﻿810 
  REPORT 
  OF 
  COMMISSIONER 
  OF 
  FISH 
  AND 
  FISHERIES. 
  [22] 
  

  

  216c. 
  Hybognathus 
  nuchalis 
  regia 
  Girard. 
  Vse. 
  

  

  217. 
  Hybognathus 
  hayi 
  1 
  Jordan. 
  Vs. 
  (1826.) 
  

  

  77.— 
  PIMEPHALES 
  3 
  Rafinesque. 
  (78,79,80) 
  

  

  218. 
  Pimephales 
  promelas 
  3 
  Rafinesque. 
  V. 
  (190,101) 
  

   218b. 
  Pimephales 
  promelas 
  confertus 
  Girard. 
  Vnw. 
  (192) 
  

  

  219. 
  Pimephales 
  notatus 
  4 
  Rafinesque. 
  V. 
  (193, 
  194) 
  

  

  78.— 
  EXOGLOSSUM 
  Rafinesque. 
  (81) 
  

  

  220. 
  Exoglossum 
  maxillingua 
  Lc 
  Sueur. 
  Ve. 
  (195) 
  

  

  79.— 
  COCHLOGNATHUS 
  Baird 
  & 
  Girard. 
  (82) 
  

  

  221. 
  Cochlognathus 
  ornatus 
  Baird 
  & 
  Girard. 
  Vsw. 
  (196) 
  

  

  222. 
  Cochlognathus 
  biguttatus 
  Cope. 
  Vsw. 
  (197) 
  

  

  80.— 
  CLIOLA 
  ■ 
  Girard. 
  (84 
  pt.) 
  

  

  223. 
  Cliola 
  vigilax 
  fi 
  Baird 
  & 
  Girard. 
  Vw. 
  (202,203,215) 
  

  

  81.— 
  NOTROPIS 
  7 
  Rafinesque. 
  (83,84,85) 
  

   $ 
  Hemitremia. 
  (83) 
  

  

  224. 
  Notropis 
  bifrenatus 
  Cope 
  Ve. 
  (199) 
  

  

  225. 
  Notropis 
  maculatus 
  Hay. 
  Vs. 
  (200) 
  

  

  226. 
  Notropis 
  heterodon 
  8 
  Cope. 
  Vn. 
  (201) 
  

  

  1 
  Hybognathus 
  hayi 
  Jordan, 
  Proc. 
  U. 
  S. 
  Nat. 
  Mus., 
  1884. 
  Streams 
  of 
  Alabama, 
  

   Mississippi, 
  and 
  the 
  Lower 
  Mississippi 
  Valley. 
  This 
  species 
  is 
  correctly 
  distinguished 
  

   from 
  H. 
  nuchalis 
  in 
  the 
  Synopsis, 
  p. 
  968., 
  under 
  the 
  erroneous 
  name 
  of 
  IT. 
  argyrilis. 
  

   The 
  species 
  was 
  first 
  observed 
  by 
  Professor 
  Hay. 
  

  

  ■ 
  The 
  genus 
  Hyborhynchus 
  is 
  not 
  distinct 
  from 
  Pimephales, 
  the 
  character 
  of 
  the 
  lat- 
  

   eral 
  lino 
  being 
  subject 
  to 
  many 
  variations 
  in 
  P. 
  promelas. 
  

  

  *Coliscus 
  parietalis 
  is, 
  in 
  my 
  opinion, 
  tho 
  youug 
  of 
  Pimephales 
  promelas. 
  Hybo- 
  

   rhynchus 
  confertus 
  is 
  scarcely 
  distinguishable 
  from 
  P. 
  promelas, 
  western 
  specimens, 
  

   Illinois 
  to 
  Texas, 
  having 
  tho 
  lateral 
  lino 
  often 
  complete, 
  although 
  usually 
  more 
  or 
  

   loss 
  broken 
  or 
  irregular. 
  

  

  4 
  Hyborhynchus 
  supcrciliosus 
  is 
  not 
  distinct 
  from 
  Pimephales 
  notatus. 
  The 
  skin 
  at 
  tho 
  

   angle 
  of 
  the 
  mouth 
  is 
  thickened 
  and 
  produced 
  in 
  the 
  males, 
  but 
  there 
  is 
  no 
  true 
  

   barbel. 
  

  

  -Cliola 
  Girard 
  (type 
  Cliola 
  vigilax) 
  = 
  Hypar 
  gyrus 
  Forbes, 
  Proc. 
  U. 
  S. 
  Nat. 
  Mus., 
  

   1884, 
  200 
  (typo 
  Hybopsis 
  tuditanus 
  Cope), 
  may 
  he 
  regarded 
  as 
  a 
  genus 
  distinct 
  from 
  

   Notropis, 
  having 
  the 
  short 
  intestines, 
  curved 
  teeth, 
  and 
  other 
  characters 
  of 
  Notropis, 
  

   with 
  the 
  separated 
  first 
  dorsal 
  ray, 
  and 
  the 
  general 
  appearance 
  of 
  Pimephales 
  notatus. 
  

  

  6 
  Cliola 
  vigilax 
  B. 
  & 
  G. 
  = 
  CUola 
  vclox 
  Girard= 
  Cliola 
  vivax 
  Girard 
  —Hybopsis 
  tuditanus 
  

   Cope 
  =Alburnops 
  taurocephalus 
  Hay. 
  This 
  widely-diffused 
  and 
  -abundant 
  species 
  is 
  

   described 
  in 
  detail 
  by 
  Professor 
  Gilbert, 
  Proc. 
  U. 
  S. 
  Nat. 
  Mus., 
  1884,200, 
  under 
  tha 
  

   name 
  of 
  Hypargyrus 
  tuditanus. 
  

  

  7 
  1 
  find 
  it 
  impossible 
  to 
  maintain 
  the 
  distinctions 
  given 
  in 
  tho 
  Synopsis, 
  of 
  Hemi- 
  

   tremia, 
  Cliola 
  and 
  Minnilus. 
  I 
  therefore 
  follow 
  Professor 
  Gilbert 
  (Proc. 
  U. 
  S. 
  Nat. 
  

   Mus., 
  1884,201) 
  in 
  uniting 
  all 
  these 
  little 
  fishes 
  in 
  a 
  single 
  genus, 
  JVotrojns, 
  tho 
  latter 
  

   generic 
  nanio 
  being 
  tho 
  earliest 
  applied 
  to 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  group. 
  

  

  8 
  Hemitremia 
  vitlata 
  is 
  hero 
  omitted. 
  The 
  species 
  is 
  perhaps 
  not 
  distinct 
  from 
  AT. 
  

   bifrenatus 
  or 
  N. 
  heterodon. 
  In 
  any 
  case 
  the 
  name 
  vittatus 
  is 
  preoccupied 
  in 
  Notrojns. 
  

   The 
  number 
  of 
  teeth, 
  4-5, 
  assigned 
  to 
  H. 
  vittata 
  by 
  Professor 
  Cope 
  is 
  probably 
  an 
  acci- 
  

   dental 
  variation 
  or 
  an 
  error 
  of 
  observation. 
  In 
  some 
  specimens, 
  which 
  as 
  yet 
  we 
  

   are 
  unable 
  to 
  separate 
  from 
  N. 
  heterodon, 
  the 
  lateral 
  line 
  is 
  complete, 
  and 
  tho 
  teeth 
  

   2, 
  4-4,2. 
  Seo 
  Gilbert, 
  Proc. 
  U. 
  S. 
  Nat. 
  Mus., 
  1884, 
  207. 
  

  

  