Date Due | Cornell University Library — TT AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, &c. e ¥ i Aa EEG: IE 2 fraps Art. L—WNotice of the Botanical Writings of the late C. 8. _ Rafinesque. Constantine S. Rarivesque-Scumatrz, a Sicilian by birth, first arrived in this country in the year 1802, where he remained for three years ; and returning from his native land in 1815, con- tinued to reside in the United States until his decease in Septem- ber last, (1840.) ‘The name of this eccentric, but certainly gifted person, has been connected with the natural history of this country for the last thirty-five years; yet, from the manner of their publi- cation, many of his scattered writings are little known to men of science. It is chiefly as a naturalist that Rafinesque is known, although his attention has by no means been restricted to Natu- ral History ; since works on Antiquities, Civil History, Philology, Political Economy, Philosophy, and even a poem of nearly six thousand lines, have proceeded from his pen. Botany, however, was his favorite pursuit, and the subject of a large portion of his writings; and to these we purpose to confine ourselves in the present article. Our task, although necessary, as it appears to us, is not altogether pleasing ; for while we would do full justice to an author, who, in his early days, was in some respects greatly in advance of the other writers on the botany of this country, and whose labors have been disregarded or undervalued on ac- count of his peculiarities, we are obliged, at the same time, to protest against all of his later and one of his earlier botanical works. A few years ago, Mr. Rafinesque published his autobiography, entitled, A Life of Travels and Researches, (Philadelphia, 1836 ;) Vol. xx, No. 2,—Jan.-March, 1841. 29 § 222 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. a characteristic and interesting pamphlet, which is not at present in our possession. An abridged account of his travels and re- searches in this country, is also given in the introduction to his New Flora of North America, which we extract with slight con- densation. “T came to North America in 1802, and travelled chiefly on foot until 1804, over New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, from the Juniata to the sea shore, and from the Alleghany Mountains be- yond Easton to the Potomac beyond Washington and Alexandria. In 1805 I left America a where I remained till 1815. On my re- turn to this country in tI®@t year, I was shipwrecked on the shores of Con- necticut, and lost all my former herbals and collections, both American and European. I had to begin again my researches and collections, which I pursued ever since with renewed zeal, and always at my own sole expense. I spent 1815 and 1816 in the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania chiefly. In 1816 I went to explore as far as Lake Champlain, Vermont, and the Saranac Mountains near the sources of the Hudson River. In 1817 I went to the Matteawan or Catskill Mountains, and explored Long Island, where I dwelt awhile. But my great travels in the West began in 1818; I made a tour of 2000 miles, as far as the Wabash River, crossing twice the Alleghany Mountains on foot, and exploring Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, &c. Having been appointed Professor of Natural Sciences in the University of Lex- ington, in Kentucky, I went there in 1819, crossing a third time the Al- leghany Mountains, through the Cumberland road of Maryland, still on foot, as I never would cross these beautiful mountains in any other way, in order to botanize all the while, and I was rewarded by many new plants. I spent seven years in Kentucky, exploring that State thorough- ly, and making excursions to Ohio, &c.: my longest journeys were in 1823, when I went west as far as the rivers Cumberland and Tennessee near their mouths, and next east to the falls of the Cumberland River, and the Wasioto or Cumberland Mountains. In 1825 I undertook a long journey through Ohio and Virginia, crossing the Alleghany Mountuains of Virginia, and returning by the Alleghanies of Pennsylvania, always on foot. Next year, 1826, I left Kentucky and settled in Philadelphia; but took a very long botanical journey in the way, going through Ohio to San- dusky on Lake Erie; thence to Buffalo, Niagara, Canada, the New York Canal, &c.” His excursions from 1827 to 1830, were confined to Pennsyl- vania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, &c. “Several botanical excursions and journeys were undertaken in 1831, in Delaware, New Jersey, and the Taconick Mountains. While in 1832 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 223 I visited Maryland twice; the second time I explored the Cotocton Moun- tains of Maryland, and the Alleghany Mountains as far as Sherman Val- ley and the Juniata, quite at leisure, residing sometimes at the top of the mountains. In the year 1833 I proposed to visit the Apalachian Moun- tains as far as Alabama, but was prevented by an accident and heavy rains. I only went as far as those of Virginia, and again in the Cotoc- ton Mountains. In a second journey I undertook to visit the sources of the Delaware and Susquehannah. The year 1834 saw me twice in the Alleghany Mountains of the North, once by following the course of the Delaware, the second time westward by the Welsh Mountains, Cone- wago Mountains, Albany Mountains, Locust Mountains, to the Pottsville mines and sources of the Schuylkill River, returning by Mauchchunk and Allentown. My travels of 1835 were in the central Alleghanies, up the rivers Juniata and Susquehannah, exploring the mountains of Peters, Buffalo, Wisconisco, Mahantango, Tuscarora, Jack, Seven-mountains, &c., with their valleys. Since then I have chiefly explored South New Jersey and the pine barrens.” He draws a lively picture of the discomforts, as well as the enjoyments of a travelling naturalist. “During so many years of active and arduous explorations, I have met of course all kinds of adventures, fares and treatment. I have been wel- comed under the hospitable roof of friends of knowledge and enterprise, else laughed at as a mad botanist by scornful ignorance. Such a life of travels and exertions has its pleasures and its pains, its sudden delights and deep joys mixed with dangers, trials, difficulties and troubles. No one could better paint them than myself, who has experienced them all. Let the practical botanist, who wishes like myself to be a pioneer of sci- ence, and to increase the knowledge of plants, be fully prepared to meet dangers of all sorts in the wild groves and mountains of America. The mere fatigue of a pedestrian journey is nothing compared to the gloom of solitary forests, when not a human being is met for many miles, and if met he may be mistrusted; when the food and collections must be car- ried in your pocket or knapsack from day to day; when the fare is not only scanty but