Class Osteichthyes Subclass Actinopterygii Infraclass Neopterygii Division Teleostei

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

$Class Osteichthyes Subclass Actinopterygii Infraclass Neopterygii Division Teleostei$ Class Osteichthyes Subclass Actinopterygii Infraclass Neopterygii Division Teleostei Order Percopsiformes Percopsidae 1. Percopsis omiscomaycus – Aphredoderidae 2. Aphredoderus sayanus – jugular vent Order Gadiformes Gadidae 3. Lota lota – single median chin barbel; pelvic fins jugular Order Atheriniformes Atherinidae 4. Labidesthes sicculus – long, slender; 2 separated dorsal fins; mouth like a beak; long anal fin Order Cyprinodontiformes Cyprinodontidae 5. Cyprinodon variegatus – small fish with small, superior mouth and arched back Fundulidae 6. Fundulus diaphanus – guppy-like mouth; head depressed; small upturned, superior mouth is protrusible; vertical bars on sides; dorsal fin in front of anal fin. 7. Fundulus heteroclitus – similar to F. diaphanus, but with blunt snout and not as elongate 8. Fundulus notatus – like F. diaphanus, but dorsal fin set further back, behind second ray of anal fin; lateral band distinct Poeciliidae 9. Gambusia holbrooki – gonopodium on males Order Gasterosteiformes Gasterosteidae 10. Apeltes quadracus – 4-5 dorsal spines; caudal peduncle slender and long 11. Culaea inconstans – 12. Gasterosteus aculeatus – usually 3 dorsal spines; caudal peduncle usually with a lateral keel Order Scorpaeniformes Cottidae 13. Cottus bairdi – 4 pelvic fin rays; incomplete LL; 2 separated median chin pores; 3-4 saddles; notched bar on caudal fin base; widespread 14. Cottus caeruleomentum – very similar (and formerly synonymous) to C. bairdi; band on caudal fin base usually not notched; Atlantic slope drainages 15. Cottus cognatus – very similar to C. bairdi; 3 pelvic fin rays; no palatine teeth 16. Cottus girardi – very similar to C. bairdi; median chin pores united into 1 pore Order Perciformes Moronidae 17. Morone americana – body deepest under spiny dorsal; first anal spine short; dorsal fins connected; sides may have faint lateral stripes 18. Morone chrysops – similar to M. americana; body deepest between dorsal fins; dorsal fins may be separated, but are not strongly connected; anal spines more graduated in size (first one not distinctly shorter than the second and third); tongue with a medial tooth patch 19. Morone saxatilis – larger, more slender fish with distinct lateral stripes; 2 parallel medial tooth patches on tongue 20. Morone chrysops x Morone saxatilis – intermediate characters of white and striped basses; lateral stripes often broken and irregular Centrarchidae 21. Ambloplites rupestris – 5-7 anal spines; large, terminal mouth; red eye; dorsum with saddles and sides with horizontal rows of spots Lepomis – 3 anal spines 22. Lepomis auritus – 23. Lepomis cyanellus – 24. Lepomis gibbosus – 25. Lepomis macrochirus – 26. Lepomis megalotis – 27. Micropterus dolomieu – 28. Micropterus punctulatus – 29. Micropterus salmoides – 30. Pomoxis annularis – 31. Pomoxis nigromaculatus – .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

BONY FISHES 602 Bony Fishes
click for previous page BONY FISHES 602 Bony Fishes GENERAL REMARKS by K.E. Carpenter, Old Dominion University, Virginia, USA ony fishes constitute the bulk, by far, of both the diversity and total landings of marine organisms encoun- Btered in fisheries of the Western Central Atlantic.They are found in all macrofaunal marine and estuarine habitats and exhibit a lavish array of adaptations to these environments. This extreme diversity of form and taxa presents an exceptional challenge for identification. There are 30 orders and 269 families of bony fishes presented in this guide, representing all families known from the area. Each order and family presents a unique suite of taxonomic problems and relevant characters. The purpose of this preliminary section on technical terms and guide to orders and families is to serve as an introduction and initial identification guide to this taxonomic diversity. It should also serve as a general reference for those features most commonly used in identification of bony fishes throughout the remaining volumes. However, I cannot begin to introduce the many facets of fish biology relevant to understanding the diversity of fishes in a few pages. For this, the reader is directed to one of the several general texts on fish biology such as the ones by Bond (1996), Moyle and Cech (1996), and Helfman et al.(1997) listed below. A general introduction to the fisheries of bony fishes in this region is given in the introduction to these volumes. Taxonomic details relevant to a specific family are explained under each of the appropriate family sections. The classification of bony fishes continues to transform as our knowledge of their evolutionary relationships improves.
