diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:01:48 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:01:48 -0700 |
| commit | 41cc18da54651000d3b4ee25ec933c12c9d3b580 (patch) | |
| tree | afc23960e928a141737e86a9e8b63d470a8ddcfc | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523-8.txt | 3688 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 57581 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 397322 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523-h/34523-h.htm | 3948 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523-h/images/bar_double.png | bin | 0 -> 162 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523-h/images/bar_single.png | bin | 0 -> 160 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523-h/images/i007.jpg | bin | 0 -> 84464 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523-h/images/i014.jpg | bin | 0 -> 88037 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523-h/images/i019.jpg | bin | 0 -> 69789 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523-h/images/i020.jpg | bin | 0 -> 94048 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523.txt | 3688 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34523.zip | bin | 0 -> 57562 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
15 files changed, 11340 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/34523-8.txt b/34523-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2c486b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/34523-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3688 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk +Counties, Kansas, by Artie L. Metcalf + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk Counties, Kansas + +Author: Artie L. Metcalf + +Release Date: November 30, 2010 [EBook #34523] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FISHES *** + + + + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + + + + ==================================================================== + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS + MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + + Volume 11, No. 6, pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 figs. in text, 10 tables + ---------------------- May 6, 1959 ------------------------- + + + Fishes of + Chautauqua, Cowley and + Elk Counties, Kansas + + + BY + + ARTIE L. METCALF + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS + LAWRENCE + 1959 + + + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + + Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, Henry S. Fitch, + Robert W. Wilson + + Volume 11, No. 6, pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 figs. in text, 10 tables + Published May 6, 1959 + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS + Lawrence, Kansas + + + A CONTRIBUTION FROM + THE STATE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF KANSAS + + + PRINTED IN + THE STATE PRINTING PLANT + TOPEKA, KANSAS + 1959 + + 27-7079 + + + + + Fishes of + Chautauqua, Cowley and + Elk Counties, Kansas + + BY + ARTIE L. METCALF + + +CONTENTS + + + PAGE + Introduction 347 + Physical characteristics of the streams 351 + Climate 351 + Present flora 353 + History 354 + Conservation 357 + Previous ichthyological collections 357 + Acknowledgments 358 + Materials and methods 358 + Collecting stations 359 + Annotated list of species 362 + Fishes of doubtful or possible occurrence 383 + Faunal comparisons of different streams 384 + Distributional variations within the same stream 387 + Faunas of intermittent streams 390 + East-west distribution 392 + Summary 394 + Literature cited 397 + + + + +INTRODUCTION + + +Aims of the distributional study here reported on concerning the fishes +of a part of the Arkansas River Basin of south-central Kansas were as +follows: + +(1) Ascertain what species occur in streams of the three counties. + +(2) Ascertain habitat preferences for the species found. + +(3) Distinguish faunal associations existing in different parts of the +same stream. + +(4) Describe differences and similarities among the fish faunas of the +several streams in the area. + +(5) Relate the findings to the over-all picture of east-west +distribution of fishes in Kansas. + +(6) List any demonstrable effects of intermittency of streams on fish +distribution within the area. + +Cowley and Chautauqua counties form part of the southern border of +Kansas, and Elk County lies directly north of Chautauqua. The following +report concerns data only from those three counties unless otherwise +noted. They make up an area of 2,430 square miles having a population of +50,960 persons in 1950 (55,552 in 1940, and 60,375 in 1930). The most +populous portion of the area is western Cowley County where Arkansas +City with 12,903 inhabitants and Winfield with 10,264 inhabitants are +located. Each of the other towns has less than 2,000 inhabitants. In the +Flint Hills, which cross the central portion of the area surveyed, +population is sparse and chiefly in the valleys. + +Topographically, the area is divisible into three general sections: the +extensive Wellington formation and the floodplain of the Arkansas River +in western Cowley County; the Flint Hills in the central part of the +area; and the "Chautauqua Hills" in the eastern part. The drainage +pattern is shown in Figure 1. + +The Wellington formation, which is devoid of sharp relief, borders the +floodplain of the Arkansas River through most of its course in Cowley +County. A short distance south of Arkansas City, however, the Arkansas +is joined by the Walnut River and enters a narrow valley walled