sometimes worse; when you must live on corn bread and salt pork, be burned and steamed by a hot sun at noon, or drenched by rain, even with an umbrella in hand, as I always had. Musquitoes and flies will often annoy you or suck your blood if you stop or leave a hur- ried step. Gnats dance before the eyes, and often fall in unless you shut them; insects creep on you and into your ears. Ants crawl on you whenever you rest on the ground; wasps will assail you like furies if you touch their nests. But ticks, the worst of all, are unavoidable whenever you go among bushes, and stick to you in crowds, filling your skin with pimples and sores. Spiders, gallineps, horse-flies, and other obnoxious 224 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. insects, will often beset you, or sorely hurt you. Hateful snakes are met, and if poisonous are very dangerous; some do not warn you off like the Rattle-snakes. You meet rough or muddy roads to vex you, and blind paths to perplex you, rocks, mountains and steep ascents. You may of- ten lose your way, and must always have a compass with you as I had. You may be lamed in climbing rocks for plants, or break your limbs by a fall. You must cross and wade through brooks, creeks, rivers and swamps. In deep fords or_in swift streams you may lose your footing and be drown- ed. You may be overtaken by a storm; the trees fall around you, the thunder roars and strikes before you. The winds may annoy you; the fire of heaven or of men sets fire to the grass or forest, and you may be surrounded by it unless you fly for your life.”* Now for the other side of the picture. “The pleasures of a botanical exploration fully compensate for these miseries and dangers; else no one would be a travelling botanist, nor spend his time and money in vain. Many fair days and fair roads are met with, a clear sky or a bracing breeze inspires delight and ease, you breathe the pure air of the country, every rill and brook offers a draught of limpid fluid. What delight to meet with a spring, after a thirsty walk, or a bowl of cool milk out of the dairy! What sound sleep at night af ter along day’s walk; what soothing naps at noon under a shaded tree near a purling brook. Every step taken into the fields, groves and hills, appears to afford new enjoyments. Landscapes and plants jointly meet in your sight. Here is an old acquaintance seen again; there a novelty, a rare plant, perhaps a new one, greets your view; you hasten to pluck it, examine it, admire, and put it in your book. Then you walk on think- ing what it might be, or may be made by you hereafter. You feel an exultation, you are a conqueror, you have made a conquest over Nature, you are going to add a new object or a page to science. To these bo- tanical pleasures may be added the anticipation of the future names, pla- ces, uses, history, &c. of the plants you discover. For the winter, or season of rest, are reserved the sedentary pleasures of comparing, study- ing, naming, describing, and publishing.”’t The following list comprises, we believe, all the botanical wri- tings of Mr. Rafinesque which appeared previous to his return to this country in 1815. Those which relate to American botany have reference to his discoveries between 1802 and 1805. J. Prospectus of Mr. Rafinesque Schmaltz’s two intended works on North American Botany; the first on the new genera and species of plants discovered by himself; and the second on * New Flora of North America, Part I, Introduction, p. 11, et seq. t New Flora, l.v., Part I, p. 14. Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 225 the natural history of the Funguses or Mushroom tribe of Amer- ica.—Published in the Medical Repository, New York, (edited by Dr. Mitchill,) 2d hexade, vol. 2, 1808. 2. Essential generic and specific characters of some new ge- nuses and species of plants observed in the United States of America, in L803 and 1804. In a communication to Dr. Mitch- ill, dated Palermo, Sept. 1st, 1807.—Published in the same work and volume. 3. Notice on the medical properties of some North American plants.—Published in the same work and volume, p. 423. 4. Enumeration of the species of Callitriche, and the Ameri- can species of Potamogeton.—Published in the same work, A. D. 1811. 5. An essay on the Exotic Plants which have been naturali- zed and now grow spontaneously in the middle region of the United States.—Published in the work and volume last cited. 6. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di animali e piante della Sicilia, &c. Palermo, 1810. 8vo., 20 plates. 7. Précis de decouvertes et travaux somiologiques de Mr. C. 8. Rafinesque-Schmaltz, entre 1800 and 1814, &c. Palermo, 1814. —A small pamphlet, 24mo. pp. 55. 8. Principes Fondamentaux de Somiologie, ou les loix de la nomenclature et de la classification des corps organisés. Paler- mo, 1814.—An 8vo. pamphlet of 50 pages. 9. Chloris Etnensis, 0 le quattro Florule del M. Etna. In the Natural History of Mt. Etna by Recupero. Catania, 1814. 10. Specchio delli Scienze Enciclopedico di Sicilia. Palermo, 1814.—A periodical, of which two volumes were published. The following botanical articles are stated to be published in the work, (which we have not seen,) viz :—Plan of the natural meth- od of Somiology; Description of 20 new genera of plants; of 15 new species of Sicilian plants; of a new genus of Conferva ; three new genera of marine plants; and a new genus of Fungi. We do not include the following tracts, which Rafinesque has enumerated among his works, since they have never been pub- lished, viz :—Florula Delawarica, a Catalogue of plants found in Delaware; and Florula Columbica, or a Catalogue of plants found in the District of Columbia; both sent in 1804 to the Medical and Physical Journal, edited by Prof. Barton. A Mo- nography of the genus Beréolonia, sent to the Linnean Society 226 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. of London in 1810; and Monography of the genus Callitriche, increased to sixteen species, sent in 1812 to the Linnean Society. The two first named articles comprise nearly all that Rafinesque published on North American botany previous to 1815, and cou- sequently auterior to Pursh; and justice to the author perhaps requires that they should be noticed somewhat in detail. He states that his first proposed work, to be entitled Nova Genera et Species Plantarum Boreali-Americanum, will comprise, in addi- tion to all the new genera and species discovered since the time of Linneus, the ten new genera which are indicated in the annexed essay, [No. 2,] and fourteen more which he mentions as follows. [The remarks in brackets are of course our own.] “« Geanthia (colchicoides,) differs from Colchicum merely in the number of the stamens, which are only three in Pennsylvania.” [There is little risk in asserting that no such plant exists in the United States. The name again occurs in the list of twenty new genera published in the