22 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 282 



1934; Hankinson, 1908; Langlois, 1954); distribution (Hubbs and 

 Lagler, 1958; Hubbs and Raney, 1944; Jordan and Evermann, 1896a; 

 Trautman, 1959); age and growth (Hooper, 1949); development 

 (Fish, 1932; Ryder, 1886, 1887; Sumner, 1899); morphology (Chrani- 

 lov, 1929; Herrick, 1901; Regan, 1911; Suttkus, 1961). The ecology 

 of most of the species has been briefly discussed by many authors. 

 Several aspects of the life history of Noturus insignis (Richardson) 

 were described by Clugston and Cooper (1960) and a population of 

 Noturus funebris Gilbert and Swain was studied by Thomerson (1966). 



As indicated by Hubbs and Raney (1944), I feel that there is no 

 very sharp break between the subgenus SchUbeodes and the species 

 forming Rabida. There are probably even fewer important differences 

 between the subgenera SchUbeodes and Noturus. Thus, the species 

 formerly assigned to these three "genera" are combined as Noturus. 

 However, certain resemblances among the species make it practicable 

 to retain three subgeneric groups. 



Noturus flavus, the largest and one of the most widespread species, 

 is the type-species of Noturus, long recognized as a monotypic genus. 

 N.jlavus differs from all other species in the unfused condition of the 

 pectoral radials, but some forms, chiefly N. stigmosus, vary in that 

 direction. The pattern of teeth on the premaxilla, long employed as a 

 generic character, is regarded as of little more than specific import- 

 ance; the shape of the band varies considerably among the species of 

 Noturus and simply reaches an extreme development in flavus; it 

 does not conform to the shape of the premaxilla (pi. 2). N. flavus is not 

 consistently distinguishable from other species in the numbers of 

 pectoral and pelvic rays or of vertebrae. Superficially, N. flavus is most 

 similar to A^ gUberti, and their true relationship may be rather close. 

 The present arrangement of subgenera differs from past classifications 

 chiefly in that Noturus is monotypic, Rabida includes only the mottled 

 forms, a very distinctive group of species, and SchUbeodes contains the 

 remaining, more somberly colored species. 



Three names that have been used to indicate members of this genus 

 were not accompanied by descriptions. They are: 



Noturus liacanthus. — Jordan (1877c, p. 50). The name is now un- 

 identifiable. Jordan included it in a list of fishes of the Ohio Valley 

 that were not noticed by Rafinesque. 



Noturus laiifrons. — Jordan (18S5, p. 802). Gilbert and Swain probably 

 intended to use this name for Noturus eleutherus (see p. 165). 



SchUbeodes punctatus. — Mitchell (1904, p. 154). According to 

 Mitchell (1904, p. 405) this is a lapsus for SchUbeodes gyrinus 

 (Mitchell). 



