regret 

 that Rafinesque was not far more conservative. 



But that is now a matter of minor consideration. 

 The important facts are, that fishes were collected 

 by Rafinesque and described by him for the first 

 time; moreover, they came from the Ohio and its 

 tributaries ; some of them are recorded as being rare, 

 others are declared to be abundant. What were 