Specchio delle Scienze, &c., which we have not seen. ] “* Micrampelis (echinata,) differs from Momordica in the fruit, which is inflated, muricated, 2-3 locular, 2-3 spermous; in Penn- sylvania.” [We have in vain searched the subsequent works of Rafinesque for any farther notice of this genus. Perhaps the Evchinocystis, Torr. & Gr. was intended, but the fruit of that plant bas four seeds, two in each cell. ] “ Phemeranthus (teretifolius) is very similar to Talinum, and is known by some botanists under the name of Talinum teretifo- lium. Penn. and Carol.” “« Merasperma (dichotoma, bifurcata, cylindral., &c.) belongs to the tribe of Conferva, is tubular, inarticulated, with the seeds ad- hering to the interior of the tubes. Pennsylvania, &c.” [He elsewhere calls this genus Mesasperma. | “ Heterodon (bryotdes,) small moss with peristome eight denta- ted, dentatures unequal. It grows in the waters of New Jersey.” “ Leptuberia (amorpha,) small crustaceous lichen. Penn.” “ Heptaria (erecta, cuneata, §c.,) very like to the Tremella.” “ Catenaria (arenaria, vagabunda, concatenata, &c.,) interme- diary between some Conferve and Fuci. On the sea shores.” “ Atheropogon (apludoides, ) genus of gramens, near akin to the Apludo. 1 found it in Pennsylvania; the name is of Willdenow in MSS.” Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 227 “ Leptopyrum (tenellum,) it belongs to the tribe of gramens, and is akin to the Avena. Found in Virginia.” [We have met with no subsequent notice of this genus. ] “ Florkea (palustris,) was discovered by Messrs. Marshall and Muhlenberg, in Pennsylvania, and named by Willdenow. Hex- andria, Digynia: natural order doubtful.” “ Forrestia (thyroides,) near akin to Ceanothus, but tri-gynous; was found by Mr. Forrest in the northern part of the State of New York.” [From a brief communication in an earlier volume of the Medical Repository, the third of the same series, 1806, p- 422, which escaped our notice in making the above cited enu- meration, the locality of this plant, (Ballston Spring,) and a good description are given, which leaves no doubt that this new genus, the earliest of the long series published by this author, is founded upon Ceanothus Americanus. | “‘ Hexorima (dichotoma,) is very near to Uvularia and Strep- topus ; was found by Mr. Marshall, in the Alleghany Mountains of Pennsylvania.” ['The close alliance of this genus to Strepto- pus may be inferred from the subsequent reference of S. roseus to the same genus. Vid. Journal de Physique, 1819, 8. p. 262.] “ Gaissenia (verna,) akin to Trollius ; was communicated to me by Drs. Muhlenberg and Gaissenheimer, who named it 7". Americanus. It is found in Pennsylvania.” Then follows a list of genera, which he proposes to establish upon known species. This we introduce entire, on account of the evidence it affords of Mr. Rafinesque’s sagacity at that early period. Several of these proposed genera had indeed been long established, two of them even by Linneus himself; but we have no reason to suppose that Rafinesque was aware of their publica- tion. “ Adlumia (cirrhosa,) which is the Fumaria fungosa, Azz. Cucularia (bulbosa,) is Fumaria Cucullaria, Linn. Calistachya (alba,) is the Veronica Virginica, Linn. Diarina (festucoides,) from the Festuca diandra, Miche. Kampmania (fraxinifolia,) Zanthoxylum tricarpum, Michz. Negundium (fraxinifolium,) Acer Negundo, Linn. Jacksonia (trifoliata,) Cleome dodecandra, Linn. Cuttera [misprint for Cudlera,] (saponaria and ochroleuca, ) Gen- tiana, Willd. 228 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. Denckea (crinita,) Gentiana crinita, Weld. Persea (macrocarpa, ) Laurus persea, Linn. Heteryta (polemonioides,) Polemonium dubium, Linn. Scoria [doubtless misprint for Hicoria,] (tomentosa, mucronata, alba, pyriformis, globosa, &c.,) the Hickory. Vleckia (nepetoides,) the Hyssopus nepetoides, Linn. Chryza (borealis,) Helleborus trifolius, Linn. Platonia (nudiflora,) Verbena nudiflora, Linn., [misprint for no- diflora. | Turpinia (pubescens and glabra,) Rhus aromaticum and sua- veolens, Willd. and Michz. Umsema [misprint for Unisema,] (obtusifolia and mucronata, ) Pontederia cordata, Linz. Macrotrys (acteeoides,) Actaea racemosa, Linn. Spathyema (feetida,) Dracontium foetidum, Linn. Caullinia (hippuroides,) Hippuris Europeeus, r. Miche. Achroanthes (unifolia,) Malaxis unifolia, Michz. Kraunhia (frutescens,) Glycine frutescens, Linn. Savia (volubilis,) Glycine monoica, Linn. Apios (tuberosus,) Glycine apios, Linn. Triadenium (purpurascens,) Hypericum Virginicum, Linn. Hingstonia (exaltata,) Siegesbeckia occidentalis, Linn. Gonotheca (helianthoides, ) Polymnia Tetragonotheca, Linn. Trachysperma (natans,) Menyanthes trachysperma, Michz.” Nearly all the genera of this list, with the exception of those formed from Gentiana, are admitted by botanists, although most- ly under different names.* In the next paragraph, Rafinesque * Adlumia, adopted by De Candolle, is doubtless a good genus. Cucularia had been long anticipated by Borkhausen, under the name of Dielytra or Dicentra. Calistachya, Raf. is of later date than Callistachys of Ventenat; Leptandra, Nutt. is the next in order of publication, but the genus is not considered a good one. Di- arina is adopted with a change in the orthography. Kampmania is typical Zanthox- ylum, that genus having been founded upon the Southern species, as a distinguished botanist has recently informed us. Negundium, or Negundo, was proposed by Meench. Jacksonia, Rafinesque changed in 1819 to Polanisia, probably on account of the Jacksonia of Brown, 1812, by which General Jackson has lost a genus. The genera founded upon Gentiana, are of no account. Persea was founded by Gert- ner. Heteryta isa Phacelia. Hicoria, or Hicorius, was ten years later called Ca- rya by Nuttall. VWleckia is the recent Lophanthus of Bentham. Chrysa is the Coptis of Salisbury. Platonia, (which Rafinesque afterwards changed to Bertolo- nia,) = Zapania of Jussieu, &c. = Lippia, Linn. Turpinia forms a good genus or section; but the name being pre-occupied, the author changed it to Lobadium, and Desvaux to Schmalzia. Unisema may be well distinguished from the other species Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 229 proposes to réestablish the genus Sarotha “and to compose it of all the Hypericums, which have few stamens and an unilocular capsule, ... . and to divide the genus Monotropa into two, re- establishing the old genus Hypopythis ; and both shall form a Separate natural order or tribe, under the name of Monotropeous.” Here we have the order or sub-order Monotropeee, indicated ten years before its publication by Nuttall. Ina short list of some species to be distinguished from allied ones of Europe, he proposes E’rythronium angustatum, for the E. Dens-canis of early Amer- ican authors; Trientalis borealis, for T. Europeus, of the same ; Lysimachia capitellata, for L. thyrsiflora, Michx. ; and Vibur- num edulum for V. opulus, Michx.; in which cases, except per- haps the first, he has anticipated other botanists. In other in- stances he has made mistakes ; he proposed V. lentagoides for the American V. Lentago, forgetting that Linneus established the species on an exclusively American plant; and his Asclepias fra- grans for the American A. Syriaca is in the same predicament. The second part of the essay is occupied with Fungi, and sev- eral new genera are proposed ; upon which we have no observa- tions to offer. Ten new genera are proposed and characterized in the second essay, which follows the former. 