EXPLORATIONS IN COLORADO AND UTAH. 
21 
There is, however, in Europe a subgeneric grouii called Telestes by Bonaparte, 
which approaches much more nearly to the American forms. The scales in Telestes 
are small, ranging from 60 to SO, and the teeth are 2, 4-5, 2, I know of no character 
by which the American species called TUjoma can be set off from Telestes^ nor does any 
delinite character exist by which Sihonm, Cheondd, and Cliiiostonms can be separated 
from Tigoma, Protoporus Cope is ai)parently also based on a young Tigoma. 
It is, however, true that European writers generally hold the distinctions between 
Telestes and Squalins as of very slight value, and the figures aud specimens accessible 
to us seem to show a pretty regular graduation from one type to the other, Never- 
theless, no American species of this type is a near ally to Squalms ceplmlns, and none 
have the i>haryngeal bones equally armed with 5 teeth in the main row so far as we 
know. For the present we may unite Tigoma with Telestes and Squalins as forming 
a single genus. 
It seems to me, however, that the name Leuciscus should be used instead of 
Squalms for the group typified by Leuciscus cephalus and L. leuciscus. 
The generic name Leuciscus was first applied by Cuvier in 1817 to a group of 
Cypriuoids about corresponding to the Leuciscinw of present classifications. Five 
species are mentioned esi^ecially by Cuvier in his text, aud several others are referred 
to incidentally in a foot note. Among the five mentioned in the text the type of this 
genus Leuciscus must be chosen. 
These species are Cyprinus dohula L,, C. rutilus L,, G. leuciscus L., G. alhimms L., 
and G. pkoxinus L, 
In the Ichthyologia Ohiensis, 1820, Eafinesque adds numerous American species to 
the genus Leuciscus^ proposing for them the new generic names of Minnilus, Luxilus, 
Plargyrtis, ai\d Pimepliales. At the same time he divides the European species into 
five genera, Dohula, Butilus, Leuciscus, Alburuus, aud Phoxinus, the names and order 
corresponding to the order of the species as given by Cuvier. These genera are each 
briefly defined, but no typical species is mentioned, except in one case, a page or two 
later, where he speaks of Gyprinus rutilus L. as the type of Rutilus. 
By Eafiuesque’s arrangement Gyprinus rutilus is made the type of Rutilus and G. 
leuciscus that of the restricted genus Leuciscus. 
Later, Agassiz, not noticing the work of Eafinesque, similarly restricted Leucis- 
cus to the species having two rows of teeth, Butilus having but one. 
Still later, Bonaparte made Gyprinus leuciscus the type of his restricted genus Leu- 
ciscus, and added Scardinius, Squaiius, aud Telestes for other species, thegroui^ called 
Squalius practically corresponding to the Dohula of Eafinesque, which is doubtless 
identical also witliEafinesque’s Leuciscus. 
At about the same time Ileckel made more thorough investigations of the charac- 
ters of these fishes than any of his i)redecessors had done. In his arrangement, Gypr. 
dohula and Gypr. leuciscus were referred together to Squalms, while the name Leuciscus 
was transferred to L. rutilus. The system of Ileckel has been generally followed by 
later writers, although by Giiuther and others all these groups have been regarded as 
simple sections or subgeuera under Leuciscus. 
It seems evident that Gypriims leuciscus must stand as the type of Leuciscus, and 
that the generic name of Gypr. rutilus must be Rutilus. 
The genera concerned would then lie : 
1. Leuciscus (Cuvier), Eafinesque, Agassiz, and Bonaparte= Dohula Eafinesque— 
