lUU'ORT ON ICHTHYOLOGY. 4l ,( J 



The Pimdodus vkcosus of Rafinesque, the type of Lis section £epfcy», appears to 



be the young of Hophddus oilcans. It is said to have a length of "only lour inches", 

 and its color is "brown with bluish and -ravish shades covered with a clammy viscos- 

 ity". The head is described as being "very flat, with a longitudinal furrow above, 

 elongated"; the "anal has fifteen rays and the ventrals nine". Except as to the 

 cephalic furrow, the description so far' is not inconsistent with the Hophddus oilcans, 

 but the jaws are said to be "nearly equal" and -the upper hardly longer*. This as 

 well as the furrow on the head and the number of rays in the anal tin might tempt us 

 to believe that it was the Noturus, but the caudal fin is said to be "unequally bilobed, 

 the upper smaller and white, and the ventrals have nine rays". It is therefore doubt- 

 fully treated as identical with the Eopladdus until the researches of a. naturalist shall 

 show otherwise. Tt is not mentioned by Dr. Kirtland. 



With some doubt, we yield to the opinion of Dr. Kirtland that the Pimdodus nebu- 



from two to four feet. 'Hie description is certainlvnot verv characteristic; the species 

 is said to differ from the former bv "the conical head, membranaceous operculum, but 

 particularly because the first ray of all the fins, except the caudal and adipose, is a kind 

 of soft obtuse spine, concealed under the fleshy cover of the fins". ( )u account of these 

 differences, it is suggested that the species may belong to a "peculiar section or even 

 sub-genus", for which the name of Opluddus is proposed. 



No description of the operculum or spines uf Pimdodus clscosus is given; it is 

 probable that the notes on the two "species" were taken at different times, and that 

 Rafmesque's attention being arrested bv the characters mentioned, and not believing 

 that they could have been overlooked by him in the Pimdodus viscose, assumed that 

 a difference existed. It is strange that the jaws should be described as equal, the head 



excused for believing in the identity of Pimdodus nchidosus with a species like the 

 present. The assertion that there are only twelve anal rays may be explained by the 

 subsequent statement that all "the tins are very fat, thick, &c." The eyes of Pimdo- 

 dus nehidosus, as of P. clscosus, are said to be round and small; those of our lloplcvle- 

 lus are elliptical. 



By Dr. Kirtland, the Pimdodus nvlndosus is considered as " merely the old" of 

 Pimdodus Umosus. He further remarks that " it is much larger, and proportionally 

 shorter and broader, than the one figured (P. Umosus). I have never seen the young 



The Sllurus ollvarls previously mentioned is referred by Rafinesque to his Pime- 

 hdus nvlndosus. . 



Placing much confidence in Dr. KirtlandV judgment, we have followed him in 

 re-arding Pimdodus Umosus and P. nebulosus as identical, but the remark regarding the 

 difference of form excites some suspicion as to his correctness. The degree of differ- 



; ralview. 



