412 EXPLORATIONS ACROSS THE GREAT BASIN OF UTAH. 



first part of his " Museum Ichthyologicum", where two species of the genus Bhamdia 

 of Bleeker were referred to it. The name of Mystus would have to be then retained 

 for that genus had it not been previously applied by Klein to a genus of Cyprinoids. 



The Cuvierian section of Machoiram included all those Siluroids which had two 

 dorsal tins, the first of which was rayed and the second adipose. There were conse- 

 quently referred to it the Pimelodi, Ageneosi, and JDorades of Lacepede. The Ma- 

 chninnis were again divided into groups, for which were retained the above names of 

 Lacepede. 



Finally, Pim/lndus of Lacepede was itself taken with the limits assigned to it by 

 its founder, and divided into three subgenera characterized by their dentition. 



The first of these was Symdontis of Cuvier, which included the third species of 

 the Lacepedian genus Phuehdus — L<> Pimelodc sche'drm. 



For the second subgenus, the Lacepedian name of P'nvrlndus was retained. It 

 was intended to include those which had teeth only on the intermaxillaries and den- 

 taries. 



The third subgenus was named Bayrus, and included those which, in addition to 

 the teeth on the jaws, had a parallel band on the vomer. 



To that genus were .referred the first,* fourth, f thirteenth, J seventeenth,^ and 

 eighteenth|| species of Laeepede's genus Pimelodus. The ninth species of Lacep&de** 

 was considered as synonymous with his thirteenth. To illustrate the sequence and 

 relative value assigned by Cuvier to his various groups, we subjoin the following 

 extract from his methodical index: 



Machoirans {Mystus Artedi). 



Pimelodes Lacep. 



Shals (Synodontis Cuv.). 



Pimelodes proprement dits (Pimelodus Cuv.). 



Bagres. 



Ageneioses Lacep. 



Doras Lacep. 



The next naturalist who circumscribed the genus was Rafinesque. That writer, 

 in the "Ichthyologia Oliiensis* 1 , retained Pimelodus as the name of a genus, and the 

 characters assigned by him to it were not essentially different from those of Lacepede; 

 he added that the adipose fin is separated from the caudal. By that feature, he distin- 

 guished the genus from his Noturi, in which there is an "adipose fin very long, decur- 

 rent, and united with the tail". 



The species of the Ohio referred to the genus so limited w^ere placed in a subgenus 

 called Ltalunts, which exactly corresponds to Pimelodus as restricted by Dr. Girard in 

 the Report on the Ichthyology of the Pacific Railroad Surveys. The diagnosis of Icta- 



* Pimelodus lagrus Lac. = Ailurichthys bagrus Gill. 



