234 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 



tance are thrown out, new genera are proposed, and many genera 

 and species reclaimed on the ground of priority in pubUcation. 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 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 CandoUe ;) the older name being 

 preferred ceteris parihvs, 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, 

 dec, 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, or 

 to advance our knowledge respecting them in the slightest degree. 

 In hi^ 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 en- 

 titled Prodrome des nouveaux genres de plantes observees en 1817 

 et 1818, da7is Vinterieur des Etats-Unis d' Amerique, which is 

 probably one of Rafinesque's most creditable productions. It 

 comprises fifty genera, founded mostly, but not entirely, upon 

 plants which he had seen, many of which, however, he had previ- 

 ously proposed, under the same or different names. The most 

 favorable specimens are the following, viz. Nemopanthes, Po- 

 lanisia, Lobadiuni, Blephilia, Agroseris, Stylimnus, Ratihida 

 and Lepachys (taken together,) Cytnopterus, Marathrum, Clin- 

 tonia, Styrandra, Peltandra, Diarina, and Neuroloma. Nearly 

 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- 



