for facts and details, and, as Professor Agassiz used to say, "the memory must not be kept too full, or it will spill over."
Thus it came about that the name and work of Rafinesque fell into unmerited neglect. His writings, scattered here and there in small pamphlets, cheap editions published at his own expense, had been sold as paper-rags, or used to kindle fires by those to whom they were sent, and later authors could not find them. His "Ichthyologia Ohioensis," once sold for a dollar, is now quoted at fifty dollars, and the present writer has seen but two copies of it. In the absence of means to form a just opinion of his work, it became the habit to pass him by with a sneer, as the "inspired idiot" "whose fertile imagination has peopled the waters of the Ohio."
Until lately, only Professor Agassiz[1] has said a word in mitigation of the harsh verdict passed on Rafinesque by his fellow-workers and their immediate successors. Agassiz says, very justly: "I 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. . . . Tracing 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 preferred 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 somewhat 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."[2]
In a sketch of "A Neglected Naturalist," Professor 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 should be cherished as long as birds should sing. Wilson is the 'father of American ornithology,' and his mistakes and faults are forgotten in our admiration of his great-achievements. Le Sueur is remembered as the 'first to explore the ichthyology of the great American lakes.' Laboring with these, and greatest of them all in respect to the extent and range of his accomplishments, is one whose name has been nearly forgotten, and who is oftenest mentioned in the field of his best labors with pity or contempt."[3]
It is doubtless true; while, as Professor Agassiz has said, Rafi-
- ↑ 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 now."
- ↑ Agassiz, "American Journal of Science and Arts," 1854, p. 354.
- ↑ "American Naturalist," 1876.