1. Phyllepidium (squarrosum, ) said to be an Amaranthaceous plant, found near Baltimore; we do not recognize it.—2. Schultzia (obolarioides, ) said to be “ very near akin to Obolaria,” is undoubtedly the plant itself—3. Bur- shia (humilis,) which is Myriophyllum ambiguum. 'The ge- nus is dedicated to Pursh, but the orthography is incorrect.—4. Diphrylium (bifolium,) is the same as Listera, of Brown, and much older; but in a later memoir the author insists that it is of Pontederia, but it is the original species of that genus. Macrotys (here written Macrotrys,) which afterwards Rafinesque changed, without reason, to Botrophis, al- though still adopted by some good botanists, is too near Cimicifuga. Spathyema= Symplocarpus, of Salisbury. Achroanthes is long anterior to Nuttall’s Microstylis. Kraunhia is also anterior to Wistaria, or Thyrsanthus ; but Rafinesque seems ever after to have overlooked the name; and in the Journal de Physique, he states that he had called it Savia, forgetting, probably, that his Savia (posterior to Willde- now’s) is the same with Elliott's Amphicarpea. Apios forms the third instance, in this list, in which Rafinesque has proposed new genera upon the same plants and under the same names as Mench had done fourteen years before! Triadenium= Elodea of Adanson. Hingstonia=Verbesina, Linn. Gonotheca—Tetragonotheca, Linn. Trachysperma—=Limnanthemum, Gmel. 1769. Vol. xt, No. 2.—Jan.—March, 1841. 30 230 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. different from Listera—5. sotria, and 6. Odonectis, are apparent- ly both founded upon Pogonia verticillata.—7. Carpanthus (az- illaris,) is said to be a submersed fern, growing in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.—The three remaining genera belong to Fungz. Sixty new species are also described, many of which may be identified, and should not be overlooked.—The few notes on the properties of some North American plants, [No. 3,] contain noth- ing worthy of particular notice. The plants described in the Précis des découvertes, are chiefly Sicilian : there are, however, several new American genera and species of Ale@ and Fungi, and one new phanerogamous genus, viz. Tussaca, which is the Gioodyera of Brown; the latter pub- lished, not in the same year with his own, as Rafinesque else- where states, but one year previous, viz. in 1813. We have nev- er seen the Specchio delle Scienze; but learn from a list given by Rafinesque in an advertisement, that several of the new genera of plants it contains, are republished from the Medical Repository : but here Psycanthus and Triclisperma first appear, (both founded on Polygala, the latter equivalent to Chameburus ;) also Cra- fordia, which is still a puzzle, and Bivonea, which is founded on Jatropha stimulosa. The remainder, so far as they are noticed by succeeding botanists, are referred as synonyms to different exotic genera; but of several we find no subsequent mention, ci- ther by Rafinesque or others. Among these are Kinia and Wilso- nia, which, being doubtless dedicated, the one to a German col- lector in this country, who corresponded with Muhlenberg, and the other to the well known ornithologist, were probably founded on plants of the United States. We have thus noticed, somewhat in detail, the earlier labors of Mr. Rafinesque, in North American botany.* In these, he had certainly shown no little sagacity ; and, considering his limited advantages, he must be deemed a botanist of unusual promise for that period, notwithstanding the defects which, increasing in after life, have obscured his real merits, and caused even his early wri- * As early as 1808, Rafinesque had commenced the practice, (not uncommon at that day) of changing generic names when they were not conformable to the Lin- nean canons, or even when they were too long or too short. Thus Calinux was proposed for Pyrularia, Michz. (Hamiltonia, Willd.,) Lyonia for Polygonella, Michz., Osmodium for Onosmodium, Michx. &c.—Most of the new genera, &c., published in the Medical Repository, were republished by Desvaux, in his Journal of Bota- ny, vol, 2, 1809. Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 231 tings to be in a great measure disregarded. The botany of the United States offered, at that time, a fine field to a botanist ac- quainted with natural affinities; and Rafinesque was the only person in this country, who had any pretensions to that kind of knowledge. All we can justly say is, that he possessed talents which, properly applied, would have raised him to a high rank in the science, and that he early apprehended the advantages of the natural classification, although he was by no means well grounded in structural and systematic botany. As early as 1814, indeed, he sketched a general classification of organized beings, to which he continued to attach great importance ; but there is nothing new in it except the names, the botanical portion being merely an ana- gram of Jussieu’s leading divisions. His fuller developments of this system certainly contain much that is novel, but at the same time very absurd.* Rafinesque’s botanical writings between 1815 and 1818, (from his return to the United States, until the publication of Nuttall’s Genera of North American Plants,) consist of some reviews of the works of Pursh, Eaton, Bigelow, &c. (some of which appear- ed early in 1818,) communicated to the American Monthly Mag- azine ; one or two small papers describing plants or animals in the same magazine; and the PVorula Ludoviciana,t upon which we feel compelled to make some animadversions. The history of this singular production is briefly this. A Mr. Robin, who traveled in Louisiana soon after the com- mencement of the present century, appended to his book of trav- els { a popular account of the plants he had observed, under the * Vide Flora Telluriana, 1836, part 1st, p. 26, et seq. We have not seen the Analysis of Nature, 1815,” from which the “ Table of New Natural Families,” a curious mass of nonsense, is said to be substantially taken. { Florula Ludoviciana ; or a Flora of the State of Louisiana ; translated, revised, and improved from the French of C. C. Robin. By C. S. Rafinesque, &c. &c. New York, 1817, 12mo. pp. 178, (including the supplement.)