18 



Chrosomus as a synonym of Phoxinus, was soon accepted by many North American ich- 

 thyologists (e.g., Bailey et al. 1970, Mahy 1979c). Under Phoxinus, 14 species were listed 

 and a distribution map was provided for P. phoxinus (Banarescu 1964). 

 Starmach (1963) studied the morphological characteristics of P. phoxinus from the basin 

 of the Mszanka Stream, Poland. No gender difference among different portions of the 

 body was found for P. phoxinus. However, the pharyngeal tooth formulae varied greatly 

 among individuals, even in the same population, as noted by Berinkey (1968). Six diffe- 

 rent combinations (i.e., 1,4-4,0, 1,4-4,1. 1,4-4,2, 2,4-4,1, 2,4-4,2, and 2,5-4,2) were ob- 

 served in a small population (17 specimens) from Montenegro, Yugoslawia (Berinkey 

 1968). It is interesting that the widely used tooth formula, i.e., 2,5-4,2, for P. phoxinus 

 presents only a small portion (6%) of the 17 specimens studied by Berinkey (1968). 

 Yang & Huang (1964) considered Phoxinus Aggasiz a valid name and described seven 

 species in the genus from China. A key was provided for the seven species of Phoxinus. 

 This was the most comprehensive review of Chinese Phoxinus at that time. However, no 

 synonymy of Phoxinus was provided by Yang & Huang (1964). 



Hill & Jensen (1968) studied numbers of fin rays (pectoral, dorsal, and anal fins) of Pho- 

 xinus erythrogaster from Big Spring, Johnson County of Oklahoma, USA. They found 

 that variation of the number of rays in the pectoral fin was ontogenetically significant, 

 whereas the number of dorsal and anal fin-rays did not change much in different age 

 groups. They therefore concluded that the number of dorsal and anal fin-rays were less 

 variable than the pectoral fin rays, thus the former two were more useful as taxonomic 

 characters. 



Phillips (1968a) studied 24 morphological characters of Phoxinus erythrogaster and eos. 

 No geographic variation in either species was found. The distribution of the two species 

 in Minnesota was also discussed in Phillips (1968a). Phillips (1969a) compared the mor- 

 phology of P. erythrogaster and eos and their geographic variation in Minnesota. The only 

 differences between the two species are the mouth angle and the ratio of snout length to 

 postorbital length. Joswiak & Moore (1982) reanalyzed Phillips' (1969a) data and indica- 

 ted the two species be distinguishable by these characters. 



Besides the taxomonic studies, data on biology of Phoxinus were also accumulated in 

 these years. Tyler (1966) studied the lethal temperature of P. eos and neogaeus in Onta- 

 rio, Canada. Phillips (1969b) studied the diet of P. erythrogaster in Minnesota, USA. Phil- 

 lips (1969c) also reported the fecundity of P. erythrogaster. Hybrids within Phoxinus and 

 between Phoxinus and other minnows were described, such as P. eos x P. neogaeus (New 

 1962), P. erythrogaster x Notropis cornutus frontalis, P. erythrogaster x Semotilus atro- 

 maculatus (Cross & Minckley 1960), P. erythrogaster x Notropis cornutus, and P. erythro- 

 gaster x Dionda nubila (Phillips & Etnier 1969). 



1970-1979 



Although some authors considered Margariscus margarita belonging to the same genus 

 as that Phoxinus neogaeus was assigned to (e.g., Leuciscus in Günther 1868; Phoxinus in 

 Jordan 1885), most ichthyologists placed Margariscus margarita and P. neogaeus in dif- 

 ferent genera. By studying the hybrids of Semotilus margarita ( = Margariscus margari- 



