142 FISHES OF WESTERN SOUTH AMERICA 
Throughout most of South America, abounding in moderately high to ex- 
tremely high elevations, contending with Orestias for the distinction of attaining 
the greatest altitudes among the fishes of the world. 
Air bladder poorly developed; without adipose fin; median fins short to 
moderate; unarmored; skull enclosed by muscular coat and naked skin; teeth 
villiform; nares remote; dorsal fin not united to skull by a bony plate. Mostly 
given to burrowing and holding, the fins well back in response to this habit. 
The names candirvi and carnero, implying the habit of parasitism, are met with 
in regions of lower elevation and the more tropical portions of the continent of 
South America. These terms are as loosely appled to a variety of fishes as the 
words perch or trout in North America. In fact they are so universally known that 
few distinctive, colloquial names exist for any member of the family in those re- 
gions. It is true, however, that the inhabitants are rarely able to distinguish one 
from the other, even between distinct subfamilies. 
Among the genera Acanthopoma, Vandellia, Stegophilus, Branchioica, Urinoph- 
ilus, Cetopsis, Hemicetopsis and Tridens, representing three subfamilies, there 
are supposed to exist one or more species of minute, elongate fishes which exhibit 
the following type of behavior (or misbehavior): 
1. A positive tropism toward urine in the water. 
2. A tendency to enter the urethra or other natural opening of the body of man 
or other animal. 
Dr. Eugene W. Gudger, with his genius for documentation and the pursuit of 
fish-lore to its ultimate hiding-place, has assembled an impressive volume of 
evidence in support of this popular belief. Some of his information is direct, lead- 
ing back to supposedly original observation; elsewhere he is obliged to rely upon 
hearsay. As a summary of present day information on this subject Dr. Gudger 
has done a well-nigh perfect piece of work. He rightly approaches the subject 
from the generic angle, not definitely ascribing these attributes to a particular 
species, as, of course, there is little precise or experimental evidence as to the 
habits of the respective species. 
The fearful appellation candiru was adopted by Spix (1829) as the specific 
name of the suspected form. ‘‘This fish belongs to Cetopsis, a genus which we have 
described, but I do not know whether these pests are the younger individuals of 
the species described (C. candiru and C. coecutiens) or whether they are individuals 
of a third species of smaller fishes endowed also by nature with this cruel instinct.”’ 
(Martius, in Spix and Agassiz, 1829). Thus Martius in the preface of the same 
work leaves the matter of identity open; in spite of all the work done since it 1s 
still an open question as to whether Cetopsis candiru or other form is the candiru 
of tradition. 
Eigenmann was greatly interested in establishing the truth as to the alleged 
tropism toward urine. (1918, ¢.) He was sufficiently convinced to attach the 
opprobrium of it to a new genus of Vandelliinae, Urinophilus. At his suggestion 
I made repeated efforts to collect these minute fishes by means of their attraction 
