428 EXPLOKATIONS ACKOSS THE GREAT BASH* OP UTAH. 



The lateral line is decurrent downward from the angle of the branchial apertures 



and thence continued along the middle in a straight line to the base of the caudal fin. 



The skin is thick, and completely covers the skull, where it has a spongy or wrinkled 



The color is brownish-fawn on the head, blotched with lighter and darker on the 

 trunk, and on the caudal peduncle inclining to reddish. The lower barbels are whitish, 

 like the abdomen and inferior surface of the head. 



The lluplarfrltts o/irari*, as will be seen by reference to the synonymy, has had 

 the fortune of being described under a large number of names. As several bestowed 

 by the same authors have been brought together as synonymous, the reasons for so 



For most of the synonyms, we are indebted "to Rafinesque, a man that never 

 touched a subject without involving it in confusion. It will therefore excite little sur- 

 prise to hear that he lias described the same species under six different names, and 

 referred it to four different groups, to which he has given five generic names. 



The Sihm<* olirarh described by Rafinesque in the third volume of the American 

 Monthly .Magazine and Critical Review, p. 355, has been pronounced by Rafinesque 

 himself to be the same as his Pimdodm nebuJosus, and is consequently the Plmehdas 

 Vimosus of Kirtland. 



It is described as follows : 



"Body olivaceous, shaded with brown, 8 whole barbs, 4 beneath, 2 lateral 

 thick brown, dorsal fin with 7 soft rays, pectoral fin 10 soft rays, anal fin 12 rays, tail 

 rounded notched, teeth acute." 



The above diagnosis, with the exception of those parts relating to the color, num- 

 ber of rays in the anal tin, and form of caudal fin, is applicable to most of the IcUduri. 

 The color is not inapplicable to the Eopladdus; the number of anal rays agrees as well 

 witli that species as with Xotams, and the allusion to the caudal, while it excludes 

 Noturvs, is referable to Hopladelm. The teeth of Hopladehs are not, however, well 



better, it is doubtless applicable to. that one. The difference in the enumeration of the 



At page 447 of the same volume of the Magazine, and at page 107 of the fourth 

 volume, the name of Giants Umosus, or Mud Catfish, occurs ; but there is no description. 

 The species intended is undoubtedly that afterward described as Pyladktis Umosus, to 

 the subsequent remarks on which we refer. 



Rafinesque has 1 >est described it under the name of Pimehdus Umosus. The descri \ >- 

 tion is quite creditable to him, as only one serious error occurs. It is stated that there 

 is no lateral line ; but there is certainly one present, as in all our North American species. 

 In other respects, the description is sufficiently characteristic, and the number of rays 

 in the anal fin is correctly said to be fifteen. No mention is, however, made of the 

 much depressed head and body, the latter being simply described as "slender". The 

 species is said to differ "from all others by the long lower jaw, &c. M , and to attain a 

 length of "about one foot' 7 . 



