CHARACINIDAE FROM VENEZUELA—SCHULTZ 339 
Knodus EigenMann, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 8, vol. 7, p. 216, 1911. (Type, 
Knodus meridae Kigenmann.) 
Knodus Excenmann, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 43, pt. 1, p. 50, 1917; pt. 2, 
p. 114, 1918 (type, Knodus breviceps Kigenmann).—EHIGENMANN and Mymrs, 
Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 48, pt. 5, p. 526, 1929 (genotype corrected to 
Knodus meridae Eigenmann). 
The genus Knodus Eigenmann was created on a single specimen 
taken near Mérida, Venezuela. It was not diagnosed until some years 
later (Kigenmann, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 43, pt. 1, p. 50, 1917, 
and pt. 2, p. 114, 1918), when Higenmann injected considerable con- 
fusion by basing his generic diagnosis on Knodus breviceps Kigenmann 
instead of on the only permissible genotype, Knodus meridae. 
The chief difference between Knodus and Bryconamericus is supposed 
to be that in the former the basal half of each caudal fin lobe is covered 
with scales while in Bryconamericus the base of each caudal lobe 
is naked. J have examined several species and find that in certain 
ones the scales are lacking (as in B. emperador from Panama) while 
in others the scales extend out a short distance (as in B. peruanus). 
Now in Knodus meridae the scales extend about one-third to one-half 
the way out on the caudal lobes but not so far outasin B. beta. The 
amount of gradation is so variable that I cast serious doubt on the 
supposed difference between Anodus and Bryconamericus. I con- 
clude that Knodus should be referred as a synonym to the genus 
Bryconamericus, at least until someone has adequate material that 
will permit further studies on this problem. 
It should be pointed out that the scales on the base of the caudal fin 
lobes of cotypes of Bryconamericus breviceps EKigenmann, U.S.N.M. 
No. 120274, are large as in K. meridae, and not small as shown for 
breviceps on plate 10, figure 2, of Higenmann’s (1918) “The American 
Characidae.”’ 
The species of Bryconamericus collected by me in the Maracaibo 
Basin fall into two general forms; one is elongate and more or less oval 
in cross-section and the other species is a compressed form. Both of 
_ these appear to be related to species occurring in the Orinoco drainage. 
Doubt is here cast on the specific distinctness between B. cismontanus 
and B. deuterodonoides. Unfortunately the maxillary teeth of the 
former are not described in sufficient detail, while the maxillary teeth of 
the latter are said to be broad, and this describes fairly well those of the 
material that I collected, and I have identified my specimens as a 
subspecies of the form named B. deuterodoneides. A careful study may 
show that B. cismontanus is another form or that these two species are 
synonymous. 
The following tentative key will aid in identifying the species of 
Bryconamericus from Venezuela: 
la. Depth 2.5 to 3, usually about 2.6 to 2.8 in standard length; scales above 
| lateral line 5 or 6, usually 6; anal rays iii, 20 to iii, 30; maxillary teeth with 
