(58) 
est just in front of the dorsal fin, contained 3 times in the length to base of 
caudal ; caudal peduncle moderately slender. Head rather stout and deep, 
3jf in length of body; its upper outline depressed, the nape elevated, so 
that the profile is somewhat concave ; thickness of head through the cheeks, 
greater than the thickness of the body. Mouth tolerably large, quite 
oblique, the lower jaw slightly included. Eye not large, its length about 4 
in head. 
Scales, as usual in the genus, closely imbricated. Lateral line strongly 
decurved, with 35 scales in its course, six rows above it, and about two be- 
low. Thirteen scales in front of the dorsal. 
Dorsal fin inserted just behind beginning of ventrals, about half higher 
than long, its rays 1-7; anal fin somewhat elevated in front, its rays 1-8; its 
anterior rays rather longer than the base of the fin. Caudal fin moderate, 
widely forked. Pectorals barely reaching the ventrals ; ventrals barely 
reaching anal. 
Teeth 4-4, hooked, sharp-edged, the edges of the teeth somewhat 
crenate. 
Head and ante-dorsal region in the male fish covered with rather small 
white prickles, larger than in the genus Lythrurus ; caudal peduncle cov- 
ered below the lateral line with similar tubercles. Chin with a few prickles. 
Colors, in spirits bluish above, pale below, a vague dark shoulder 
blotch ; upper part of dorsal dusky ; lower part of anal and ventrals some- 
what milky. 
In life the colors are as follows, according to Professor Forbes: Gen- 
eral color steel-blue with a reddish tinge, a crescent shaped mark of a violet 
blue color behind the shoulders, followed by a crimson crescent; belly orange 
red ; anal and caudal blood red. 
Length of adult 2f inches. 
Many specimens obtained by Professor Forbes in clear streams of south- 
ern Illinois , a few from mud-holes on the bottoms. 
This species resembles the figures given of Montana complanata and 
M. gibbosa Girard, but the known inaccuracy of those figures and the utterly 
slovenly character of the accompanying descriptions, prevents any attempt 
at the identification of our specimens with them. Girard’s specimens were 
from the Rio Grande, and “on general principles” are probably different. 
Those interested in knowing the character of Dr. Girard’s work on the 
smaller Cyprinidse cannot do better than to read his description of Montana 
rutila and Montana gracilis and then, as suggested by Dr. Gunther, to com- 
pare the figure of Moniana frigida given in the Pacific R. R. Surveys, 
(1858j with that of the same species drawn by the same artist in the Mexi- 
can Boundary Survey (1859.) All the fishes drawn by this artist at one 
“sitting,” are cast in the same mould regardless of the appearance of the 
fish from which they were drawn. 
Most of the types of Girard’s Cyprinellse are lost. The others can only 
be identified almost at random by future students of Texan ichthyology. 
Since writing the above, I have examined specimens of Moniana com- 
planata Grd. ( Moniana gibbosa Grd.) from the Rio Grande, C. forbesi , 
though closely related is unquestionably distinct, the form of the profile be- 
ing notably different. 
