88 CONTRIBUTIONS TO NORTH AMERICAN ICHTHYOLOGY—II. 
Reynolds, with an extremely long anal fin and some peculiarities of 
form, I have termed var. analis. 
The description of Pimelodus uatalis Le Sueur appears to have been 
based on an individual with the caudal peduncle swollen and elevated. 
It appears that most of the species have what may be termed “nata- 
lis” forms, 7. é., individuals with the post dorsal region shortened and 
thickened, with the adipose fin enlarged, and with the caudal fin very 
short; owing to the encroachment of the flesh on its rays. These forms 
often appear more distinct from the normal type than do any two allied 
species. The names puma and natalis seem to have been based on the 
natalis type of this species. Catulus and confinis are the natalis form of 
melas, and so on. Whether these peculiar forms are distinct races or 
aberrant individuals, or stages in the life of an individual, or what they 
are, I have not now sufficient evidence to enable me to decide. I can . 
only say that I do not at preseut consider them distinct species. 
13. AMIURUS VULGARIS, (Thompson) Nelson. 
Long-jawed Catfish. 
, a. Subspecies VULGARIS. 
(Figs. 33 and 34.) 
Pimelodus vulgaris, THOMPSON (1842), History of Vermont 138. 
Amiurus vulgaris, NELSON (1876), Bull. Ills. Mus. Nat. Hist. 50.—JorDAN & COPE- 
LAND (1876), Check List, 159. 
Pimelodus dekayi, GIRARD (1859), Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 160. 
Amiurus dekayi, GILL (1462), Proe. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. 44.—Copr (1870), Proc. 
Am. Philos. Soc. 485.—JORDAN (1876), Man. Vert. 302. 
Habitat—Lake Champlain and Great Lake region. 
b. Subspecies ASLURUS, (Girard) Gill. 
(Fig. 35.) 
Pimelodus ailurus, GIRARD (1853), U. S. Pac. R. R. Surv. Fishes, 210. 
Amiurus ailurus, GILL (1862), Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. 44. 
Amiurus cwlurus, COPE (1870), Proc. Am. Philos. Soe. 485.—JORDAN (1876), Man. 
Vert. 302.—JorDAN & COPELAND (1877), Check List, 159. 
Habitat—Upper Mississippi River, Missouri River and their tributa- 
ries, also in Red River of the North. 
Girard’s statement that his dekayi is the same as De Kay’s Pimelodus 
catus is certainly incorrect, if any reliance is to be placed on Cescrip- 
tions. That Thompson’s vulgaris is the same as dekayi I have no doubt. 
Amiurus clurus, of which I have examined the types as well as numer- 