—-Perhaps we should also include among the published works of this period, a “ Florula Missurica, Man- danensis et Oregonensis,” asa pamphlet under this name is mentioned in a “ Chrono- logical Index of the principal Botanical works and discoveries published by C. 8. Rafinesque,” (Herbarium Rafinesquianum, second part ;) but this index comprises several works which we elsewhere learn have never been published, and we suspect the above mentioned work is in the same condition. t Voyages dans Vinterieur de la Louisiane, de la Floride Occidentale, et dans les iles de la Martinique, et de Saint Domingue, pendant les années 1802--1806, &c. &c.—Paris, 1807, 3 vols. 8vo. 232 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. title of Flore Louisiane. This account, as Robin informs us, was prepared from notes made on the living plants, and it is evi- dent (although there is no direct statement on the subject, ) that he brought no collection of specimens to Europe, excepting a few seeds for the Jardin des Plantes. It is written in French ; and the characters of the orders and genera are translated from Jus- sieu, which gives the work an appearance of scientific precision much beyond its just pretensions. Its value of course depends altogether upon Robin’s botanical knowledge and his success in referring the plants he notices to their proper orders and genera ; and we remark that the work itself affords no evidence of his competency to the task. Indeed, on Rafinesque’s own showing, we can place little confidence in Robin’s determinations ; for, ac- cording to the former, he mistook the leaf of a Sarracenia for the spathe of an Arum, and described a species of Podophyllum as a second species of Arum ; he took two species of something near Commelina for Orchideous plants; described a Celtis as an un- known Proteaceous plant, a plant of the Cherry tribe for a true Laurel, anew genus (?) of Ranunculacee for a Polygonaceous plant, and the common Ceanothus for Polygonum frutescens ; he mistook Amsonia and Dichondra for species of Menyanthes, a new genus (?) of Scrophularinee for a Polygala, a Phlox fora Manulea, a Justicia for an Amethystea, an Hydrolea for an Apo- cynum, anew genus (?) intermediate between Oxycoccus and Vac- cinium for a Campanula, and a species of Hryngium for a this- tle. On the sole authority of the descriptions and determinations of such a botanist, Rafinesque has established thirty new genera and one hundred and ninety-six new species; and professes to reduce all his plants to their proper orders and genera, correcting Robin’s mistakes by his own descriptions. It is worth noticing that a large portion of the one hundred and four plants which are referred to old species, are merely enumerated, and scarcely if at all described by Robin; but in almost every instance in which Robin has given a somewhat detailed description, Rafinesque has not been able to recognize the plant, but has considered it a new genus orspecies. From this fact, one may forma good idea of the value of Robin’s account, and of Rafinesque’s new genera and species. We do not pretend to say that Robin really made the blunders which Rafinesque charges upon him, (of which the specimens we have given are only some of the most striking ;) Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 233 for upon the whole, we place quite as much confidence in his de- terminations as in Rafinesque’s corrections. But we do say, that there is no reason for supposing that Robin has been more suc- cessful in the instances which Rafinesque has adopted, and upon which his new species of existing genera rest; and we confi- dently state, that it is impossible, with all the knowledge we now possess of the botany of that region, to recognize one species out of fifty, with tolerable satisfaction, from Robin’s descriptions, which must nevertheless have been drawn from the more com- mon plants of Louisiania; and we never heard of the re-discov- ery of any one of these new genera and species, although many intelligent botanists and diligent collectors reside in, or have since visited that region. The Flore Louisiane, in the state Robin left it, could do no harm, and whatever information it contained was quite as available as at present. As improved by a botanist who had never been within a thousand miles of Louisiana, and who at that period, could scarcely have seen a dozen Louisianian plants, the only result has been to burthen our botany with a list of nearly two hundred species semper incognita. There can, we think, be but one opinion as to the consideration which is due to these new genera and species: they must be regarded as ficti- tious, and unworthy of the slightest notice.* As the works of Nuttall, Elliott, Barton, and others appeared, Mr. Rafinesque published critical notices of them in the American Monthly Magazine. He soon after collected and condensed these criticisms, and republished them, with some additions, in the Journal de Physique for 1819, with the title of Remarques cri- tiques et synonomiques sur les Ouvrages de MM. Pursh, Nuttall, Elliott, etc. In these many suggestions of more or less impor- * We are constrained, by the length to which this article has extended, to omit a series of extracts we had prepared in fuller confirmation of our remarks.—We are bound to mention the excuse Rafinesque offers for this production. In the Herbarium Rafinesquianum, p. 17, he says: ‘I have been reproached wrongly to have published my Florula Louisiana out of Robin, without specimens; but Grono- vius did so with Clayton, and Willdenow with Loureiro. Robin’s herbarium may be seen in France as well as Michaux's,”’ etc.—The case of Loureiro’s Flora Co- chin-Chinensis may perhaps be something to the purpose; but every botanist knows, or may easily know, that the assertion is altogether untrue as regards the Flora Virginica of Gronovius, who had the specimens as well as the notes of Clay- ton in bis possession. We find no evidence that Robin brought back a single dri- ed specimen to France : he professes to have drawn his descriptions from the living plants. 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 publication. 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 Candolle ;) the older name being preferred ceteris paribus, 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, &c., 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 his 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 observées en 1817 et 1818, dans Vinterieur des Etats-Unis d’ Amérique, 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, Lobadium, Blephilia, Agroseris, Stylimnus, Ratibida and Lepachys (taken together,) Cymopterus, 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- Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 235 occupied.