FISHES OF THE ALBEMARLE REGION. 
187 
The number of specimens preserved was about 800 ; these, together with others 
observed but not collected, represent 18 families, 35 genera, and 45 species, as follows: 
1. Acipenser sturio oxyrhynclius. 
2. Amia calva. 
3. Ameiurus albidus. 
4. Ameiurus nebulosus. 
5. xElurichthys marinua. 
6. Erimyzon sucetta. 
7. Moxostoma anisurum. 
8. Moxostoma crassilabre. 
9. Hybognathus nuebalis. 
10. Notropis budsonius. 
11. Notropis niveus. 
12. Semotilus atromaculatus. 
13. Notemigonus chrysolencus. 
14. Cyprinus carpio. 
15. Clupea mediocris. 
16. Clupea pseudobareugus. 
17. Clupea aestivalis. 
18. Clupea sapidissima. 
19. Brevoortia tyrannus. 
20. Dorosoma cepedianum. 
21. Fundulus diapbanus. 
22. Gambusia patruelis. 
23. Lucius americanus. 
24. Lucius reticulatus. 
25. Anguilla cbrysypa. 
26. Tylosurus marinus. 
27. Querimana gyrans. 
28. Menidia berylliiia. 
29. Apbredoderus sayanus. 
30. Centrarcbus macropterus. 
31. Pomoxis sparoides. 
32. Chfenobryttus gulosus. 
33. Enneacantbus obesus. 
34. Enneacantbus simulans. 
35. Lepomis auritus. 
36. Lepomis pallidus. 
37. Lepomis gibbosus. 
38. Micropterus salmoides. 
39. Etbeostoma nigrum olmstedi. 
40. Perea flavescens. 
41. Stizostedion vitreum. 
42. Roccus lineatus. 
43. Morone americana. 
44. Paralicbtbys letbostigma. 
45. Acbirus fasciatus. 
Prof. Jordan, in the report cited, speaking of the fishes of the lowlands, makes the 
following remarks which have application to this collection and may appropriately be 
quoted : 
Additional confirmation bas been given to tbe idea tbat tbe lowland swamp fisbes of tbe United 
States are remains of an earlier and, in part, now extinct fauna. To sucb a fauna, it is gen wally 
admitted, belong tbe genera Amia and Lepisosteus. To tbis list I would add Umbra, Lucius, Cliolo- 
gaster, Aphredoderus, Jordanella, Elassoma, Acantharchus, Pomoxis, Enneacantbus, Mesogonistius, and, 
doubtless, Percopsis. Tbe upland fisbes seem to be mostly of recent origin, tbe species of Notropis and 
Etbeostoma probably latest of all. 
A study of the common names applied to the fishes of this section is not without 
interest. Some very inappropriate and singular names are in use which do not 
appear to have been recorded. An amateur ichthyologist making up a list of the fishes 
of this region based on the local names would be led to some very strange conclusions 
and would not add to his reputation by mentioning the “ California salmon” and 
“brook trout” as being not uncommon, while he would probably experience consider- 
able difficulty in identifying such fish as the “salt-water pike,” “flier,” and “horse- 
fish.” 
From another point of view the presentation of the popular names is important. 
With the advent of fishermen from other States or localities, new names will be 
brought in, and the original designations employed in the region will in time be 
supplemented or supplanted. It therefore becomes a matter of interest to record the 
names in present use. 
In the annotated lists under each locality, the vernacular synonyms heard during 
this inquiry have been given. In the following table some of these local names have 
been brought together for convenience of reference and for comparison, their distri- 
bution among the principal fishing towns of the sections visited being shown. The 
list could doubtless be augmented by additional inquiries, and a few common desig- 
nations known to be employed in this region, but which were not heard by the writer, 
have been omitted. The absence of a check mark (x) in the table indicates either 
that, the species was not detected or that no common name was heard for it. 
