166 SCIENCE SKETCHES. 
siz! has said a word in mitigation of the harsh ver- 
dict passed on Rafinesque by his fellow-workers 
and their immediate successors. Agassiz says, 
very justly: — 
“T am satisfied that Rafinesque was a better man than 
he appeared. His misfortune was his prurient desire for 
novelties, and his rashness in publishing them. . . . Trac- 
ing his course as a naturalist during his residence in this 
country, it is plain that he alarmed those with whom he 
had intercourse, by his innovations, and that they pre- 
ferred to lean upon the authority of the great naturalist 
of the age [Cuvier], who, however, knew little of the 
special history of the country, rather than to trust a some- 
what hasty man who was living among them, and who had 
collected a vast amount of information from all parts of 
the States upon a variety of subjects then entirely new to 
science.” ? 
In a sketch of “A Neglected Naturalist,” Pro- 
fessor Herbert E. Copeland has said: — 
“To many of our untiring naturalists, who sixty years 
ago accepted the perils and privations of the far West, to 
collect and describe its animals and plants, we have given 
the only reward they sought, — a grateful remembrance of 
their work. Audubon died full of riches and honor, with 
the knowledge that his memory would be cherished as 
long as birds should sing. Wilson is the ‘ father of Amer- 
ican ornithology,’ and his mistakes and faults are forgotten 
1 So early as 1844, Professor Agassiz wrote to Charles Lucien 
Bonaparte: “I think that there is a justice due to Rafinesque. 
However poor his descriptions, he first recognized the necessity 
of multiplying genera in ichthyology, and this at a time when the 
thing was far more difficult than new.” 
2 Agassiz, American Journal of Science and Arts, 1854, P 354. 
