24 FISHES OF TEXAS. 



These form a uarrow, metallic lateral baud, aud also a dark area oi 

 upper edge of caudal peduucle. 



The original deliciosus being from Texas, is probably the present form 

 in which case the jS"orthwestern form may be recognized, perhaps, as var 

 missuriensis. 



This species appears in Jordan's Catalogue Fish N. A., under the MSS 

 name of Notropis noconiis, but the characters distinguishing it from N 

 deliciosus do not seem to warrant its separation. Xotrojvs comalis 

 another MSS. species mentioned in the same paper, should also b( 

 suppressed. 



5. Notropis lutrensis Baird & Girard. 

 Only young ones taken. 



6. Notropis swaini Jordan & Gilbert. 



Very abundant. This species seems in Texas to take the place oc 

 cupied in clear streams farther north by iV. scabriceps. 



7. Hybopsis aestivalis Girard (marcoiiis). 



8. Dorosoma cepedianum Le Sueur. 



9. Gambusia patruelis Baird & Girard. 



10. Micropterus salmoides Lacepede. 



11. Lepomis pallidus Mitchill. 



12. Lepomis niegalotis Rafinesque. 



13. Hadropterus scierus serrula Jordan & Gilbert. 



14. Etheostoma lepidum Baird & Girard. 



GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 



The following general conclusions in regard to the distribution of fresh 

 water fishes seem to follow from the data given in the present paper : 



(1) Our species of small fishes, especially the Etlieostomatincv^ ar( 

 ])robably much less local in their distribution than has usually been as 

 sumed. Mauy of the species hitherto regarded as rare or local liav< 

 been shown to have a very wide distribution in the West and South, ant 

 what is true of these species will very likely be found true of all thos< 

 now known from only a few localities. 



(2) As our knowledge of the geographical range of a species widens 

 it becomes necessai-y to extend our ideas of the range of variation in 

 eluded by it, and we are com])elled to admit under it geographical va 

 rieties or subspecies. 



In other words, similar conditions obtain with the species of fishes 

 that obtain with our birds, and when we know our fishes as well as w( 

 do our birds we shall have the same need of a trinomial nomenclature 

 in ichthyology that is already felt in ornithology. 



In fishes, as in birds, we find all possible grades of differences, and 

 in the one case as in the other our only ultimate test of specific distiuc 

 tion is our failure to fiiul or to recognize the intermediate forms. 



