REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [22] 



216c. Hjihognathua nucUalis regia Qi'\va,Ti\. Vse. 



217. Hybognathus hayii Jordan. Vs. (1826.) 



77.— PIMEPHALES2 Rafinesque. (78,79,80) 



218. Pixnephales promelas^ Rafinesque. V. (190, 191) 

 218b. Fimephales jiromelas coiifertua G'lTHTd. Vnw. (192) 



219. Pimephales notatus* Rafinesque. V. (193,194) 



78.— EXOGLOSSUM Rafinesque. (81) 



220. Ezoglossum maxillingua Le Sueur. Ve. (195) 



79.— COCHLOGNATHUS Baird & Girard. (82) 



221. Cochlognathus ornatua Baird & Girard. Vsw. (196) 



222. Cochlognathus biguttatus Cope. Vsw. (197) 



80.— CLIOLA^ Girard. (84 2}t.) 



223. Cliola vigilaxs Baird & Girard. Vw. (202,203,215) 



81.— NOTROPIS' Rafinesque. (83,84,85) 

 ^ Hemitremia. (83) 



224. Notropis bifrenatus Coiie Ve. (199) 



225. Notropis maculatus Hay. Vs. (200) 



226. Notropis heterodon* Cope. Vn. (201) 



^ Hybognathus hayi Jordan, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1884. Streams of Alabama, 

 Mississippi, and the Lower Mississipj^i Valley. This species is correctly distinguished 

 from H. nuchalis in the Synopsis, p. 968., under the erroneous name of H. argyriiia. 

 The species was first observed by Professor Hay. 



-The genus Hyhorhynchus is not distinct from Pimephales, the character of the lat- 

 eral line being subject to many variations in F. promelas. 



'^ Coliscus parietalis is, in my opinion, the young of Pimephales proynelas. Hyho- 

 rhynchus confertus is scarcely distinguishable from P. promelas, western sj)eciuiens, 

 Illinois to Texas, having the lateral line often complete, although usually more or 

 less broken or irregular. 



* Hyhorhynchus superciliosus is not distinct from Pimephales notatus. The skin at the 

 angle of the mouth is thickened and produced in the males, but there is no true 

 barbel. 



^Cliola Girard (type Cliola nigtlax)=^ Hypargyrus Forbes, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 

 1884, 200 (type Hyhopsis tuditanus Cope), may be regarded as a genus distinct from 

 Notropis, having the short intestines, curved teeth, and other characters of Notropis, 

 ■with the separated first dorsal ray, and the general appearance of Pimephales notatus. 



^Cliola vigil ax B. & G. = Cliola relox Girard= C?Jo/a vivax Girard — Hyhopsis tuditanus 

 Cope =Alburnop8 taurocephalus Hay. This widely-diflfused and abundant species is 

 described in detail by Professor Gilbert, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1884, 200, under the 

 name of Hypargyrus tuditanus. 



''I find it impossible to maintain the distinctions given in the Synopsis, of Hemi- 

 tremia, Cliola and Minnilus. I therefore follow Professor Gilbert (Proc. U. S. Nat. 

 Mus., 1884,201) in uniting all these little fishes in a single genus, JSoiropis, tho latter 

 generic name being the earliest applied to any of the group. 



'^Hemitremia vittata is here omitted. The species is perhaps not distinct from JV. 

 iifrcuatus or N. hcterodon. In any case the name vittatus is preoccupied in Notropis. 

 The number of teeth, 4-5, assigned to H. vittata by Professor Cope is probably an acci- 

 dental variation or an error of observation. In some specimens, which as yet we 

 arc unable to separate from N. heterodon, the lateral line is complete, and the teeth 

 2, 4-4, 2. See GUbert, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1884, 207. 



