14 



It is possible that the serial papers (at least some of them) were published first, then fol- 

 lowed by Rafinesque (1820b) as a collection of these serial papers. (Eschmeyer 1990:605 

 cited the date of Rafinesque 1820b as December 1820.) If the above argumentation is ac- 

 cepted, we then should cite "Rafinesque 1820a" as the original description of Phoxinus, 

 Chrosomus, and Chrosomus erythrogaster, instead of "Rafinesque 1820b." Based on the 

 above discussion, I therefore cite Rafinesque (1820a) as the original description of Pho- 

 xinus, Luxilus erythrogaster, and Chrosomus erythrogaster. 



Using Cyprinus phoxinus Linnaeus as the type species (as Rafinesque 1820a did), Agas- 

 siz (1835:37) established a genus Phoxinus for Cyprinus phoxinus, and assigned Cypri- 

 nus phoxinus as Phoxinus laeves. 



Jordan (1916) demonstrated that the name of the genus Phoxinus should be Phoxinus Ra- 

 finesque, 1820, not Phoxinus Agassiz, 1835, because Rafinesque (1820a) was published 

 earlier than Agassiz (1835). Unfortunately, Jordan's papers did not soon get the attention 

 of the active ichthyologists. Many recent publications still cited Phoxinus Agassiz as the 

 valid name (e.g., Berg 1949, Yang & Hung 1964, Smith 1979, Heese 1981) without dis- 

 cussion. However, from the above discussion, it is clear that Phoxinus Agassiz, 1835 is a 

 synonym of Phoxinus Rafinesque, 1820a. 



Cope (1862) described another Chrosomus species, C. eos, from Meshoppen Creek in Sus- 

 quehanna County of Pennsylvania, USA. He compared C. eos with C. erythrogaster and 

 indicated as differences between C. eos and C. erythrogaster the presence or absence of 

 the lateral line and the body shape. Two years later, Cope (1864) compared the two spe- 

 cies and found some of the C. eos specimens exhibiting a short lateral line, whereas others 

 entirely lacked pored scales. Though Cope (1869) considered the specimens of C. eos in 

 Cope (1864) as Phoxinus neogaeus, some of these specimens might be indeed C. eos be- 

 cause in some specimens the lateral line "is wanting" (Cope 1864). In P. neogaeus, there 

 is a short lateral line (Cope 1869). It is necessary to notice that intraspecific variation of 

 the lateral line is present in the species of Phoxinus. 



Phoxinus neogaeus was described by Cope (1869) from New Hudson, Livingston Coun- 

 ty, Michigan, in "Synopsis of the Cyprinidae of Pennsylvania." Cope (1869) was the first 

 one to allocate North American species to the European genus Phoxinus. He (Cope 1869) 

 distinguished P. neogaeus from P. laevis (i.e., P. phoxinus) by "its scaly vertebral and ven- 

 tral region, and much shorter lateral line." Three Phoxinus species were reported from 

 Pennsylvania (i.e., P. neogaeus, erythrogaster, and eos) (Cope 1869). 

 The proper date and source for the original description of Phoxinus neogaeus is proble- 

 matic. Cope's paper describing P. neogaeus was published in 1869 (Cope 1869). Howe- 

 ver, it was cited, with a description of the species, by Günther (1868). The date 1869 was 

 widely cited in literature until Gilbert (1971). This confusion might be partially due to the 

 failure of ichthyologists to check the literature thoroughly (Gilbert 1971). The correct date 

 for this species should be cited as Phoxinus neogaeus Cope, 1868, as suggested by Robins 

 et al. (1991). 



Günther (1868) did not believe Phoxinus to be present in Europe, but only in North Ame- 

 rica, and considered P. phoxinus as Leuciscus phoxinus. He divided the two North Ame- 

 rican Phoxinus species into two categories: P. neogaeus with two rows of pharyngeal teeth. 



