82 L. Agassiz on the Ichthyological Fauna of Western America. 
I have obtained this species from Mr. George Stolley, who has 
made extensive zoological collections for me in the western aud 
southern parts of the State of Missouri especially along the Osage 
River and its tributaries. 
Cyclepius, Raf. 
As in many other instances, Rafinesque has named, but neither 
defined nor characterised the genus to which I now call attention. 
He has not himself even seen the fish upon which the genus: is 
founded, and refers to another genus a species which cannot - 
separated from this. Moreover the characteristics of the 
as given by Rafinesque are not true to nature. Yet, aaa 
standing these objections, I do not feel at liberty to reject his 
generic name ; siuce it is possible to identify the fish he meant 
by the vernacular name under which it is known in the West. 
There is another reason why Rafinesque’s descriptions of our 
western fishes ought to be most carefully considered and every 
possible effort made to identify his genera and species, the fact 
that he was the first to investigate the fishes of the Ohio and its 
tributaries upon a large scale, and that notwithstanding the loose- 
ness with which he performed the task and the lamentable inac- 
curacies of his too short descriptions, his works bear almost upon 
every page the imprint of his keen perception of the natural 
affinities of species, aud their intimate relations to one auother ; 
so much so, that even where he has failed to assign to his genera 
any characters by which they may be recognized, yet, when the 
species upon which they are founded can be identified, we usu- 
ally find that beta are good reasons for considering them as form- 
ing distinct gene 
The trouble ik Rafinesque is, that he too often introduced 
in his works species which he had not seen himself, and which 
he referred almost at random among his genera, thus defacing his 
well characterised groups, or that he went so far as to foun 
genera upon species which he had never seen, overlooking per- 
haps that he had already described such types under other names. 
he genus Cyclepius affords a striking example of all these 
mistakes combined together. In his remarkable paper upon the 
genus Catostomus, Lesueur describes and figures one species from 
the Ohio River, under the name of C. elongatus peculiar for its 
elongated cylindrical body, and for its long dorsal fin beginning 
half way between the pectorals and ventrals, and extending as 
‘back as the insertion of the anal. This species Rafinesque 
introduces in his subgenus Decactylus among the genuine Catos- 
tomi, without perceiving that it belongs to his own genus Cy- 
eleptus. This ae arises undoubte edly from his belief that in 
tus th wo dorsuls which indeed he mentions as 
ofthis gos but this statement i is erroneous: the 