[Show full text]
Fish Passage and Injury Risk at a Surface Bypass of a Small-Scale Hydropower Plant
sustainability Article Fish Passage and Injury Risk at a Surface Bypass of a Small-Scale Hydropower Plant Josef Knott, Melanie Mueller, Joachim Pander and Juergen Geist * Aquatic Systems Biology Unit, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Technical University of Munich, Mühlenweg 22, 85354 Freising, Germany; [email protected] (J.K.); [email protected] (M.M.); [email protected] (J.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-816-171-3767 Received: 14 October 2019; Accepted: 29 October 2019; Published: 30 October 2019 Abstract: In contrast to the efforts made to develop functioning fishways for upstream migrants, the need for effective downstream migration facilities has long been underestimated. The challenge of developing well-performing bypasses for downstream migrants involves attracting the fish to the entrance and transporting them quickly and unharmed into the tailrace. In this study, the acceptance of different opening sizes of a surface bypass as well as the injuries which fish experience during the passage were examined. Overall bypass acceptance was low compared to the turbine passage. There was no significant difference in the number of downstream moving fish between the small and the large bypass openings. Across all fish species, no immediate mortality was detected. Severe injuries such as amputations or bruises were only rarely detected and at low intensity. Scale losses, tears and hemorrhages in the fins and dermal lesions at the body were the most common injuries, and significant species-specific differences were detected. To increase bypass efficiency, it would likely be useful to offer an alternative bottom bypass in addition to the existing surface bypass.
[Show full text]
Phylogeny Classification Additional Readings Clupeomorpha and Ostariophysi
Teleostei - AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education http://www.accessscience.com/content/teleostei/680400 (http://www.accessscience.com/) Article by: Boschung, Herbert Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Gardiner, Brian Linnean Society of London, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, United Kingdom. Publication year: 2014 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1036/1097-8542.680400 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1036/1097-8542.680400) Content Morphology Euteleostei Bibliography Phylogeny Classification Additional Readings Clupeomorpha and Ostariophysi The most recent group of actinopterygians (rayfin fishes), first appearing in the Upper Triassic (Fig. 1). About 26,840 species are contained within the Teleostei, accounting for more than half of all living vertebrates and over 96% of all living fishes. Teleosts comprise 517 families, of which 69 are extinct, leaving 448 extant families; of these, about 43% have no fossil record. See also: Actinopterygii (/content/actinopterygii/009100); Osteichthyes (/content/osteichthyes/478500) Fig. 1 Cladogram showing the relationships of the extant teleosts with the other extant actinopterygians. (J. S. Nelson, Fishes of the World, 4th ed., Wiley, New York, 2006) 1 of 9 10/7/2015 1:07 PM Teleostei - AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education http://www.accessscience.com/content/teleostei/680400 Morphology Much of the evidence for teleost monophyly (evolving from a common ancestral form) and relationships comes from the caudal skeleton and concomitant acquisition of a homocercal tail (upper and lower lobes of the caudal fin are symmetrical). This type of tail primitively results from an ontogenetic fusion of centra (bodies of vertebrae) and the possession of paired bracing bones located bilaterally along the dorsal region of the caudal skeleton, derived ontogenetically from the neural arches (uroneurals) of the ural (tail) centra.