* The following have never been identified, viz. Dis- covium, Leptrina, Flerularia,-Anthipsimus, and the five acoty- ledonous genera. In the same year (1819,) he again published three of these genera, viz. Cylactis, Nemopanthes, and Polani- sia, in the first volume of the American Journal of Science, to which he also contributed several short botanical and zoological, or miscellaneous articles.t| His botanical writings between the years 1820 and 1830, inclusive, as far as we can ascertain them, are the following, viz. Annals of Nature, or an Annual Synopsis of New Genera and Species of Animals, Plants, &c., discovered in North Amer- tca, 1820. A pamphlet of sixteen pages, printed at Lexington, Kentucky: it is chiefly occupied with zoology ; but it contains brief characters of about fifty proposed species of plants, three or four of which are possibly new; but we can only vouch fora single species of the number. The four new genera proposed, are no better than the species. * The worst are Cylactis (which isa Rubus,) Cyphorima (Lithospermum,) Endi- plus ? (Phacelia,) Dacistoma (Gerardia,) Dasanthera (founded on the figure and de- scription of Pursh’s Gerardia fruticosa=Pentstemon,) Neurosperma (Momordica,) Delostylis (Trillium,) Critesion (Hordeum,) Trisiola (Uniola,) Torreya and Dis- tymus (Cyperus,) Aplostemon (=Scirpus ceespitosus and S. triqueter !) under which two additional genera are proposed, viz. Diplarinus for the Scirpi with two stamens, and Dichismus for those with two stigmas. + One of these articles is devoted a consideration of the natural affinities of Flerkea; which he considers as forming a small family along with Galenia!! while Nectris,to which Pursh united it, is said to stand next to Myriophyllum! + Ilysanthes is probably Lindernia, incorrectly described. Peramibus is founded on a genuine Rudbeckia. Hedychloe is Kyllingia pumila. The characters of the two following genera we copy entire, for the edification of cryptogamic botanists : the first is said to be a Fungus, the second an Alga. «“ NM. G. Anastromarta.—Fructification in flexuose lamellar veins, anastomosed like a net.—This genus will be next to Merulius and Dedalea ; some species of them may probably belong to it.—4. campanulata. Stipitated fulvous ; stipe thick; pericle campanulated ; netted outside, margin erose, insides scaly and dark spotted. —This may be the type of the genus. Size, four or five inches. It grows in the State of New York.--A. dimidiata. Sessile, dimidiated, imbricated, wrinkled above and fulvous with brown or black zones, netted beneath ; veins often bifid near the margin.—Near Catskill, State of New York. It may be the type of a sub- genus, Campsilicus. “NW. G.Srypnion. A floating gelatinous and floccose mass, easily divided and homogeneous, without any perceptible filaments or organs.—A very singular genus, nextto my G. Potarcus. It differs from Conferva, which consists of five fixed fila- ments, and Oscillatoria of interwoven articulated ones. I could not perceive any fila- ments in it, perhaps a microscope might show some [! !Jsurrounded by ajelly. The name means tow in Greek.—S. fluitans. Floating, elongated perpendicularly ; amorphous, floccose or lacerated ; of a dirty yellowish or brown color.—Very com- 236 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. Tracts in the Western Review, about the year 1820. Among them is a Monograph of North American Roses ; in which thir- ty-three species indigenous to the United States are described! Also a Monograph of Houstonia, in which fourteen species are described, exclusive of the Hedyotis crassifolia of his Florula Lu- doviciana, of which he forms a new genus! These tracts, with another on the classification of some natural families, have been reprinted in the fifth, sixth, and seventh volumes of the Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques, at Brussels—The following are unknown to us. 1821. ‘ Western Minerva ; several new genera; suppressed by my rivals!” 1822. ‘“ The Cosmonist, twenty numbers, Lexington.—New Plants of Kentucky.” 1823. ‘ Prenanthes Opicrina, and other plants, Cincinnati.”. 1824. “ Florula Kentuckensis and Prodromus N. sp., Lexing- ton.” No intimation is given of the place or form of publication. 1824. Furst Catalogues and Circulars of the Botanic Garden of Transylvania University, Kentucky. 1825. Neogenyton, or indication of sixty-six new genera of plants of North America.—A loose sheet of four pages, printed at Lexington ; and we believe reprinted in Seringe’s Bulletin. A few good genera are indicated in this tract, but not properly char- acterized. The best are, Cladrastis (Virgilia lutea; upon which he endeavors to establish three or four species,) and Stylipus. A few are good, but anticipated by other authors; such as Helichroa (in which some seven or eight species are made out of at most three,) which is E'chinacea of Meench ; and Megadenus, which is Hleocharis of Brown; several others may be found to indicate sections or sub-genera; but about fifty of the sixty-six are abso- lute nonsense.* mon on the surface of the Obio in summer, having the appearance of pieces of ropes or oakum. It smells like Conferva.” Rafinesque, l.c. p. 16. * Thus, Tomostigma is founded upon Draba Caroliniana; Hartiana, upon Anem- one Caroliniana, &c. ; Stylisma, on Convolvulus tenellus, is said not to belong to the Gonvolvulacee ; Helepta, with three species, is made from Heliopsis levis; En- dodia and Aplexia are founded, one on Leersia lenticularis, the other on L. Virgin- ica; three genera are founded upon genuine species of Croton, and one on Stillin- gia sylvatica, &c. &c. It is but fair to notice, however, that it appears from the species cited, that his Ptilemnium is the same with Discopleura, DC., his Spermo- lepis with Leptocaulis, Nuét., and his Oxypolis with Archemora, DC., but mixed with an Angelica and Tiedmannia. None of them could have been identified by the characters assigned. Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 237 A pamphlet (?) entitled “ Neocloris or New Species of Western America,” is mentioned by Rafinesque, but neither the place nor form of publication are given: we are wholly unacquainted with it. 1826. “School of Flora, with figures, Philadelphia.” 1828. “ Neophyton Botanicon, or New Plants of North Amer- ica.”—Medical Flora of the United States, vol. 1, 12mo. Phila- delphia. The second volume was published in 1830. It is illus- trated with rather rude wood cuts, and contains much information respecting the plants employed in popular medicine. 1830. American Manual of the Grape Vines, and the Art of Making Wine. Philadelphia: a pamphlet of sixty-four pages, 12mo.—He describes sixty-two species of grape, of which forty are natives of the United States! One hundred varieties of our species are characterized !