FISHES OF OKEFINOKEE SWAMP 
369 
have been reported. These come from Ogeechee river and one 
of the specimens is assigned to the species ohesus while the other 
is classified as gloriosus. We believe that these species are 
synonymous and offer the following data to prove our conten- 
tion. 
We are not, however, the first to suggest this synonymy. Wit- 
ness the following quotations. Abbott,^ speaking of B guttatus 
and B. ohesus says, — “We have very carefully searched for a 
trait characteristic of this fish as compared with B. ohesus and 
have uniformly failed to do so.” He allows them to retain their 
identity as species because they had “never been found associated.” 
“The similarity of the two species,” he says, “is so marked that 
unless living they can scarcely bo distinguished,” and considering 
the abundance of one and the scarcity of the other he suggests 
that B. ohesus is washed down, occupies certain streams and drives 
out B. guttatus. He says that they are always found in streams 
with an unobstructed access to rivers. Holbrook,^^ in his 
descriptions of Bryttus fasciatus and B. gloriosus seems to sep- 
arate them on the fact that the upper margin of the eye in the 
former is near the facial outline but does not encroach upon it 
while in the latter the upper margin of the eye is one-half the 
diameter of the orbit from the facial outline. By this token we 
would place all of our specimens in B. fasciatus. In his descrip- 
tion of the dorsal fin of these two species he claims a formula of 
IX, 12 for B. fasciatus and IX, 11 for B. gloriosus. None of our 
specimens possess a dorsal formula of more than IX, 11 and all 
but five, (8654), (8655), (8647), (8639) possess a IX, 10 
dorsal. The anal according to the same source is HI, 11 in B. 
fasciatus and HI, 10 in 5. gloriosus and in our specimens but two 
have as high as eleven soft rays while nearly one-half of the 
remainder possess less than ten. Fin formulae then would in- 
dicate that our specimens were B. gloriosus. Jordan and Ever- 
mann claim that B. ohesus and B. gloriosus are closely related 
but apparently not intergrading. They differ from Holbrook^^ as to 
the dorsal and anal formulae thus adding weight to an argument 
that these are variable and consequently not of sufficient taxo- 
nomic importance to separate species, particularly on the basis of 
one or two soft rays. They separate the species on tlie grounds 
that the opercular spot of B. ohesus is more than one-half the 
size of the eye while in B. gloriosus it is smaller. On this basis 
our seven largest specimens would all be B. ohesus except (8640) 
and (8659) (mutilated). Otherwise, these two specimens are not 
