BUBALICIITHYS BUBALUS. 207 



This is probably the most generally distributed of the various species 

 known popularly as Buffalo-fish. The question as to its proper nomen- 

 clature is even more complic;ited than that of the next species. It 

 may be that this is the true hnhaliis of Rafinesque, as supposed by Dr. 

 Kirtland. But as that species was the type of the genus Tciiohus, the 

 identification of Rafinesque's species with the present one would lead 

 to changes in nomenclature far from desirable. The name IchtJnjohus 

 would then belong to Buhalklithys and the genus Ichtlujobus would 

 receive a new name. As this can never be proven, it is best to consider 

 Agassiz's identification as correct and that of Dr. Kirtland wrong. The 

 first mention of this species was that of Dr. Kirtland as Catosfomns hii- 

 halus. The name hubalus, however, was given through an erroneous 

 identification, and must be passed over. Next come Agassiz's names 

 ianriis and viftdus, both possibly belonging here, but just as likely be- 

 longing to urns. Both of them, from the exasperating insufficiency and 

 irrelevance of the descripftons, are practically unidentifiable. Next is 

 Agassiz's hubalus, noticed below. The next name in order is that of 

 Ichthyobus cyanellus Nelson, which was based on this si)ecies, as I have 

 ascertained by examination of his type. This is the first tenable name 

 certainly belonging to this species, unless we adopt the name bubalus. 

 Next comes Nelson's altus. A specimen answering Nelson's description 

 in all respects, and as evidently belonging to the species now under 

 consideration, is at present before me. It is a fine adult example. 

 Lastly comes my own b^ibalinus, intended merely as a substitute for the 

 name ^^ bubalus ^\ not then considered tenable as the specific name of 

 this species, having been given to it originally by an error in identifica- 

 tion. The adoption of the name bubalus by Agassiz after the knowledge 

 of this error may, however, be considered as a proposal of a new name. 

 The original descriptions of tanrus, vidilus, cyanellus, and altus are here 

 subjoined. 



Carpiodes taurus Agassiz, Am. Journ. Sci. Arts, 1855, p. 355. — " From 

 Mobile River, Alabama. The form of the body is intermediate between 

 that of C. Cyprinus and G. Urus. The gill-cover has the same form as 

 in G. Urus, but it is larger and more strongly arched behind. The hind 

 margin of the scales is waving, owing to a somewhat prominent mid- 

 dle angle. The anterior rays of the dorsal equal in length two-thirds 

 of that of the base of the fin. Anal not lunate behind. The ventrals 

 do not reach to the anal opening. Caudal not so deeply furcate as in 

 G. Cyprinus.'" 