—“ Botanical Letters to De Candolle.” A gradual deterioration will be observed in Rafinesque’s botan- ical writings from 1819* to about 1830, when the passion for es- tablishing new genera and species, appears to have become a com- plete monomania. This is the most charitable supposition we can entertain, and is confirmed by the opinions of those who knew him best. Hitherto we have been particular in the enu- meration of his scattered productions, in order to facilitate the la- bors of those who may be disposed to search through bushels of chaff for the grain or two of wheat they perchance contain. What consideration they may deserve, let succeeding botanists determine ; but we cannot hesitate to assert that none whatever is due to his subsequent works. These, like many of the preced- ing, are little known; but we shall continue our enumeration, and future writers can correct our opinion wherever they think we have done the author injustice. 1832. “The American Florist: thirty-six figures, 12mo. Philadelphia.” With this we are unacquainted.— Atlantic Jour- nal, and Friend of Knowledge. A periodical of which eight * It was in this yaar (1819) that I became alarmed by a flood of communications, announcing new discoveries by C. 8. Rafinesque, and being warned, both at home and abroad, against his claims, I returned him a large bundle of memoirs, prepared with his beautiful and exact chirography, and in the neatest form of scientific pa- pers. This will account for the early disappearance of his communications from this Journal. The step was painful, but necessary ; for, if there had been no other difficulty, he alone would have filled the Journal, had he been permitted to pro- ceed.—Sen. Epiror. Vol. xt, No. 2.—Jan.-March, 1841. 31 238 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. numbers appeared in 1832 and 1833; published at Philadelphia. The whole forms an 8vo. volume of 212 pages. Its contents are miscellaneous, but there are several botanical articles, in which, of course, new genera and species are described. In one of these articles, Rafinesque takes up Dr. Torrey’s account of the plants collected by Dr. James, in Long’s expedition to the Rocky Mountains, (published in the second volume of the Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History, New York,) upon which he creates twenty new genera! In another, he describes two new genera of Umbellifere called Streblanthus and Orimaria; one of which is an Eryngium falsely characterized ; the other, a Bupleurum (which had doubtless escaped from some garden) in an undevelop- ed state, which we happen to know Rafinesque had mistaken for a grass, and described as a new genus of that family; but, be- ing told it was a Bupleurum, he has accordingly published it as anew genus “near to Bupleurum.” 1833. Herbarium Rafinesquianum. Loose sheets, printed in 24mo., we believe at different times, and reaching to about eighty pages. The first partis chiefly a reprint from the last number of his Atlantic Journal; the second contains a list of his botanical works, and account of plants offered for sale, a monograph of Samolus increased to ten species, of the American species of Cyp- ripedium increased to ten species, of Spiranthes, ten species, and of Jeffersonia and Podophyllum, each increased to four species. The remainder is of the same character. 1836. Flora Telluriana: four parts; each of about one hun- dred pages, 8vo.; the fourth part, or supplement published in 1838.—New Flora and Botany of North America ; being a sup- plemental flora to the various botanical works of Michaux, Muh- lenberg, Pursh, §c. §c. §c. Philadelphia: printed for the author and publisher. Four parts are mentioned; but we have seen only three, of about one hundred pages each. The object proposed in the Flora Telluriana is general gen- eric reform; and the author informs his readers, that “ although the attempt may astonish or perplex some timid botanists,” he in- tends to establish about one thousand totally new genera, includ- ing some of those he had formerly published :* it is needless to add, that in this and the New Flora of North America, together, he has nearly fulfilled his promise. According to his principles, * Flora Telluriana, Introduction, p. 15. Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 239 this business of establishing new genera and species will be end- less; for he insists, in his later works particularly, that both new species and new genera are continually produced by the deviation of existing forms, which at length give rise to new species, if the foliage only is changed, and new genera when the floral organs are affected. He assumes thirty to one hundred years as the average time required for the production of a new species, and five hun- dred to one thousand years for a new genus ; and on a preceding page he remarks,* that ‘‘ new varieties and species were often met with by me at long intervals, in wild places well explored before, grown from seeds of akin species.” ‘It is even possible,” he continues, ‘to ascertain the relative ages and affinities of actual species and genera. .... As a general rule, the real genera of single or few species, are the newest in order of time, and the most prolific, the eldest in the series.”’+ It is therefore of little consequence, that half his genera and species do not really exist at present, since they may perchance make their appearance a century hence.{ Our notice of these extraordinary works must be very brief. The first and most amusing part of the Flora Telluriana, is chiefly occupied with the author’s views of natural classification, upon which we have already made some remarks. This is followed by “The fifty rules of generic nomenclature, by Linneus and Rafinesque!” In the second, the business of making genera is begun in earnest, and continued through the work. Thus Allium is divided into fifteen genera; Solidago, into seven, with about twice as many sub-genera; Sazifraga, into twelve genera, which are placed in three natural orders, and two different classes ; Polygonum into twenty-three ; Gentiana, (as left by Grisebach,) into fourteen; Linum, into thirty-four; Hypericum into eleven ; and Salvia, into fourteen genera absolutely, and fourteen more proposed as doubtful or perhaps sub-genera. ‘“ As I have not yet heard of a genus dedi- * Op. cit. p. 12.—Vid. also New Flora, fc. p. 16. + Op. cit. p. 14. +“ Thus it is needless to dispute and differ about new genera, species and vari- eties. Every variety is a deviation which becomes a species as soon as it is perma- nent by reproduction. Deviations in essential organs may thus gradually become new genera. Yet every deviation in form, ought to have a peculiar name, and it is better to have only a generic and specific name for it, than four when deemed a variety.” Rafinesque, in Atlantic Journal, p. 164. ‘All our actual species of Roses, Grapes, Oaks, Plums, Apples, Currants, Asters, Azaleas, Heaths, d&c., have thus been formed. Nay, it is so probably with every genuine genus of many spe- cies.” Herbar. Rafin. p. 15. 