THE PLAGOPTERINAE, 



and the Ichthyology of Utah. 



BY a. B. G. 



One of the most interesting of recent contributions 

 to the history of North American fishes is a paper by 

 Professor E. D. Cope "On the Plagopterinae and the 

 Ichthyology of Utah," reprinted from the Proceedings 

 of the American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia. 

 Dr. H. C. Yarrow, U. S. A., and Mr. H. W. Henshaw, 

 the zoologists of Wheeler's survey, have, during the 

 past two years, made extensive collections of the fishes 

 of the Colorado River and its tributaries, and of Utah, 

 and to their labors we owe the materials for this 

 memoir. 



The sub-family Plagopterinae which is here defined 

 for the first time, appears to be confined to the basin of 

 the Colorado River, and to be the only type peculiar to 

 that region. It includes those Gyprirddae which have 

 two strong osseous rays in the dorsal fin, the anterior of 

 which has a groove in its hinder face, in which the pos- 

 terior is received, the two forming a compound defen- 

 sive spine. The ventral rays , except the first and sec- 

 ond, are modified in much the same way, the lower 

 part of each being osseous, dagger-shaped, and pos- 

 teriorly grooved-, their articulated extremities either 

 continuations of their apices or emerging from the 

 grooves below them. The author states that the only 

 other instance of this ossification of the ventral rays is 

 in the fossil family of Saurodontidae extinct since the 

 cretaceous period. The family includes three genera, 

 Meda, described by Girard in 1856, and represented by 

 one species, Meda fulgida, from Arizona, Plagopterus 

 and Lepidomeda, both new; the former represented by 

 Plagopterus argentissimus from the San Louis valley, the 

 latter by Lepidomeda vittata and Lepidomeda jarrovii 

 from the Colorado Chiquito River. Twelve species 

 were obtained from Utah Lake, five of them new to 

 science, and from other parts of Utah and Arizona 

 eight more, six of them new. The proportion of un- 

 described species in the collection, thirteen out of twen- 

 ty-two, is quite remarkable. 



We would venture the criticism that while Professor 

 Cope's method of forming specific names from personal 

 ones, may be in accordance with the strictest classical 

 rules; it is hardly necessary to follow it to such ex- 

 tremes as Minomus jarrovii and Mhinichthys hemhavii: 

 the names M. Yarrowi and B. Henshawi are more eupho- 

 nious and more intelligible and better serve the purpose 

 of compliments to the gentlemen who discovered the 

 specimens. 



