March, 1963 



Larimore & Smith: Fishes of Champaign County 



329 



Noturiis flavus 



Noturus ffyrinus 



Noturus miurus 



Fiindulus notatus 



Labidesthes siccuhis 



Aphredoderus sayanus 



Chaenobryttus gulosus 



Lepomis cyanellus 



Leponiis hum His 



Lepomis macrochirus 



Lepomis megalotis 



Micropterus dolomieui 



Pomoxis annularis 



Poinoxis nigromaculatus 



Etheostoma asprigene 



Etheostoma blennioides 



Etheostoma chloi-osomum 



Etheostoma fiabellare 



Etheostoma nigrum 



Percina caprodes 



Percina maculata 



Percina phoxocephala 

 In addition to the species cited above are 

 probably others. Forbes & Richardson's 

 nominal "Notropis blennius" was probably 

 a composite of N . stramineus and N. vo- 

 lucellus, their "Notropis whipplii" a com- 

 posite of N . spilopterus and ISl . whipplei, 

 their "Micropterus sahnoides" a composite 

 of M. punctulatus and M. sahnoides, and 

 their "Etheostoma coeruleum" a composite 

 of E. caeruleum and E. spectabile. Al- 

 though many of the early collections have 

 been lost and cannot be reidentified, vi^e 

 are reasonably certain that 63 species were 

 represented in the collections of Forbes & 

 Richardson and that the 2 other species 

 reported previously by Large (1903:15, 

 19) bring the total number of species col- 

 lected in the county by 1901 to 65. 



Thompson & Hunt Records 



Although the material of Forbes & 

 Richardson was cited in various revision- 

 ary studies published between 1901 and 

 1928, no additional Champaign County 

 records for this period were published in 

 these taxonomic papers. 



Thompson & Hunt, in their 1930 pub- 

 lication, chose to use the nomenclature of 

 Forbes & Richardson, and many of their 

 nominal species would have been difficult 

 to assign had we not had much of their 

 material for reidentification. They claimed 

 the addition of 13 species to the known 

 fauna of Champaign County, but restudy 



of their specimens indicated that they ac- 

 tually added the following 15: 



Hiodon alosoides 



Ictiobus cyprinellus 



Ictiobus niger 



Moxostoma anisurum 



Notropis amnis 



Notropis rubellus 



Noturus exilis 



Pylodictis olivaris 



Ambloplites rupestris 



Lepomis punctatus 



(probably introduced) 



Anguilla rostrata 



(from adjacent Douglas County) 



A mmocrypta pellucida 



Etheostoma gracile 



Etheostoma zonule 



Aplodinotus grunniens 

 Their nominal "Notropis blennius" in- 

 cluded both N . stramineus and N . volucel- 

 lus; their "Notropis whipplii/' both N. 

 spilopterus and N. whipplei; and their 

 "Etheostoma coeruleum," both E. caeru- 

 leum and E. spectabile. Whether their 

 "Micropterus sahnoides" also included M. 

 punctulatus is not known, as the speci- 

 mens have been lost. 



Thompson & Hunt believed that they 

 missed only three species that had been 

 previously recorded from the county, 

 whereas they actually failed to rediscover 

 the following six : 



Ictiobus bubalus 



Hybopsis aestivalis 



Hybopsis storeriana 



Notropis atherinoides 



Notropis heterolepis 



Etheostoma asprigene 

 The discrepancy is due to their ap- 

 parent misidentification of Notropis athe- 

 rinoides and their failure to include the 

 two species recorded by Large (1903:15, 

 19). In all, Thompson & Hunt obtained 

 74 species, 59 of which had been recorded 

 previously from the county. 



Almost half of the species recorded by 

 both Forbes & Richardson and Thompson 

 & Hunt showed an increase in number of 

 stations and in number of drainages oc- 

 cupied in the approximately 30-year pe- 

 riod between the surveys. Many of the ap- 

 parent increases in abundance are of 

 doubtful significance because of the more 

 intensive collecting program of Thompson 

 & Hunt ; however, some of the apparent 