240 Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. cated to me,” he remarks in the introduction, “I shall perhaps have to imitate Roxburgh, and choose one for myself, as a Ra- Jinesquia.” It is not true that Roxburgh dedicated a genus to himself. This honor was reserved for Rafinesque, who accord- ingly appropriated the Lotus pinnatus of the Botanical Magazine, and described it in due form as Rarinesquia seu Fundula, the second name being proposed as a substitute in case this honor had been already conferred by some other person. But as the plant turned out to be an Hosackia, he is obliged to make another trial ; and in the preamble to the third part, he continues: ‘As toa Rafinesquia, I have provided half a dozen, out of which I hope some one will suit the fancy of botanists and be adopted; al- though I may be blamed for this conceit, I blame instead for it those makers of new genera, that dedicate them to obscure indi- viduals, that have not added one page to the science ; and have not thought of me for forty years, who have added one thousand pages to it, and three thousand new genera or species.”* His next choice falls upon the beautiful Gardoquia Hookeri ! which is published in due form as the second Rarivesquta of Rafin- esque ;+ and of which he makes two species in his New Flora of North America. The last named work is precisely of the same character with the preceding, except that the new genera are not quite so nume- rous, but the new species amply supply the deficiency. Several of the former are made in this way: “ Actimeris, Raf, mis- spelt Actinomeris by Nuttall; Actispermum, Raf., misspelt Acteno- spermum by Elliott.” As to species, the following may suffice for examples. A single Amphicarpea is divided into ten species in two genera, Bellis integrifolia into four species, Capsella Bur- sa-pastoris into seven species and one new genus besides, Pru- nella vulgaris into ten species, two species of Triostewm into eight, a single (?) E’clipta into ten or twelve species and appa- rently three genera, &c. &c. These are by no means unusual instances, but fairly exhibit the character of the work. 1839. American Manual of the Mulberry Trees. Philadelphia. Of this pamphlet we have seen no more than the title-page and the first sheet. 1840. The Good Book and Amenities of Nature; or Annals of Historical and Natural Sciences, is the last we have to notice. * Flora Telluriana, part 3, p. 6. t Op. cit. part 3, p. 82. Botanical Writings of Rafinesque. 241 We have only seen a few sheets of this miscellaneous work, which purports to be the commencement of a periodical or occa- sional publication. The first article is a general classification of the sciences comprised in “ Cosmosy, or Natural History.” Here Wwe meet with such names as the following branches of Astro- graphy, viz. “ Astrosy, Heliosy, Tholosy, Selenosy, Cometosy, Torosy, &c., applying to the stars, the sun, the planets, the moons, the comets, and the various T%xomes (other bodies) of the skies ;” as well as “ Atmology, the science of the atmos- phere,” with its branches, such as “ Yetology, of rains; Phosolo- gy; of luminous meteors ;” not to mention Dimnology, Pota- mology, Stromology, Spilology, Volcanology, Stocology, E'thero- logy, Gazology, Gazomy, Uzromy, Flogomy, “ the flogomes, or burning substances,” Campsology, &c., &c., &c. This reminds us of a paper which Rafinesque many years ago sent to the editor of a well known scientific journal, describing and characterizing, in natural history style, twelve new species of thunder and lightning ! But the only botanical article we have seen is a “ Revision of the Carexides,” in which the simple genus Carez is divided into two sub-families and eighteen genera: and we observe that the same species, under different names, are frequently cited as the types of two or three different genera. With this, so far as we can as- certain, the last botanical article of this indefatigable writer, we close our remarks, which many readers will probably consider un- reasonably prolix.* A. G. * Mr. Rafinesque’s papers on Zoology, Fossil Remains, &c. are numerous ; but we are not prepared to enumerate them. The following are some of his more con- siderable miscellaneous works, exclusive of those previously mentioned, viz. The American Nations ; or outage of their general history, wacientend modern, including the whole history of the earth and mankind in the western hemisphere, &c. &e. Vol. I. Philadelphia, (published by the author,) 1836. 8vo. pp. 560. Vol. II, is also said to be published. Safe Banking ; including the principles of wealth. Philadelphia, 1837. 12mo. pp- 136. Celestial Wonders and Philosophy of the Visible Heavens. 1839. Genius and Spirit of the Hebrew Bible, &c. ; The World, or Instability ; a Poem in twenty parts: with notes and illustrations, Philadelphia, (J. Dobson,) 1836. 8vo. pp. 248. 242 Invention of the Mariner’s Needle. Arr. [L.—Abstract of a Letter to Baron A. Humboldt, upon the Invention of the Mariner’s Compass.—Lettre a M. le Baron A. de Humboldt, sur l’Invention de la Boussole ; par M. J. Kuaprors. Paris: 1834. pp. 138. Read before the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, by Epwarp E. Sat- ispury, A. M., and published by permission of the Academy. Tuts is the title of a little volume, published six years ago, in which M. Klaproth, a well known orientalist, since deceased,* has given the result of researches made by him, respecting the inven- tion of the mariner’s compass. It has been long since generally admitted, that the classic wri- ters, though they had some idea of the attracting and repelling power of the magnet, were ignorant of its polarity, and conse- quently of its applicability to navigation. But the later opinion, that the merit of this discovery is to be attributed to an Italian of the middle age, must be also abandoned. Klaproth’s investi- gations go to prove, that our knowledge of the magnet, as well as of the magnetic needle and compass, has been derived, either directly or indirectly, from the Hast, and originally from China, where the earliest notices of both belong. : Should this work not have become known already in this coun- try, a brief abstract of its most important points may not be un- entertaining or without value. The name magnet comes from the Greek. 'The most ancient Greek name for this natural production was 460g fgaxkeia, stone of Heraclea, a city situated at the foot of Mt. Sipylus, in Lydia. This city was afterwards called Magnesia, and the name of the stone, for which:it was remarkable, became changed to Méyv7- owog hos, stone of Magnesia, or vulgarly, Méyrys, and Mayvyris. The same name is found in the Latin, and its origin from the Greek is confirmed by Lucretius, who says ‘¢ Quem magneta vocant patrio de nomine Grail : Magnetem, quia sit patriis in montibus ortus.”” Other languages into which the name magnet has been incor- porated, are the modern Greek, (Méy»yrtis,) the German, (mag- net, ) the Hollandish, (magneet-stein,) the Danish, (magneet, ) the Swedish, (magnet,) the language of the Grisons, in the dialect of * M. Klaproth was a Prussian, born at Berlin in 1783, and died at Paris in 1835.