306 Notes on the 



Scales in the lateral line, 34 to 36. 



Body elongate, rather deep, the dorsal region very prominent. In 

 general form and appearance, this species closely resembles N, heterodon. 



Snout short, less in length than the diameter of the eye, about 4^ in 

 the length of the head; mouth very small, its gape nearly parallel with 

 the axis of the body; lower jaw the shorter, slightly overhung by the 

 very blunt snout. Maxillary reaching about | distance from vertical, 

 from cephalic margin of the orbit. Eye 8 to 3^ in the length of the 

 head. Scales between the nape and the dorsal fin not crowded, 12 to 13 

 in a series. 



First ray of dorsal fin nearer the tip of the snout than the base of the 

 caudal fin, by a distance nearly equal to the length of the snout. 



Length of the dorsal fin nearly the length of the head. Tip of first 

 ray of dorsal reaching beyond the tip of last ray when the fin is de- 

 flexed. 



Tips of pectoral fins reaching f to | distance to ventrals. Tips of 

 ventrals reaching vent. Anal fin similar to dorsal fin, smaller. 



Lateral line developed on 10 to 15 scales. Teeth 4—4, slightly hooked 

 at their tips and with narrow grinding surface. 



Color as in N, heterodon, the dark band on the snout on upper jaw 

 only. 



The specimens from the canal near Montezuma are darker 

 than those from near Ithaca; this is probably due to the greater 

 abundance of vegetation in the waters of the former situation. 



There appears to be considerable individual variation in this 

 species. The above description is taken from a number of speci- 

 mens, which seem to represent the more constant and typical 

 forms. Several specimens were taken near Ithaca, in which the 

 first dorsal ray was situated midway between the tip of the snout 

 and the base of the caudal fin, the scales between the nape and 

 the dorsal fin being about 16 in a series. The body was more 

 slender and the dorsal region less prominent than in those upon 

 which the description is based. 



These few latter specimens were of a larger size. I submitted 

 examples of each to Prof. G-ilbert, who compared them with 

 specimens of the same genus from Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. 

 He finds that the apparent differences between the Ithaca speci- 

 mens are of no specific value. The lateral line is seldom if ever 

 complete on any of the Ithaca specimens of either this or the 

 two preceding species. 



Prof. G-ilbert is of the opinion that this species may be identi- 

 cal with Minnilus microstomus Raf. or with Alhurnus lineolatus 



