[27] CATALOGUE OF THE FISHES OF NORTH AMERICA. 



297. Notropisumbratilis' Girard. Vw. (290,416) 



298. Notropis punctulatus Hay. Vs. (290) 



299. Notropis roseipinnis* Hay. Vs. (291) 



300. Notropis bellus Hay. Vs. (292) 



301. Notropis matutinus Cope. Vse. (293) 



302. Notropis lirus 3 Jordan. Vs. (294) 



303. Notropis metallicus Jordan & Meek. Vse. 



304. Notropis scepticus Jordan & Gilbert. Vse. (297) 



305. Notropis photogenis Cope. Vse. (298) 



306. Notropis telescopus Cope. Vs. (299) 



307. Notropis stilbius Jordan. Vs. (300) 



308. Notropis atherinoides •» Rafineaqne. Vn. (302) 



309. Notropis dilectus ^ Girard. Vw. (295, 303, 305) 



310. Notropis rubrifrons^' Copo. Vn. (301,304) 



311. Notropis micropteryx Cope. Vw. (306) 



$ Protoporus "> Cope. (86) 



312. Notropis? domninus Cope. R. (307) 



313. Notropis ? timpanogensis Cope. R. (285) 



82.— ERICYMBA Cope. (87) 



314. Ericymba biiccata Cope. Ve. (308) 



83.— PHENACOBIUS Cope. (88) 



315. Phenacobius teretulus Cope. Ve. (309) 



316. Phenacobius mirabilis Girard. Vw. (310,3106.) 



317. Phenacobius catastomus Jordan. Vs. (311) 



318. Phenacobius urauops Cope. Vs: (312) 



84.— TIAROGA Girard. 



319. Tiaroga cobitis Girard. R. (217) 



85.— RHINICHTHYS Agassiz. (89) 



320. Rhiuichthys cataractae * Cuv. & Val. Vn. (313) 

 320 h. Bhinichthya cataractw dulda GiT&rd. Vw. (314) 



^ Xotropis ro8eipi7inis Hay, nom. sp. nov., for Minnilus ruhripinnis Hay. The name 

 rubripinnis is preoccupied in this genus. Argyreus rubrijnnnis Heckel = Notropis me- 

 galops. 



^Notropis alabamos Jordan & Meek, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1884, 476, seems to be 

 identical with Notropis lirus, which again is doubtfully distinct from N. matutinus. 



■^Notropis metallicus Jordan & Meek, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1884, 475. Allamaha 

 (Suwannee) River, Georgia. 



*Nofroj)is atherinoides IR-d&ueiiqiie =Alburnus rubellus Agassiz =? Minnilus dinemus 

 Ratinesque. The synonymy of this and related species is at present in much con- 

 fusion. 



*The tjTjies of Alburnellus jemezanus are shriveled and distorted. I am unable to 

 see how they differ from N. dilectus. 



5 Alburnellus percobromus Cope seems to be indistinguishable from N. rubrifrons. 



'' The genus Protoporus is extremely doubtful, both the species referred to it being 

 probably the young of Squalius or Phoxinus. 



s Examination of large numbers of specimens of Ehinichthys from various parts of 

 the United States has convinced me that not more than two distinct species can be 