[Show full text]
Acanthopterygii, Bone, Eurypterygii, Osteology, Percomprpha
Research in Zoology 2014, 4(2): 29-42 DOI: 10.5923/j.zoology.20140402.01 Comparative Osteology of the Jaws in Representatives of the Eurypterygian Fishes Yazdan Keivany Department of Natural Resources (Fisheries Division), Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran Abstract The osteology of the jaws in representatives of 49 genera in 40 families of eurypterygian fishes, including: Aulopiformes, Myctophiformes, Lampridiformes, Polymixiiformes, Percopsiformes, Mugiliformes, Atheriniformes, Beloniformes, Cyprinodontiformes, Stephanoberyciformes, Beryciformes, Zeiformes, Gasterosteiformes, Synbranchiformes, Scorpaeniformes (including Dactylopteridae), and Perciformes (including Elassomatidae) were studied. Generally, in this group, the upper jaw consists of the premaxilla, maxilla, and supramaxilla. The lower jaw consists of the dentary, anguloarticular, retroarticular, and sesamoid articular. In higher taxa, the premaxilla bears ascending, articular, and postmaxillary processes. The maxilla usually bears a ventral and a dorsal articular process. The supramaxilla is present only in some taxa. The dentary is usually toothed and bears coronoid and posteroventral processes. The retroarticular is small and located at the posteroventral corner of the anguloarticular. Keywords Acanthopterygii, Bone, Eurypterygii, Osteology, Percomprpha following method for clearing and staining bone and 1. Introduction cartilage provided in reference [18]. A camera lucida attached to a Wild M5 dissecting stereomicroscope was used Despite the introduction of modern techniques such as to prepare the drawings. The bones in the first figure of each DNA sequencing and barcoding, osteology, due to its anatomical section are arbitrarily shaded and labeled and in reliability, still plays an important role in the systematic the others are shaded in a consistent manner (dark, medium, study of fishes and comprises a major percent of today’s and clear) to facilitate comparison among the taxa.
[Show full text]
Order GASTEROSTEIFORMES PEGASIDAE Eurypegasus Draconis
click for previous page 2262 Bony Fishes Order GASTEROSTEIFORMES PEGASIDAE Seamoths (seadragons) by T.W. Pietsch and W.A. Palsson iagnostic characters: Small fishes (to 18 cm total length); body depressed, completely encased in Dfused dermal plates; tail encircled by 8 to 14 laterally articulating, or fused, bony rings. Nasal bones elongate, fused, forming a rostrum; mouth inferior. Gill opening restricted to a small hole on dorsolat- eral surface behind head. Spinous dorsal fin absent; soft dorsal and anal fins each with 5 rays, placed posteriorly on body. Caudal fin with 8 unbranched rays. Pectoral fins large, wing-like, inserted horizon- tally, composed of 9 to 19 unbranched, soft or spinous-soft rays; pectoral-fin rays interconnected by broad, transparent membranes. Pelvic fins thoracic, tentacle-like,withI spine and 2 or 3 unbranched soft rays. Colour: in life highly variable, apparently capable of rapid colour change to match substrata; head and body light to dark brown, olive-brown, reddish brown, or almost black, with dorsal and lateral surfaces usually darker than ventral surface; dorsal and lateral body surface often with fine, dark brown reticulations or mottled lines, sometimes with irregular white or yellow blotches; tail rings often encircled with dark brown bands; pectoral fins with broad white outer margin and small brown spots forming irregular, longitudinal bands; unpaired fins with small brown spots in irregular rows. dorsal view lateral view Habitat, biology, and fisheries: Benthic, found on sand, gravel, shell-rubble, or muddy bottoms. Collected incidentally by seine, trawl, dredge, or shrimp nets; postlarvae have been taken at surface lights at night.
