428 EXPLOEATIONS ACROSS THE GREAT BASIN OP UTAH. 



Tlie lateral line is decurrent downward from the angle of the hranchial apertures 

 and thence continued along the middle in a straight line to the base of the caudal lin. 



The skin is thick, and completely covers the skull, where it has a spongj^ or wrinkled 

 appearance. 



The color is broAvnish-fawn on the head, blotched with lighter and darker on the 

 trunk, and on the caudal peduncle inclining to reddish. The lower barbels are whitish, 

 like the abdomen and inferior surface of the head. 



The Hopladelits oUvaris, as will be seen by reference to tlie synonymy, has had 

 the fortune of being described under a large number of names. As se^-eral bestoAved 

 by the same authors have been brought together as synonymous, the reasons for so 

 doing Avill be naturally demanded. 



For most of the synonyms, we are indebted to Ratinesque, a man that never 

 touched a subject without involving it in confusion. It will therefore excite little sur- 

 prise to hear that he has described the same species under six different names, and 

 referred it to four diflerent groups, to wdiich he has given five generic names. 



The Stliirus olivaris described by Rafinesqne in the third volume of the American 

 Monthly Magazine and Critical RcAaew, p. 355, has been jironounced by Rafinesque 

 himself to be the same as his Pimehdus nehuhsits, and is consequently the Pimchnhis 

 Umosiis of Kirtland. 



It is described as follows: 



"Body olivaceous, shaded with brown, 8 whole barbs, 4 beneath, 2 lateral 

 thick brown, dorsal fin with 7 soft rays, pectoral fin 10 soft rays, anal tin 12 rays, tail 

 rounded notched, teeth aciite." 



The above diagnosis, with the exception of those parts relating to the color, num- 

 ber of rays in the anal fin, and form of caudal fin, is applicable to most of the Iiiahiri. 

 The color is not inapplicable to the IlopJadclus ; the number of anal rays agrees as well 

 with that species as with Noturus, and the allusion to the caudal, wliile it excludes 

 Noturus, is referable to Ilopladdiis. The teeth of HophdeJas are not, howevei', aacII 

 described by the term acute. But as the diagnosis does not suit any other species 

 better, it is doubtless applicable to that one. The diff'erence in the enumeration of the 

 anal rays is probably due to the difficulty of counting them in the thick skin in which 

 they are enveloped. 



At page 447 of the same volume of the Magazine, and at page 107 of the fourth 

 volume, the name of Glan'is Umosits, or Mud Catfish, occiu's ; but there is no description. 

 The species intended is undoubtedly that afterward described as Pyhdktis liiiiosus, to 

 the subsequent remarks on which we refer. 



Rafinesque has best described it under the name of Pimehdus Ihnosiis. The descrip- 

 tion is ([uite creditable to him, as only one serious error occurs. It is stated that there 

 is no lateral line ; biit there is certainly one present, as in all our North American species. 

 In other respects, the description is sufficiently characteristic, and the number of ra3's 

 in the anal fin is correctly said to be fifteen. No mention is, however, made of the 

 much depressed head and body, the latter being simply described as "slender". The 

 species is said to differ "from all others 1)y the long lower jaw, &c.", and to attain a 

 length of "abont one foot". 



