CxiRPIODES CYPKINUS. 199 



Carpiodes cyprinna GOnthKr, Cat. Fishes Brit. Mus. vii, 24, 1808. 



Carpiodes ci/prunis Cope, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. Phila. 484, 1870. 



Carpiodes ciiprinus Jordan, Fishes of lud. 202, 1875. 



Carpiodes cyprinus Jordan, Man. Vert. 297, 187G. 



Cai-piodes cyprinns Uiiler «fe Lugger, Fishes of Maryland, 140, 1876. 



Carpiodes cyprinus Jordan & Copkland, Check List, 158, 187G. 



Carpiodes cyprinus Jordan, Man. Vert. ed. 2d, 323, 1878. 

 1854 — Carpiodes vacca Agassiz, Am. Journ. Sci. Arts, 356. 

 1854 — Carpiodes tumidiis Baihu &. Girard, Proc. Phila. Ac. Nat. Sc. 28. 



letiohus tumidus Girard, U. S. Mcs. Bound. Surv. Ich. 34, pi. xxx, f. 1-4, 1859. 



Ichthyobus fnmidus Jordan & Copkland, Check List, 158, 1876. 

 1856 — Carpiodes damalis Girard, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 170. 



Carpiodes damalis Girai:d, U. S. Pac. R. R. Expl. s, 218, pi. xlviii, f. 1-4, 1858. 



Carpiodes damalis Cope, Pioc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 85, 1865. 



Carpioehs damalis Jordan & Copeland, Check List, 155, 1876. 

 1870— C'arj;iOf/ts Cjrayl CoPi;, Prcc. Am. Philos. Soc. Phila. 482, 1870. 



Carxnodis grayi Jordan & Copeland, Check List, 158, 1876. 



Carpiodes grayi COPE & Yari;ow, Wheeler's Expl. W. 100th Mer. v, Zool. 681. 

 1876. 



Habitat. — New Englard to Alabama ; 1 hence to Mexico and north to the Upper 

 Missouri. 



I Lave elsewhere already united the nominal species grayi and tumi- 

 dus, for the following reasons: — Girard's '-^letiohus tuiiiidvs'^ is certainly 

 a Carpiodes^ as is plainly shown by the published figure, I be moutli be 

 ing represented as small and inferior, beneath the jnoji cling s::out. I 

 have numerous young specimens of a Carpiodes from the iiio Grande, 

 at Brownsville, Texas, the original locality of letiohus tumidus. 13ut my 

 specimens do not disagree in any important respect Irom Carpiodes graiji, 

 from the same river, nor am I able, on examination of authentic speci- 

 mens of the latter species, to point out any differences between them and 

 my Brownsville specimens. Therefore, if tumidus and grayi are really 

 different, the differences have escaped my notice. It is of course possi- 

 ble that my Brownsville specimens, although from the original locality 

 of tumidus, may not be that species; but, as the types of tumidus have 

 been lost, I do not see how the question can ever be settled. 



I am furthermore unable to separate tumidus as thus characterized 

 from damalis Grd., and the close relationship existing between damalis 

 and cyprinus has already been noticed by Professor Cope. As 1 now 

 believe that cyprinus, tumidus, damalis, au(\ grayi were all based on mem- 

 bers of a single widely diffused species, 1 unite them in the above 

 synonymy. 



This species is the common Carp Sucker of Pennsylvania and the 