[Show full text]
Hemibarbus Labeo) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
Barbel Steed (Hemibarbus labeo) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, August 2012 Revised, February 2017 Web Version, 1/14/2018 Photo: Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences. Licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0. Available: http://fishbase.org/photos/PicturesSummary.php?StartRow=0&ID=17301&what=species&TotRe c=9. (February 2017). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Froese and Pauly (2016): “Asia: throughout the Amur basin [Berg 1964]; eastern Asia from the Amur basin to northern Vietnam, Japan and islands of Hainan and Taiwan [Reshetnikov et al. 1997].” Status in the United States This species has not been reported in the United States. 1 Means of Introductions in the United States This species has not been reported in the United States. Remarks From CABI (2017): “Other Scientific Names Acanthogobio oxyrhynchus Nikolskii, 1903 Barbus labeo Pallas, 1776 Barbus schlegelii Günther, 1868 Cyprinus labeo Pallas, 1776 Gobio barbus Temminck & Schlegel, 1846 Gobiobarbus labeo Pallas, 1776 Hemibarbus barbus Temminck & Schlegel, 1846 Hemibarbus longianalis Kimura, 1934 Pseudogobio chaoi Evermann & Shaw, 1927” 2 Biology and Ecology Taxonomic Hierarchy and Taxonomic Standing From ITIS (2017): “Kingdom Animalia Subkingdom Bilateria Infrakingdom Deuterostomia Phylum Chordata Subphylum Vertebrata Infraphylum Gnathostomata Superclass Osteichthyes Class Actinopterygii Subclass Neopterygii Infraclass Teleostei Superorder Ostariophysi Order Cypriniformes Superfamily Cyprinoidea Family Cyprinidae Genus Hemibarbus Bleeker, 1860 Species Hemibarbus labeo (Pallas, 1776)” “Taxonomic Status: valid” 2 Size, Weight, and Age Range From Froese and Pauly (2016): “Max length : 62.0 cm TL male/unsexed; [Novikov et al. 2002]; common length : 33.0 cm TL male/unsexed; [Berg 1964]; common length :40.6 cm TL (female); max.
[Show full text]
Transposable Elements and Teleost Migratory Behaviour
International Journal of Molecular Sciences Article Transposable Elements and Teleost Migratory Behaviour Elisa Carotti 1,†, Federica Carducci 1,†, Adriana Canapa 1, Marco Barucca 1,* , Samuele Greco 2 , Marco Gerdol 2 and Maria Assunta Biscotti 1 1 Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy; [email protected] (E.C.); [email protected] (F.C.); [email protected] (A.C.); [email protected] (M.A.B.) 2 Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Via L. Giorgieri, 5-34127 Trieste, Italy; [email protected] (S.G.); [email protected] (M.G.) * Correspondence: [email protected] † Equal contribution. Abstract: Transposable elements (TEs) represent a considerable fraction of eukaryotic genomes, thereby contributing to genome size, chromosomal rearrangements, and to the generation of new coding genes or regulatory elements. An increasing number of works have reported a link between the genomic abundance of TEs and the adaptation to specific environmental conditions. Diadromy represents a fascinating feature of fish, protagonists of migratory routes between marine and fresh- water for reproduction. In this work, we investigated the genomes of 24 fish species, including 15 teleosts with a migratory behaviour. The expected higher relative abundance of DNA transposons in ray-finned fish compared with the other fish groups was not confirmed by the analysis of the dataset considered. The relative contribution of different TE types in migratory ray-finned species did not show clear differences between oceanodromous and potamodromous fish. On the contrary, a remarkable relationship between migratory behaviour and the quantitative difference reported for short interspersed nuclear (retro)elements (SINEs) emerged from the comparison between anadro- mous and catadromous species, independently from their phylogenetic position.
