20 FISHES OF WESTERN SOUTH AMERICA 
The end of the decade saw two of the Indiana University expeditions into this 
area, the Irwin Expedition, 1918-1919, and the Centennial, 1920-1921, discussed 
elsewhere in this paper. The Mulford Expedition, as reported in Eigenmann, 
1922b, crossed our route and continued the survey down the Beni and Mamoré. 
In 1923 Dr. N. E. Pearson added the valuable chapter of Peruvian ichthyology 
dealing with the fishes of the upper Maranon and overland between that river and 
the Pacific via Cajamarca. 
Myers (1936b) indicates that the United States National Museum has re- 
ceived a valuable collection of fishes made in eastern Peru in 1935 by Mr. William 
G. Scherer. This material remains unworked, except the one or two striking ex- 
amples which he picked out for immediate publication. Mr. Scherer is continuing 
his collections about Pebas and the Ambyiacu for the Stanford Museum. 
1937 (Fowler, 1939), is marked by an important collection of fishes made by 
Mr. William C. Morrow and associates, chiefly about Contamana on the lower 
Ucayali. Unfortunately a still larger part of this collection was lost in transit. 
Surviving the accident Fowler reports 319 specimens, 106 species, of which 22 are 
new, with 5 new genera. 
This account is incomplete. A scattering of specimens has found their way 
into various museums without being reported, such as a collection by J. B. Steere. 
I have elsewhere listed a small collection made by E. G. Squier in 1865 from Lake 
Umayo. 
The close of the career of Professor Kigenmann would appear to be an ap- 
propriate moment in History for an assay of the status of neotropical ichthyology, 
for he gave more years of his life to that subject than any other has done, despite 
what others would have considered insuperable discouragements. I shall not 
attempt, however, more than a brief categorical outline of some of the convictions 
which have forced themselves upon me during this study. 
Although large collections exist, there is still great lack of material for the 
careful revision of many groups, a centralized collection many times larger than 
any now under one roof, and representing many more localities, from all parts of 
South America. It is unfortunate that Eigenmann passed before the era of liberal 
spending. He would have envisioned, and perhaps have realized such a program. 
No museum or institution is at present carrying out a systematic attack upon such 
an enterprise. There is little collaboration among scholars in the field, little una- 
nimity of purpose, no undivided interest on the part of any man. There is even 
a conviction on the part of some ichthyologists that the citizenry is not asking this 
service, although the initiative must arise from the scholar himself. The personnel 
in field and museum needs to be enlarged. It now devolves upon American in- 
stitutions to take the lead, due to the impairment of those abroad. 
A second type of work which should be undertaken at this time is that of mak- 
ing exhaustive collections in certain small, selected areas. This has almost never 
been undertaken; the long series of visits to Pebas is nearer this objective than any 
other, but has always been in the hands of untrained amateurs. It is highly 
important that a trained personnel spend a period of years, from season to season, 
in these areas, with all needed equipment to work up their collections on the spot, 
from living fishes as well as dead. 
