Kentucky Fishes 101 



exploration and coal mining (Warren and Cicerello 1982), channeliza- 

 tion (Burr et al. 1980), and drainage as witnessed herein, the future of 

 the species in Kentucky is increasingly tenuous. 



Hybopsis insignis Hubbs and Crowe. Blotched chub. KNP C04LOG 

 (1, 89), S. Fk. (Red R. dr.), 1.7 km NE Smith Grove Church, Logan 

 Co., 13 July 1982; KNP C05LOG (15, 47-79), Red R. (Cumberland R. 

 dr.), at Dot, Logan Co., 13 July 1982. 



In Kentucky, H. insignis was known to persist only in the Little 

 South Fork Cumberland River of southeastern Kentucky (Marker et al. 



1979) and was formerly known to occur in the mainstem of Cumberland 

 River (Harris 1980) and the lower Tennessee River (Hubbs and Crowe 

 1956) before impoundment. In the Cumberland River drainage of Ten- 

 nessee, the species is known from four localities (Harris 1980). The dis- 

 covery of a substantial population in the Red River represents a new 

 record for that drainage in Kentucky and adds hope for the continued 

 existence of the species in the state. Branson et al. (1981b) considered 

 the species of special concern in Kentucky. In light of strip-mine and oil 

 field related water pollution in Little South Fork (Harker et al. 1979, 



1980) and heavy siltation and pesticide pollution in Red River (pers. 

 observ.) the species should be considered at least threatened within 

 Kentucky. 



Notropis ariommus (Cope). Popeye shiner. KFW uncat. (2, 45), 

 Kinniconick Cr. (Ohio R. dr.), near mouth Pipe Lick Cr., Lewis Co., 7 

 May 1981; KFW uncat. (3, 45-48), Kinniconick Cr. (Ohio R. dr.), 

 downstream Laurel Fk. mouth, Lewis Co., 7 May 1981. 



The distribution of the popeye shiner in Kentucky was previously 

 defined as the upper Cumberland, Green, Barren, RoUing Fork, and 

 Kentucky river drainages (Gilbert 1969, 1980c; Burr 1980). Despite this 

 rather wide distribution, the popeye shiner is sporadic in occurrence and 

 seldom common and was thus listed as of undetermined status in Ken- 

 tucky (Branson et al. 1981b). In middle and upper Ohio River tributar- 

 ies other than those aforementioned, A^. ariommus is known from six 

 widely separated populations in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virgi- 

 nia (Gilbert 1969, 1980c). Several of these represent old records for 

 populations apparently extirpated (Gilbert 1969). The collections 

 reported herein are a significant eastward range extension in the Ohio 

 River valley of Kentucky and also close the hiatus between the widely 

 separated middle and upper Ohio River populations. It is increasingly 

 apparent from data presented by Gilbert (1969, 1980c) and that of this 

 report that A^. ariommus once occupied much of the Ohio River valley, 

 but is now extirpated or reduced in the northern and upper regions of 

 the valley to widely disjunct, sporadically distributed localities. Kinnic- 

 onick Creek is a high quality stream with a predominantly forested 



