Systematics of the Percid Fish, Etheostoma macu- latum Kirtland, and Related Species of the Su6genus Nothonotus

The systematic characters of E. maculatum were studied in approximately 750 specimens. It was compared with its relative, E. microleplidum from the Cumberland River. E. maculatum is found in riffles in rivers and has been taken commonly only in tributaries of the Ohio River System in western Pennsylvania. It ranges westward to the Wabash River System in Indiana and southward to the upper reaches of the Cumberland and Tennessee River systems. Three allopatric forms are recognized as subspecies, but might properly be considered as species. Gene flow between these subspecies is unlikely since the late Pleistocene. We diagnose and compare the subspecies maculatum (Ohio River Sys- tem), sanguifluum (Cumberland River System), and vulneratum (Upper Tennessee River System). The latter two names of Cope are resurrected after an examination of the type specimens. The three subspecies differ in scales, fin rays, and vertebrae. The shape and relations of the snout, frenum, and jaws also differ. Color and pattern are also useful. Sexual dimorphism is marked and the males reach a larger size. The male of the northern subspecies, maculatum, is known to guard a mass of eggs laid under a stone. Observations are lacking for the other two subspecies. A study of additional large series, if ever available, from the Upper Ten- nessee River System, may reveal additional forms.

[1]  R. D. Suttkus,et al.  Etheostoma moorei, a New Darter of the Subgenus Nothonotus from the White River System, Arkansas , 1964 .

[2]  R. E. Lennon.  An annotated list of the fishes of Great Smoky Mountains National Park , 1962 .

[3]  G. Williams.  Ovary Weights of Darters: A Test of the Alleged Association of Parental Care with Reduced Fecundity in Fishes1 , 1959 .

[4]  R. Bailey.  Etheostoma acuticeps, a new darter from the Tennessee River system, with remarks on the subgenus Nothonotus , 1959 .

[5]  H. E. Winn.  Comparative Reproductive Behavior and Ecology of Fourteen Species of Darters (Pisces‐Percidae) , 1958 .

[6]  Robert R. Miller,et al.  FISHES OF OHIO , 1958 .

[7]  S. Eddy.  How To Know The Freshwater Fishes , 1957 .

[8]  W. A. Gosline,et al.  Variation and Systematic Significance of Vertebral Counts in the American Fishes of the Family Percidae , 1955 .

[9]  T. H. Langlois.  The western end of Lake Erie and its ecology , 1954 .

[10]  E. Lachner,et al.  Studies on the Biology of Some Percid Fishes from Western Pennsylvania , 1950 .

[11]  Robert R. Miller,et al.  Fishes of the Great Lakes Region , 1948 .

[12]  V. Scheffer,et al.  Name That Animal , 1942 .

[13]  G. Myers,et al.  A Guide to the Fishes of Tennessee and the Mid-South , 1940 .

[14]  E. C. Raney,et al.  Observations on the Life History of the Spotted Darter, Poecilichthys maculatus (Kirtland) , 1939 .

[15]  W. S. Blatchley.  The Fishes of Indiana , 1939 .

[16]  Wilfred A. Welter.  A List of the Fishes of the Licking River Drainage in Eastern Kentucky , 1938 .

[17]  H. S. Pratt.  (1) A Manual of the Common Invertebrate Animals, exclusive of Insects (2) A Manual of Land and Fresh Water Vertebrate Animals of the United States (exclusive of Birds) , 2015, Nature.

[18]  H. Fowler.  Some new and little known percoid fishes , 1906 .

[19]  G. Boulenger.  Catalogue of the perciform fishes in the British Museum , 1895 .

[20]  O. P. Hay.  The Lampreys and Fishes of Indiana , 1894 .

[21]  D. S. Jordan.  Synopsis of the Genera of Fishes to be Looked for in Indiana , 1875 .

[22]  E. Cope.  On Some Etheostomine Perch from Tennessee and North Carolina , 1869 .