126 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 282 



River contained a specimen of exilis. Similarly, Meek's (1893, p. 229) 

 records of Noturus fiavus from Arkansas are probably referable to 

 Noturus exilis. It is noted, for example, that Meek initially listed 

 flaws but not exilis from the Illinois River. Later, without comment, 

 he listed exilis but not flavus from this system. This identification has 

 been confirmed by examination of some of his material. Examination 

 of the record (Forbes and Richardson, 1909, map 57) from the Kas- 

 kaskia River, Illinois, reveals that it, too, is Noturus exilis. 



The record from the Black River, Missouri (Martin and Campbell, 

 1954), is doubted, as the specimens on which the report was based 

 cannot be found. Extensive surveys of Missouri and Arkansas fishes 

 have not otherwise yielded specimens from any of the following 

 rivers: Black, Current, White, and St. Francis. The Meramec River, 

 Missouri, is included hypothetically in the range oi flavus; there are 

 no records. 



References to Noturus flavus from Manitoba by Bissett (1927, p. 

 127) and from the Hudson Bay drainage by Bajkov (1928, p. 97) and 

 later compilations of these reports are listed here in the synonymy of 

 Noturus gyrinus. Both reports were based on original material, but 

 neither gave a description or listed specific localities, and presumably 

 their material was not retained. It is of further interest that only 

 Bajkov listed gyrinus, this on the basis of previous references. While 

 there are many records of gyrinus, there are no other records oi flavus 

 from the drainage, and it is most probable that both are misidentifica- 

 tions of gyrinus. This is in agreement with many recent writers who 

 have questioned the authenticity of the records and conforms to an 

 opinion expressed to me by Dr. W. B. Scott in a letter in which he out- 

 lined the Canadian distribution of this species. 



In addition to Noturus exilis and N. gyrinus, some records of 

 Noturus insignis and A^. nocturnus have been listed as Noturus flavus 

 or one of its synonyms. Young specimens are most frequently mis- 

 identified. A comparison of the young of several similar forms appears 

 in table 9. 



Nomenclature. — Rafinesque apparently gave two names to this 

 species. They are: Noturus flavus , described from the Ohio (1818a, p. 

 41), and Noturus luteus, described later without statement of locality 

 (1819, pp. 421-422). It appears that they were based on the same 

 material; the descriptions, aside from being in different languages and 

 having a few minor differences, are very similar and give the impres- 

 sion that only one kind of animal is described. Evidence that Rafi- 

 nesque knew only one species is that he recognized only Noturus flavus 

 in later papers. The viewpoint that the names are based on the same 

 animals agrees with Gill's (1861a, p. 45; 1876, p. 423), and the type- 

 locaUties are here assumed to be the same. Because his types were not 



