DISTRIBUTION OF THE FISHES 61 
TABLE III.—Conceluded 
= i S bs 
‘ ox a] e he 
SoS calms Bier 
ele |= | a| o BS) 82) 5 
o |F | SOS ett oes sel=a| a 
r= s ° s ae VE cs a] 
3) £ = at ee Bee TS Sel 
Ss |ha| & SR ee R= i eee le 
= rai) 1S z ye | HN I CS I 
= leele|2| = |sé|z 28/82) 3 
eo 12a) & ° o S Helge} 2 
2S) ise A SS ae SSeS eee ea 
= ane) a tse ilies Sig le o 
Orestias agassizil. . . fo ee Bera cee | eereest SCI Om, Mk coa all x< 
=~ empyraeus:. =: ‘ Space | feeea cel | teRealll aces co) h Neh tea eae alle atk 
“ miilleri. SR a aid alee Glin ae Ser ata eee salle eka|| ball OM 
silustani. we eh: cUctee eee x 
CF Out, | 6 sese Bs ced tap age Se een |e le a epee even epee ale ecPa sally 2: 7.1 |" OX 
SEE LOSDICLOSInee eee er eT Seeley alles ofall welled tn eee ene Ay x 
Bote USSICT. 6, oe asian MOEA eet eal eiber ene | selcims lease oer. eee 
Se tSChi Giese Ct yn Selah ae Bell eee plus ce sl heart a Ae S|} ps 
=) humboldtre 5 5 Re ells See eaeed eee Belle Ba voll te ea Leet Pho aells ee x 
* pentlandis.. at re eH ol es St Be otreeea (Coss len Corer] eres | ene ee x 
Go Gidea sesnoone : Pete SE TEA Pesaro Rec ere scarce a cal eaee erste x 
ee LUCUS ese siete ee Ile Erol rotera le aicne eee eral ee x 
smmera lbUSz ae Ao.4 : Se egrets leaevenal ere oe ees | eee Sef eats news eke ca hook 
45. OMKURKAAUIS:, 65 me oop nerer BS easel eae eal Teas [oer Sees | ees oe ee ence all eee (eee os [eect x 
= PINCAC RH enc ee Pes ase lieder |eenal [ones Meena neal ete [Glen Saal ty emilee ls 
Tylosurus amazonicus...... We odd state Geek ered Gralla calle eyed] aera ano <a Pn area [ars ae 
anne 
ZEquidens tetramerus | . een ne Re Ea ew peel ll eae x 
Crenicichla saxatilis. . . eee Ee es (oes lene re [eae ATED ea ces 8 IS oa fe ea 
. IWCIUS eee exe Een eat eee |e 2 | a dra NN Sa tl ina eo | ee eee al 
a (XW Alo ss da ae Oar speck castle tall hoc = [bee nl becca disaster assee hg 
Species italicized in Table III are from unique localities; Hemibrycon helleri 
doubtfully identical; Astroblepus praeliorum from streams arising in the same area. 
DISCUSSION 
The evidences and the conclusions concerning distribution in other regions of 
South America are discussed by Eigenmann (1909, 1912, 1922, ete.) Since so large 
a part of the freshwater fauna of the continent belongs to only a few families several 
of which are represented also in Africa, and since certain Geological facts lend sup- 
port to the theory, he considered the demonstration sufficiently complete that the 
fishes of South America have their nearest kinship with those of the Eastern Hemi- 
sphere. Whether an Archhelenis-Archiplata continent existed all at one time or 
piecemeal, a freshwater communication with Africa appeared to be the most logical 
explanation of the facts. Rejection of the theory seems to permit only one alterna- 
tive, the much broader assumption of many cases of close parallelism, purely fortui- 
tous, between the fishes of the two continents. 
The present discussion has to do with the youngest major portion of South 
America, antedated through long geological periods by the freshwater areas of 
Brazil and the Guianas. Regardless of the earliest beginnings of the ichthyfauna, 
the migration routes into this area from the older streams are discernible (Higen- 
