362 
IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Voi.. XXVII, 1920 
the evident mistake and made it “the Allapaha — a tributary of 
the Suwannee River.” 
Anguilla chrysypa Rafinesque. 
“Fish Eel,” Eel. 
We have no specimens* of the eel but the natives describe it 
sufficiently well to warrant its inclusion in the list. They always 
termed it “fish eel” in contrast with the “snake eel” (Amphiuma 
means) and recognized its true fishlike characters. Occasionally 
they catch eels two feet long or more. It is considered uncom- 
mon in Billy’s Lake and other deeper bodies of the swamp and 
a few have been reported from Suwannee river proper, accord- 
ing to the residents along it. (A specimen was collected by us 
in 1921.) 
Umbra limi (Kirtland). 
Mud Minnow, Dog-fish. 
Smith reports Umbra from a few localities in North Caro- 
lina and it is supposed that these localities mark the southern 
limit of the range of the family in America. Our specimen (859L) 
from the swamp therefore unquestionably increases the range of 
the genus. 
In Jordan and Evermann’s account of the two American spe- 
cies U. limi (Kirtland) and U. pygmaea DeKay, it seems that the 
latter' is “perhaps a variety” of the former though “no intermedi- 
ate forms have been noticed.” They distinguish between the two 
species primarily on the basis of coloration. Umbra limi is de- 
scribed as having a faint precaudal bar while that in U . pygmaea 
is distinct. The lower jaw in U . limi is pale in contradistinction to 
the black lower jaw of U. pygmaea. The color of U. limi \s dull 
olive green while U . pygmaea is dark olive green and the former 
has pale cross bars while the latter has longitudinal streaks. 
Umbra limi is described as having pale longitudinal streaks as 
well as the cross bars but it is evident that the two species are 
quite close together. The question is complicated further by 
Gill ^ who in his monograph on the genus differs from Jordan 
and Evermann in claiming that U. pygmaea is light olive green 
and U. limi is dark olive green. He mentions the longitudinal 
and vertical stripes as distinguishing characters but otherwise 
his descriptions of the two species are almost exactly identical. 
In summing up the situation then we have two authors who 
note very small differences between their species and who do 
not agree with each other in their comparison. Furthermore 
