62 



CLASSIFICATION OF FISHES. 



long before established in the volumes of professor 

 Pvafinesque. It would have been well had these un- 

 intentional errors been rectified in the second edition^ 

 or in the general ichthyological work of MM. Cuvier 

 and Valenciennes; but they are not so ; and naturalists 

 will judge how far this is consonant with common jus- 

 tice, or with that law of priority which is the only safe- 

 guard to the reputation we all covet. The generic cha- 

 racters of Rafinesque are as simple and intelligible as those 

 of Linneeus, and the derivation of their names strictlv 

 classical and euphonious. In regard to the majority of 

 tbose species which have been termed '^' imaginary," or 

 inaccurately described, our firm conviction is, that 

 nearly all, eventually, will be as fully established as those 

 of the best known in our systems. We have formed this 

 opinion not from theory, but from actual observation, 

 and from having verified, in many instances, the va- 

 lidity of Rafinesque's characters.* The truth is, that 



* In further justification of the opinions here advanced, it may be proper 

 for me to state that I had the pleasure of I\I. Rafinesque's s"cietT, during 

 the three years of my official residence in Sicily, from. 1807 to iSlO, and 

 again in 1812, when we were both at Palermo, prosecuting our botanical 

 and ichthyological researches together. Circumstances have hitherto pre- 

 vented nie from giving them to the public ; but an extensive series of 

 drawings and descriptions, made from the life, of the Sicilian fishes, not 

 only confirms the accuracy of M. Ratinesque, in many instances where he 

 has been charged with error, but affords strong grounds for believing that 

 one half of the Sicilian species, said to be found also in the Atlantic Ocean, 

 Britain, &c., are, in reality, quite distinct. M. Rafinesque, unfortunately, 

 was unable to pubUsh more than a synopsis of his ichthyological dis- 

 coveries ; and his figures, being very slight, are often not calculated to 

 clear up those doubts which the brevity of his descriptions sometimes 

 creates : nevertheless, to one who examines the species on the spot, in a 

 fresh state, there are few which may not be identified. 31. Cuvier oiten 

 'asserts that all 31. Rafinesque's species were described from preserved 

 specimens; but this is an error — they were all taken from the life. We 

 both used to frequent the fish-niarkets, and we procured all our specimens 

 there, or from fishermen who were in our employ. 1 was frequently 

 urgent witli my friend to preserve, at least, such as were the most reniarkable 

 of his nev genera, anticipating the incredulity that has sincebeen attached 

 to them ; but this advice, uiifortunarely, he never adopted. The greater 

 part of those which 1 examined, after being drawn and described, were 

 thrown away or eaten , a military life not being suited to the formation of 

 such collections : but many of those species met with near Palermo, were 

 preserved in spirits, and sent to the British and Zoological 3Iuseums ; 

 few, however, of these are now in existence. One cause, perhaps, of the 

 errors of M. Cuvier regarding the 3Ied.terranean fishes, may be, that he 

 had only examined preserved specimens, either distorted by stuffing, or 

 bleac3:ed and shrivelled by alcohol, so that it becomes often difficult to 

 recognise the most common species. If I have dwelt too long upon this 

 subject, I hope the benevolent and candid reader will excuse me ; it has 

 origlaated in my desire to do adequate, though tardy, justice to one whose 



