74 ii FISHES — IN"TRODTJCTION. 



knowledge of Western fishes was much less than his own. A good re- 

 sult of this conservatism is, however, seen in the fact that, while out 

 of the 111 species described in the Ichthyologia Ohiensis, upwards of 

 43 are either spurious or redundant; in the "Fishes of Lake Erie and 

 the Ohio River," out of 66 species none are spurious, and only three 

 Seniotilus dorsalis, Platirostra endentula, and Ammoccetes concolor, are redun- 

 dant. Of these, the first was correctly suspected by Dr. Kirtland to be 

 indentical with his Semotilus cephalus. The second he had not seen, but 

 had followed LeSueur, who was one of the best ichthyologists of his day, 

 in considering it as a distinct species, instead of what it really was, an 

 old individual of Polyodon folium. As regards the Ammoccetes, the discov- 

 ery that these eyeless forms were simply larval Lampreys is a very 

 recent one, made, if I am not mistaken, by Professor Huxley. 



Later, in the Cleveland " Annals of Science " and " Family Visitor," 

 the plates of his Fishes of Ohio were reproduced, and some new species 

 described and figured. As I have not these papers at hand I forbear 

 further remark on them. 



Dr. Kirtland once told the writer that he abandoned the idea of con- 

 tinuing his ichthyological writings with the flood of new genera poured 

 out by Agassiz, Girard, and others, which swept away his landmarks, 

 and which in many cases he was unable to identify or understand, and 

 he said that if he could have his way, he would have us " all turned 

 back to the Linnsean classification." It will be noticed that while 

 Rafinesque " discovered " upwards of 70 new genera and sub-genera in 

 America, Dr. Kirtland declined to establish even one. 



Since the time of Dr. Kirtland the only paper of importance especially 

 relating directly to the Fishes of Ohio is the " First Annual Report of the 

 Ohio State Fish Commission, to the Governor of the State of Ohio, for the 

 yeara 1875 and 1876," and the " Second Annual Report " of the same for 

 the year 1877. 



The part pertaining to the habits and value of the fishes was written 

 by the late Mr. John H. Klippart, a close observer and excellent 

 amateur ichthyologist. The descriptions of genera and species in the 

 first report were arranged by Mr. Chas. H. Gilbert, and the second by Dr. 

 Erneat Copeland from manuscript of the present writer. 



These papers contain a catalogue of 185 species supposed to occur in 

 Indiana and therefore in Ohio. This list, except in some minor matters 

 of nomenclature, and in the inclusion of some Illinois species, is sub- 

 stantially that which forms the basis of the present report. The accounts 

 of the food fishes, contained in Mr. I^lippart's paper, are readable and 

 valuable. 