[Show full text]
History of Fishes - Structural Patterns and Trends in Diversification
History of fishes - Structural Patterns and Trends in Diversification AGNATHANS = Jawless • Class – Pteraspidomorphi • Class – Myxini?? (living) • Class – Cephalaspidomorphi – Osteostraci – Anaspidiformes – Petromyzontiformes (living) Major Groups of Agnathans • 1. Osteostracida 2. Anaspida 3. Pteraspidomorphida • Hagfish and Lamprey = traditionally together in cyclostomata Jaws = GNATHOSTOMES • Gnathostomes: the jawed fishes -good evidence for gnathostome monophyly. • 4 major groups of jawed vertebrates: Extinct Acanthodii and Placodermi (know) Living Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes • Living Chondrichthyans - usually divided into Selachii or Elasmobranchi (sharks and rays) and Holocephali (chimeroids). • • Living Osteichthyans commonly regarded as forming two major groups ‑ – Actinopterygii – Ray finned fish – Sarcopterygii (coelacanths, lungfish, Tetrapods). • SARCOPTERYGII = Coelacanths + (Dipnoi = Lung-fish) + Rhipidistian (Osteolepimorphi) = Tetrapod Ancestors (Eusthenopteron) Close to tetrapods Lungfish - Dipnoi • Three genera, Africa+Australian+South American ACTINOPTERYGII Bichirs – Cladistia = POLYPTERIFORMES Notable exception = Cladistia – Polypterus (bichirs) - Represented by 10 FW species - tropical Africa and one species - Erpetoichthys calabaricus – reedfish. Highly aberrant Cladistia - numerous uniquely derived features – long, independent evolution: – Strange dorsal finlets, Series spiracular ossicles, Peculiar urohyal bone and parasphenoid • But retain # primitive Actinopterygian features = heavy ganoid scales (external
[Show full text]
Annotated Key to the Fishes of Indiana
IF ANNOTATED KEY TO THE FISHES OF INDIANA Joseph S. Nelson and Shelby D. Gerking Department of Zoology, Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana Aquatic Research Unit Project Number 342-303-815 March, 1968 INN MN UM OM MI NMI 11111111 MI IIIIII NMI OM MS ill MI NM NM NM OM it Draft Copy ANNOTATED KEY TO THE FISHES OF INDIANA Joseph S. Nelson and Shelby D. Gerking Introduction This annotated key provides a means of identifying fishes presently occurring or known to have occurred in Indiana and gives a rough indication of their range and distribution within the state. Recent changes in nomenclature, additional diagnostic characters, and distributional changes are combined with information from the detailed analyses of Indiana fishes by Gerking (1945, 1955). Geography The state of Indiana covers 36,291 square miles. It extends 265 miles 1 in a north-south direction between the extremes of 41046t and 37°46 N latitude and 160 miles in an east-west direction between the extremes of 84°47' and 88°061 W longitude. Its northern border includes the southern tip of Lake Michigan and extends along part of the southern border of Michigan state. Ohio lies along most of the eastern border, the Ohio River, with Kentucky to the south,comprises the southern border, while Illinois lies along the western border. Approximately the northern sixth of Indiana lies in the Lake Michigan- Lake Erie watershed; the remainder is in the Mississippi drainage, composed primarily of the Wabash and Ohio rivers and their tributaries (Fig. 1). The elevation of the state is highest in the east central portion with the highest ° 1 point at 1257 feet in the northeastern corner of Wayne County, 40 00 N; 84°51' W.
[Show full text]
Barbel Cholera, a Rare but Still Possible Food-Borne Poisoning. Case Report
Acta Biomed 2018; Vol. 89, N. 4: 590-592 DOI: 10.23750/abm.v89i4.7606 © Mattioli 1885 Emergence Medicine - Up date Barbel cholera, a rare but still possible food-borne poisoning. Case report and narrative review Ivan Comelli1, Matteo Riccò2, Gianfranco Cervellin1 1 Emergency Department, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy; 2 Working Environment Prevention and Safety Service. Local Health Agency, Reggio nell’Emilia, Italy Summary. The gastro enteric toxic effects of the barbel eggs have been described up to two centuries ago, but deliberate or serendipitous ingestion of this fish product still occur, often eliciting a gastrointestinal syn- drome usually known as barbel cholera. Barbel cholera is a self-limited gastrointestinal diarrheic syndrome that develops 2 to 4 hours after ingestion of the eggs, lasting up to 12-36 hours, nearly always complicated by vomiting and severe abdominal pain. The disease is usually self-limited, and the prognosis is thus benign even without hospitalization and medical treatment. Rarely, however, barbel cholera may be complicated by mas- sive diarrhea, and the patients can develop bradycardia, oligo-anuria, and eventually hypovolemic shock. In this article we describe a rare case of barbel cholera, highlighting both the diagnostic difficulties in identifying it, and the importance of obtain an accurate history, focused on recently ingested food, thus addressing the clinical management on supportive treatment, expecting symptoms’ improvement usually within 36 hours. (www.actabiomedica.it) Key words: barbel cholera, barbus fish, barbel eggs, food borne poisoning, gastroenteritis, Emergency Depart- ment Introduction deliberate or serendipitous ingestion of barbel eggs still occur, often eliciting a gastrointestinal syndrome usu- The genus Barbus includes several species of fresh- ally known as barbel cholera (1-4).
