CARPIODES CYPRINUS. 199 



cyprinus GCXTIIKR, Cat. Fishes Brit. Mus. vii, 24, 1868. 



Carpiodes cyprinus COPE, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. Phila. 484, 1870. 



Carpiodes cyprinus JORDAN, Fishes of Ind. 202, Itf75. 



Carpiodcs cyprinus JORDAN, Man. Vert. 97, 187G. 



Carpiodes cyprinus UIILER & LUGGER, Fishes of Maryland, 140, 1876. 



Carpiodcs cyprinus JORDAN &, COPELAND, Check List, 158, 1876. 



Carpiodcs ci/prlnus JORDAN, Man. Vert. ed. 2d, 323, 1878. 

 1?54 Carpiodes vacca AGASSIZ, Am. Journ. Sci. Arts, 356. 

 1S>1 Carp iodcs tumidus BAII:D & GIRARD, Proc. Phila. Ac. Nat. Sc.28. 



Ictiobits tumidus GIRARD, U. S. Mex. Bound. Surv. Ich. 34, pi. xxx, f. 1-4, 1859. 



IchtJtyobus tumidus JORDAN & COPELAND, Check List, 158, 1876. 

 1856 Carp iodcs damalis GIRARD, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 170. 



Carpiodcs damalin GIRARD, U. S. Pac. R. R. Expl. x, 218, pi. xlviii, f. 1-4, 1858. 



Carpiodcs dantalis COPE, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 85, 1865. 



Carpiodis damalis JORDAN & COPELAND, Check List, 155, 1876. 

 1870 Carpiodcs grayi COPK, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. Phila. 482, 1870. 



CarpiodiS orai/i JORDAN COPELAND, Check List, 158, 1876. 



Carpiodts grayi COPE & YARROW, Wheeler's Expl. W. 100th Her. v, Zool. 681, 

 1876. 



HABITAT. New En^laid to Alabama; thence to Mexico and north to the Upper 

 Missouri. 



I have elsewhere already united the nominal species grayi and tumi- 

 dus, for the following reasons: Gi rani's "Ictiobus tumidus" is certainly 

 a Carpiodcs, as is plainly shown by the published iigniv, the mouth be- 

 ing represented as small and inferior, beneath the projecting s;:out. I 

 have numerous young specimens of a Carpiodcs from the liio Grande, 

 at Brownsville, Texas, the original locality of Icticbws tumidus. But my 

 specimens do not disagree in any important respect irom Carpiodcs grayi, 

 frofc. the same river, nor am I able, on examination of authentic speci- 

 mens of the latter species, to point out any differences between them and 

 my Brownsville specimens. Therefore, if tumidus and grayi are really 

 different, the differences have escaped my notice. It is of course possi- 

 ble that my Brownsville specimens, although from the original locality 

 of tumidus, may not be that species; but, as the types of tumidus have 

 been lost. I do not see how the question can ever be settled. 



I am furthermore unable to separate tumidus as thus characterized 

 from damalis Grd., and the close relationship existing between damalis 

 and cyprinus has already been noticed by Professor Cope. As 1 now 

 believe that cyprinus, tumidus, damalis, and grayi were all based on mem- 

 bers of a single widely diffused species, I unite them in the above 

 synonymy. 



This species is the common Carp Sucker of Pennsylvania and the 



