CLIOLA 129 



its length; interorbital space 2.3 to 2.8, nearly flat; eye small, circular, 

 entirely within upper half of head, 3.2 to 4 ; nose longer than eye, 2 . 9 to 

 3.3 in' head; mouth rather small, terminal, oblique, tip of upper lip 

 about on a level with inferior margin of orbit; maxillarv^ 2.9 to 3.6 in 

 head, not reaching orbit; jaws equal; isthmus about half diameter of eye. 

 Teeth 4-4, with grinding surface and slight hook; intestine about equal 

 to length of head and body; peritoneum silver}^ with a few small and 

 scattering dark specks. Dorsal fin low, its longest ray 1.4 to 1.9 in 

 head, usually less than the head's width; dorsal rays 1-8, the first little 

 more than half the length of the second, thickly covered with flesh in 

 spring males; insertion of dorsal nearly directly over ventrals and about 

 equidistant between snout and base of caudal; anal rays 7; pectorals 

 reaching little more than § to ventrals; ventrals in both males and 

 females usually reaching to vent, but always falling short of anal. Scales 

 6 to 8. 39 to 44, 4 or 5, usually 7-4 above and below; 21 to 27 rows before 

 dorsal; lateral line complete, but slightly decur\'ed in front of ventrals. 



This fish, though often confounded with Pimephales notatiis, 

 differs sharply from it in its more oblique mouth and in the distri- 

 bution of the dark punctulations on the scales, the entire surface of 

 the scales of the upper half of the body being more or less dusted 

 with dark specks in Cliola, while in P. notatus the scales are very 

 distinctly dark-edged. It will scarcely be confused with P. pro- 

 melas, which has the mouth smaller and lips (except in males) 

 thinner, and the lateral line to a greater or less degree imperfect. If 

 at any time external differences fail, it may be separated with ease 

 from either species by its generic characters. 



This little species, although one of our minor minnows, only two 

 or three inches long, is one of the most abundant in the larger rivers 

 of the state — the fifth on our list in order of frequency in rivers of 

 the first class. This feature of its distribution is derivable also from 

 our map of the state showing the distribution of the 1 1 6 localities 

 from which our 194 collections of the species have been made. It 

 occurs wdth still greater frequency in the smaller rivers and the 

 creeks, more abundantly in the former, however, than in the latter. 

 From lakes and ponds it has been taken by us only 28 times in 591 

 collections. Its preference for a rapid current (coefiicient, 2.46) 

 and a clea bottom (2 . 04) is also especially pronounced. Professor 

 Hay likewise reports, in his list of the lampreys and fishes of In- 

 diana, that this species appears to prefer clear streams. It is gen- 

 erally distributed from Ohio to Georgia, the Dakotas, Iowa, iVrkan- 

 sas and Texas, and the Rio Grande. It has occurred to us much the 

 most abundantly in the streams of the Kaskaskia and the Wabash 

 basins, its frequency coefficients for those stream systems (3.31 and 

 2.27 respectively) being many times those for any others in the 



