Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology 13; 



we may state here that the authors quoted apparently arrived 

 at their conclusion from erroneous data. They seem to have 

 compared only non-breeding with breeding specimens of Huvia- 

 tilis, believing the latter to represent L. planeri. WajgeP^ also- 

 concluded that Hiiviatilis and planeri intergrade. but he con- 

 fused Eudontomyson danfordi with Lampetra planeri. Other 

 authors have expressed like views, but so far as we know, no 

 one has presented any conclusively supporting evidence. 



10. Lampetra planeri Bloch 



We refer to this form many specimens examined from 

 Europe, Japan, and from Western North America (from 

 Alaska to central California). The material represents numer- 

 ous races, without geographical significance, and apparently 

 not recognizable nomenclaturally. Indeed, as suggested above, 

 planeri may even intergrade with Uuviatilis. 



The brook lampreys of California have passed under the 

 name Lampetra cibaria, but Ammocoetes cibarius Girard*° was 

 described as having the dorsal fins separated, and hence was 

 probably based on either Entosphenus t. tridentatus or Lam- 

 petra Uuviatilis. 



39 Verb, zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, Z3, 1883 (1884), pp. 311-320, pi. 17. 

 ■lo Pac. R. R. Exp. Fish., 1858, p. 383. 



