The âpévalue of his writings in these various branches has been canvassed by several eminent critics in their respective lines.
First in point of time was Prof. Asa Gray, who in the year following Rafinesque's death published in the "American Journal of Science and Arts," Vol. XI, an analysis of his botanical writings. He awards him considerable credit for his earlier investigations, but much less for his later ones. To quote Dr. Gray's words: "A gradual deterioration will be observed in Rafinesque's botanical writings from 1819 to 1830, when the passion for establishing new genera and species appears to have become a complete _monomania_."[246] But modern believers in the doctrine of the evolution of plant forms and the development of botanical species will incline to think that there was a method in this madness, when they read the passage from Rafinesque's writings, about 1836, which Dr. Gray quotes as conclusively proving that, in things botanical, Rafinesque had lost his wits. It is this: "But it is needless to dispute about new genera, species and varieties. Every variety is a deviation, which becomes a species as soon as it is permanent by reproduction. Deviations in essential organs may thus gradually become new genera." This is really an anticipation of Darwinianism in botany.
The next year, in the same journal, appeared a "Notice of the Zoölogical Writings of the late C. S. Rafinesque," by Prof. S. S. Haldeman. It is, on the whole, depreciatory, and convicts Rafinesque of errors of observation as well as of inference; at the same time, not denying his enthusiasm and his occasional quickness to appreciate zoölogical facts.
In 1864 the conchological writings of Rafinesque were collected and published, in Philadelphia, by A. G. Binney and Geo. W. Tryon, Jr., without comments. One of the editors informs me that they have positive merit, although the author was too credulous and too desirous of novelties.
The antiquarian productions of Rafinesque, which interest us most in this connection, were reviewed with caustic severity by Dr. S. F. Haven,[247] especially the "Ancient Annals of Kentucky", which was printed as an introduction to Marshall's History of that State, in 1824. It is, indeed, an absurd production, a reconstruction of alleged history on the flimsiest foundations; but, alas! not a whit more absurd than the laborious card houses of many a subsequent antiquary of renown.
