FAMILY CYPRINIDA — CATOSTOMUS. 197 
short and simple; the next, simple, articulated, and twice its length; the succeeding ones 
branched ;. the fourth and fifth subequal, longest ;. thence gradually diminishing behind; the 
last a mere rudimentary ray. Caudal with stout branched articulated rays, lunate, almost 
furcate. Air-bladder divided into two unequal parts, connected by a short tube; the anterior 
subcordate ; the posterior longer, cylindrical, gradually diminishing behind. 
Color. Head dark green above, verging to black. Cheeks bronze and golden. Body above 
dark purplish, with pink and metallic tints.on the sides, frequently of a resplendent golden 
hue extending over the abdomen; beneath white. Pectoral, ventral and anal orange-colored ; 
dorsal light brown; caudal deep brownish or blackish. Irides varied with brown and white. 
Length, 14:0. 
Bin trays; D. 13); Pi bey V5 105;, A.-8s (Ch 1718) 2. 
So little attention has been paid to the careful discrimination of species in this genus, that 
I fear to add to the already. existing confusion by citing synonimes. After a careful compari- 
son of the descriptions of Forster and Peck, I find such slight and scarcely appreciable diffe- 
rences as to render it probable that they all refer to the same species. It is very evident from 
Forster’s description of the tubercles and the sutures, and his silence respecting the color of 
the eyes, that he had a dried specimen before him.* The notice by Schcepff of another spe- 
cies, which is loose and indefinite, I insert below.t Although the figure of Peck is scarcely 
recognizable, owing to the low state of the arts at that period, yet his description agrees in 
the main with that of Forster. The description of the C. teres by Dr. Mitchill may. apply 
to several species, but I know of no Catostomus common here, ‘with an almost even tail.” 
I can see but very slight and unimportant differences in the characters assigned by Lesueur 
to his C. bostoniensis, hudsonius and communis. A better defined character of the genus, 
and a careful description and comparison of the species, is still a desideratum. 
The Common Sucker is abundant in our markets in the autumn, when its flesh is consi- 
dered to be improved in quality. At the best it is, however, meagre and tasteless. 
* “ Cyprinus catostomus, var. Prinna anali radiis 7. Labeo imo caruncula triloba papillosa. Cauda semilunata.” (FoRSTER.) 
t Sucker in Pennsylvania, ‘Head somewhat thicker than the body, front very flat; towards the projecting snout, the head be- 
comes smaller. Mouth beneath without teeth, and presents a subtriangular opening covered by a soft warty sucking lip. Br. 
membrane three-rayed, Body roundish above, sub-compressed, elongate, scaly and silvery. The lateral line bends itself at first 
somewhat downward, and then goes off straight. Tail somewhat furcate. D.13; P.17; V.9; A.7; C. 18-20. 
“Those which I saw in Philadelphia, were caught in the Delaware. They do not come to New York, although they are com- 
mon in the small streams of the Hudson. The individual described by Forster came from Hudson’s bay, and is undoubtedly the 
same species, although the number of rays somewhat varies.” (P&ckK.) 
