76 L. Agassiz on the Ichthyological Fauna of Western America. 
In my enumeration of the fishes of the southern bend of the 
Tennessee River, I made a mistake in preserving the name of 
C. Cyprinus for the Ohio species ; but having known that species 
for many years, I took it as the type of the genus the more read- 
ily, since Rafinesque has established the genus Carpiodes from 
hio specimens. Yet this species, C. Cyprinus, was described 
by Lesueur from Pennsylvauia specimens, so that the name of 
. Cyprinus belongs to it by right of priority, and the name of 
C. Vacca which I have applied in my notice of the fishes of the 
Tennessee River to the Pennsylvania species, must be considered 
as a mere synonym of Catostomus Cyprinus of Lesueur, and the 
Ohio species must retain Rafinesque’s name of Ca jodes velifer. 
Lesueur himself had already pointed out in the Journal of the 
Academy of Natural Sciences, vol. i, p. 110, the differences he 
noticed between some specimens obtained in the Ohio River, by 
Mr. Thomas Say, and preserved in the Museum of the Academy 
of Nat. Sci. in Philadelphia, and those from the Chesapeake Bay 
he described under the name of C. Cyprinus. Upon these in- 
dications, Rafinesque founded his Carpiodes velifer, Ich. Oh., p. 
56, without perceiving that it is identical with his*own Carp. 
Carpio ; though he had already a few lines higher in the page 
called it C. setosus, referring that name erroneously to Lesueur. 
Again page 51, Rafinesque describes the same species once more, 
from a drawing of Mr. Aububon, under the name of Catostomus 
anisopterus, referring it to his subgenus Moxostoma, though he 
points out himself its true affinity to C. velifer. With these ma- 
terials before me, I was very anxious to obtain also original spe- 
cimens of the fish described by Rev. Z. Thompson, under the 
name of C. eyprinus, from Lake Champlain. To that gentleman 
himself, LT am now indebted for the means of comparing it with 
the species described by Lesueur aud Rafinesque, and I find 
that it is still another species for which I propose the name of 
C. Thompsoni. 
hese species, though very similar in general outline and com- 
pression of body, instantly strike one on comparing them as dis- 
tinct; the different form and size of scales give to each a very 
peculiar appearance. In Carpiodes velifer, which has the largest 
scales, their hind border is very broadly arched or rounded, whilst 
in Carpiodes Thompsoni, it forms a very blunt or open angle. 
Hence in the former species, the posterior margin of ‘a row 0 
scales extending obliquely from the dorsal to the ventral region is 
strongly waved, but in the latter species it is straight. In Carpi- 
odes velifer the radiating lines on the opercle are more prominent, 
and the subopercle is longer and not so broadly rounded at its 
lower angle, and the anterior lobe of the dorsal is higher ana 
much more slender than in Carpiodes Thompsoni. C. Cyprinus 
is more elongated than either, and C. Bison, from Osage River, is 
é 
