188G.] PEOCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 25 



(3) The fauna of the Ozark regiou is substantially identical with that 

 of the hilly rejiions of Tennessee. The environment and conditious of 

 life bein<;- similar, and water counuunication being free, we have a sim- 

 ilar fauna in regions widely separated. 



(4) The fauna of any Texas river is much less rich than that of any 

 stream of similar size and character connected with the basin of the 

 Mississippi. In other words, free water communication is essential to a 

 varied fauna. The larger a river system the greater the number of 

 species in each of its affluents. The reason for this seems obvious. 



(5) The fish fauna of Texas differs from that of the Lower Mississippi 

 Valley mainly by its deficiencies. Texas does not properly constitute a 

 distinct faunal region. The paucity of its fish fauna is in some degree 

 connected with its dry, hot summers. Most of the streams are flooded 

 and often very muddy in spring, and are almost dry in summer ; both 

 conditions unfavorable to the increase of many species. These condi' 

 tions do not affect the spring-fed streams of the limestone region. 



(6) Some of the conditious favorable to the production in any stream 

 of a large number of species of fishes are the following : 



Clear water, a moderate current, a bottom of gravel preferably cov- 

 ered by a growth of weeds; water not too cold and not stagnant; con- 

 nection with a large hydrographic basin ; little fluctuation in the year in 

 volume of the stream or in the cliaracter of the water. 



These conditions are well realized in the Washita Kiver and in cer- 

 tain affluents of the Ohio and the Tennessee, and in these, among Amer- 

 ican streams, the greatest number of species has been recorded. 



Indiana University, September 18, 1885. 



NOTES ON FISHES COLLECTED AT BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA, 



WITH A REVISED LIST OF THE SPECIES KNOWN FROM THAT 



LOCALITY. 



By DAVID S. JORDAN. 



Two catalogues of the fishes of Beaufort Harbor have been published. 



The one (^otes on the Natural History of Fort Macon, N. C, and 

 Vicinity, No. 3, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1877, 203-208), by Dr. Henry C. 

 Yarrow, represents the collections made by Dr. Cones and Dr. Yarrow 

 during their residence at Fort INlacon, near Beaufort. The other (Notes 

 on Fisbes of Beaufort Harbor, Nortli Carolina, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 

 1878, 365-388), by Professor Gilbert and the writer, includes both the 

 species of the previous list and those actually collected by the authors 

 and the students (A. W. Brayton, B. W. Evcrmann, and others) who 

 accompanied them at Beaufort in the summer of 1878. 



During the present snnnuer (1885) a considerable collection has been 

 ma(h^ at Beaufort by ]\Ir. Oliver P. Jenkins, teaclier of science in the 

 Indiana State Normal School of Terre Haute, in connection with the 

 Jolins Ilopivius Summer Laboratory, then in session at Beaufort. 



