CARPIODES CYPRINUS. 199 



CarjHGdcs oy2)rhu(s GCntiikh, Cut. Fishes Brit. Miis. vii, 24, 1808. 



Carpiodes eypriuus Copk, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. Phila. 484, 1870. 



Carpiodi's cuprhuts Joi'.dan', I'ishes of Iiul. 20'^, lb75. 



Carpiodes ei/priuus Joiidan, Man. Vert. 297, 187C'. 



Carpiodes c>i2)ri)nts IJiilkk & Luggei:, Fishes of Maryland, 140, 1876. 



Carpiodes cypriiius Jofsdan & Copklano, Check List, 15^, 187G. 



Carpiodes eyprinns Joijdan, Man. Vert. ed. 2d, 32I5, 1878. 

 1854 — Carpiodes vaeca Agassiz, Am. Journ. 8ci. Arts, :i%. 

 1854 — Carpiodes iumidi(s Baiiid & Gihard, Proc. Phila. Ac. Nat. Sc. 28. 



Ictiohtis tiimidus GiUAi;!), U. S. Mex. Bound. Surv. Ich. 34, pi. xxx, f. 1-4, 1859. 



Ichthiiobus tttmidns JoiiDAN & Copicland, Check List, 158, 187G. 

 1856 — Carpiodis damalis Gihakd, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 170. 



Carpiodes damalis Gii:a];d, U. S. Pae. E. K. Expl. x, 218, pi. xlviii, f. 1-4, 1858. 



Carpiodes damalis Copk, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 85, 18-35. 



Carpiodes damalis Jordan & Copkland, Check List, 155, 1876. 

 187Q— Carpiodes grayi Copio, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. Phila. 482, 1870. 



Carpiodis {irayi .Joi.'DAN & Copelavd, Check List, 158, 1876. 



Carpiodes grayi CoPE &. YAiajow, Wheeler's Expl. W. 100th Mer. v, Zool. 681, 

 1876. 



HaijitaT. — New En<;lai:d to Alabama ; thence to Mexico and north to tho Upper 

 Missouri. 



I Lave elsewhere already uuited the iioininal species <ji'at/i and tuml- 

 clus, for the following reasons: — Giravd's ^'■Ictiobits tionulus'" is certainly 

 a Carpiodes^ as is plainly shown by tbe published (igure, the month be- 

 ing represented as small and inierior, beneath the i)r()j(c!!iig .sDout. I 

 have numerous young specimens (jf a Carpiodes Crom the Kio (iiatide, 

 at Brownsville, Texas, the original locality of Ictichu.s fumidiin. liut my 

 specimens do not disagree in any important resi)ect from Carpiodes graiji, 

 from the same river, nor am 1 able, on examination of authentic speci- 

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

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

 different, the differences have escaped m^' notice. It is of course i)ossi- 

 ble that my Brownsville specimens, although from the original locality 

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

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



1 am furthermore nuable to se[)aratc tumidns as thus characterized 

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

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

 believe that cyprinns, tumidus, damalis, and grayi were all based on mem- 

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

 synonymy. 



This species is the common Carp Sucker of Pennsylvania and tho 