[Show full text]
Order Myctophiformes, Lanternfishes
Order Myctophiformes, lanternfishes • 241 species, 35 genera, 2 families • Deep sea pelagic and benthic, numerically dominant in deep sea habitats • Large terminal mouth (reminiscent of anchovy) • Adipose fin present • Compressed head and body (Myctophiformes = nose serpent shape) Lampridiformes • Large eyes Percopsiformes • Photophores Acanthomorpha •Hollow unsegmented spines on dorsal and anal fins •Rostal and premaxilla cartilidge and ligaments allow greater jaw protrusability Order Lampridiformes, opahs and oarfish Order Lampridiformes, opahs and oarfish • Oarfish • 19 species, 12 genera, 7 families – Longest teleost – over 30 feet • no true spines in fins – Only one individual observed • unique upper jaw protrusion – alive, used amiiform maxilla not directly attached to swimming ethmoid or palentine • deep bodied or ribbon-like • pelagic and deep water marine 1 Order Percopsiformes, trout perch, pirate perch, cavefish • 3 families, 7 genera, 9 species • All freshwater • Few with adipose fins – one of the most derived fishes with them • Pirate perch (Aphredoderidae) – One species – Fairly extensive parental care – Anus migration • Cavefish (Amblyopsidae) Zeiformes – Reduction or loss of eyes Gadiformes – Sensory papillae on head, body and tail Acanthomorpha •Hollow unsegmented spines on – Anus migration dorsal and anal fins •Rostal and premaxilla cartilidge – Convergent evolution of cave fish and ligaments allow greater jaw and other cave characins, protrusability catfishes etc. Order Zeiformes Order Gadiiformes • Dories • 555 species,
[Show full text]
FAMILY Percopsidae Agassiz, 1850 - Percopsids, Trout Perches [=Percopsides Agassiz, 1850] Notes: Percopsides Agassiz, 1850:286 [Ref
FAMILY Percopsidae Agassiz, 1850 - percopsids, trout perches [=Percopsides Agassiz, 1850] Notes: Percopsides Agassiz, 1850:286 [ref. 66] (family) Percopsis [stem Percops- confirmed by Bleeker 1859d:XXXI [ref. 371], by Günther 1866:207 [ref. 1983] and by Gill 1872:15 [ref26254]] GENUS Percopsis Agassiz, 1849 - trout-perches [=Percopsis Agassiz [L.], 1849:81, Columatilla Whitley [G. P.], 1940:243, Columbia Eigenmann [C. H.], 1892:234, Salmoperca Thompson [Z.], 1853:33] Notes: [ref. 65]. Fem. Percopsis guttatus Agassiz, 1850. Type by subsequent monotypy. Appeared first without named species. Description begun on p. 80 (published Nov. 1848), name appears on p. 81 (published Mar. 1849); genus dates to Mar. 1849, with type by subsequent monotypy. Appeared with detailed description and with species included in Agassiz 1850:284 [ref. 66]. The species P. pellucida Thompson apparently predates Agassiz's P. guttatus (see Poly 2004:2 [ref. 27584]), but the type species guttatus Agassiz apparenlty can be maintained based on prevailing usage. •Valid as Percopsis Agassiz, 1849 -- (Jenkins & Burkhead 1994:589 [ref. 21581], Wiley et al. 1998:423 [ref. 25588], Mecklenburg et al. 2002:262 [ref. 25968], Poly 2004:1 [ref. 27584], Scharpf 2006:35 [ref. 30386]). Current status: Valid as Percopsis Agassiz, 1849. Percopsidae. (Columatilla) [ref. 4660]. Fem. Columbia transmontana Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1892. Type by being a replacement name. Replacement for Columbia Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1892, preoccupied by Columbia Rang, 1834 in Mollusca. The name, Columatilla Whitley, 1940, was an unnecessary replacement name for Columbia Eigenmann, 1892 because the genus of mollusc is spelled Colombia Rang, 1834 rather than Columbia. •Synonym of Percopsis Agassiz, 1849 -- (Poly 2004:2 [ref.
[Show full text]