338 FISHES OF WESTERN SOUTH AMERICA 
Arapaima gigas Miller, 1843, Arch. Naturg., 191; 
Miiller, 1846, Abh. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 191; 
Miller and Troschel, 1848, in Schomburgk, Reisen, III, 638; 
Giinther, 1868, Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus., VII, 379; 
Eigenmann and Figenmann, 1891, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XIV, 64; 
Eigenmann, 1910, Rept. Princeton Univ. Exped. Patagonia, III, 453; 
Eigenmann, 1912, Mem. Carnegie Mus., V, 451. 
Arapaema gigas Cope, 1878, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., XVII, 695, Nauta. 
Vastres gigas Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1846, Hist. Nat. Poiss., XTX, 433. 
Range that of the genus 
,72 mm. x 78 mm., scales only, Rio Pacaya, Allen, August, 1920. 
Known throughout Amazonia and to Bahia and British Guiana, it is the pira- 
rucu of Brazil, the paiche (pié-chay) of Peru, and the arapaima of the Guianas. 
No specimens were collected for the unexcusable reason that, except for scales, 
the preservation of specimens was too long postponed until those small enough for 
ready handling and transportation could be taken. Such an opportunity did not 
arise, and meanwhile numbers of fine, large specimens were passed by until too late. 
The paiche is in many respects the most intriguing and most interesting fish of all 
South America. They are everywhere within their range the most valuable and 
most sought-after species, mainly on account of the large size and economic value, 
their comparative freedom from bones, and complete freedom from small bones, 
and the ease with which they can be dried for marketing and for domestic use during 
the rainy season. The species is therefore becoming extinct in the more inhabited 
regions, and scarce in more remote ones. I found it still common, but not abun- 
dant, in such remote districts as the Rio Pacaya. 
Something of the former abundance may be guessed at from older writings. 
For example, Bates, during the 1850’s, found it diminishing along the main course 
of the Brazilian Amazon, predicting its early extinction, together with that of the 
turtles, which were also being used up at an enormous rate. Statistics of annual 
catches are not available, nor would they be reliable, but Marcoy (II, p. 427) says 
authoritatively during the 1870’s: ‘‘In the early days a fortnight’s fishing of a single 
village produced 10,000 pirarocow and 4000 lamentin (manatee). 
In spite of the great importance of the pirarucu’ commercially, no writer ex- 
hibits much knowledge of it, and many false accounts of it have wide currency. 
I find allusions in the scientific and travel literature under names as widely 
diversified as the following: 
Maius osteoglossum (Marcoy) 
Primodontos gigas (Lange) 
Vastres gigas (various writers following Cuvier and Valenciennes) 
Arapaima gigans (Beebe) 
Sudis gigas (Orton, ete.) 
The first two generic names have not found their way into Jordan’s Genera of 
Fishes. Of course the currently accepted name is used by some authors. 
Among the popular names are the following: 
Piraruci, often used, and correctly so 
Piraracu (Fleming) 
