186 LETTERS FROM PROF. AGASSIZ. 



SO wantonly lost, since I can hardly hope that you may 

 take again the trouble of collecting another set of your 

 fishes for me. I hardly dare to ask for it, unless you will 

 allow me to repay to you the expenses you have alreadj^ 

 incurred in my behalf. I must, however, say that I would 

 value highly such a collection, without which it will 

 remain impossible for me to compare your fishes with 

 those I have collected further West with the degree of 

 precision such comparisons require. 



I would gladly avail myself of your very kind invitation 

 to go to Cleveland now, and ransack, with you, your rivers 

 and brooks, if I was in a condition to endure even the 

 excitement of such work. I must remain absolutely quiet 

 for a good while if I want to recover from the severe shock 

 my health has sustained last Winter. 



I have lately made some comparisons which have satis- 

 fied me that Pomotis gulosus, Gentrarchus gulosus^ Val., 

 is generically distinct from either Pomotis and Gentrarchus, 

 and must be referred to Rafinesque's genus Oalluirus^ 

 of which I know now half a dozen species. I have also 

 satisfied myself that his genus Amhloplitus is good, and 

 that Gentrarchus ^neus, Owens, belongs to it; and 

 further that his genus Pomotis must be retained also. 

 Your Gentrarchus hexicanthus, which belongs to it, dif- 

 fers from the Southern one. I have made a direct 

 comparison, which leaves no doubt upon this point. 

 The question is now only which specimen name ought 

 to be preserved for both. To settle this point I want 

 badly to know the date of the publication of your Report, 

 where your Gichla Stoveria is first described, if I remem- 

 ber rightly. 



We have thus three more genera of Rafinesque restored 

 to their right. The same must be done with his genus 

 Ambladon, which difi"ers essentially from Porina. I have 

 had ample opportunities last Winter to compare the oste- 