by +steep, wooded slopes. Frye and Leonard (1952:198) suggest that this +valley was originally carved by the Walnut River, when the Arkansas +River flowed southward west of its present course. They further suggest +that during Nebraskan glacial time the Arkansas probably was diverted to +the rapidly downcutting Walnut. The Arkansas River has a gradient of 3.0 +ft. per mile in Cowley County. This gradient and others cited were +computed, by use of a cartometer, from maps made by the State Geological +Survey of Kansas and the United States Geological Survey. + +Northward along the Walnut, steep bluffs and eroded gulleys characterize +both sides of the river, especially in southern Cowley County. Two +massive limestones, the Fort Riley and the Winfield, form the bluffs in +most places. The well-defined Winfield limestone is persistent on the +west bank of the river across the entire county. The Walnut has only a +few small tributaries in the southern half of Cowley County (Fig. 1). In +the northern half, however, it is joined from the east by Timber Creek +and Rock Creek. Timber Creek drains a large level area, formed by the +eroded upper portion of the Fort Riley limestone, in the north-central +portion of the county. The gradient of Timber Creek is 12.9 feet per +mile. The gradient of the Walnut River is only 2.3 ft. per mile from its +point of entrance into the county to its mouth. + + [Illustration: FIG. 1. + Map of Cowley, Chautauqua and Elk counties, Kansas, + showing the streams mentioned in the text.] + +Grouse Creek, like the Walnut, has formed a valley of one to three miles +in width, rimmed by prominent wooded bluffs. Those on the west side are +capped by the Fort Riley limestone with the resistant Wreford and Crouse +limestones forming lower escarpments. On the east side the Wreford and +Crouse limestones provide the only escarpments along the stream above +the Vinton community, except for occasional lower outcrops of Morrill +limestone. Below Vinton the Fort Riley limestone again appears, capping +the hills above the Wreford limestone. The headwaters of the western +tributaries of Grouse Creek are generally in the Doyle shale formation; +the eastern tributaries are in the Wreford limestone, Matfield shale, +and Barnestone limestone formations. The gradient of Grouse Creek is 9 +ft. per mile, of Silver Creek 14.6 ft. per mile, and of Crab Creek 14.4 +ft. per mile. + +The Big Caney River (Fig. 1), having a gradient of 15.4 ft. per mile in +the area studied, drains an area with considerable geological and +topographic variation. The main stream and its western tributaries +originate in Permian formations, whereas the eastern tributaries +originate in Pennsylvanian formations. Cedar Creek is exemplary of +western tributaries of Big Caney. This creek arises in the Wreford +limestone, as do several nearby tributaries of Grouse Creek. Although +the Grouse tributaries descend through only part of the Council Grove +group, Cedar Creek flows downward through the entire Grove, Admire, and +Wabaunsee groups and part of the Shawnee Group (Moore, 1951). In only 15 +miles, Cedar Creek traverses formations comprising more than 60 per cent +of the entire exposed stratigraphic section in Cowley County. Bass +(1929:16) states that reliefs of 350 feet within a mile are present in +parts of this area. + +Large terraces of limestone characterize the eastern flank of the Flint +Hills, which the western tributaries of Big Caney drain. Most striking +is the Foraker limestone. It characteristically consists of three +massive members in Cowley County, the uppermost of which forms the +prominent first crest of the Flint Hills. As the rapid-flowing western +tributaries of Big Caney descend over these successive limestone +members, large quantities of chert and limestone rubble are transported +and deposited in stream beds of the system. In many places the streams +of the Big Caney system flow over resistant limestone members, which +form a bedrock bottom. The eastern tributaries of Big Caney drain, for +the most part, formations of the Wabaunsee group of the Pennsylvanian. +Most of these streams have lower gradients than those entering Big Caney +from the west. The tributaries of Big Caney, along with length in miles +and gradient in feet per mile, are as follows: Spring Creek, 7.1, 54.5; +Union Creek, 6.3, 42.9; Otter Creek, 14.6, 27.4; Cedar Creek, 11.6, +31.0; Rock Creek, 15.9, 26.5; Wolf Creek, 9.3, 17.2; Turkey Creek, 8.5, +26.4; Grant Creek, 13.9, 23.4; and Sycamore Creek, 8.9, 27.0. + +Spring Creek and Union Creek are short and have formed no extensive +floodplain. The high gradients of these creeks are characteristic also +of the upper portions of several other tributaries such as Cedar Creek +and Otter Creek. + +Middle Caney Creek (Fig. 1) has its source in the Wabaunsee and Shawnee +groups of the Pennsylvanian but its watershed is dominated by the +"Chautauqua Hills" of the Douglas Group. This area is described by Moore +(1949:127) as "an upland formed by hard sandstone layers." The rough +rounded hills supporting thick growths of oaks differ in appearance from +both the Big Caney watershed on the west and the Verdigris River +watershed on the east. The gradient of Middle Caney in Chautauqua County +is 10.8 feet per mile. Its largest tributary, North Caney Creek, has a +gradient of 15.5 feet per mile. + +The Elk River Basin resembles the Big Caney River Basin topographically. +Elk River has a gradient of 14.4 feet per mile. + + + + +PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS + + +The stream channels derive their physical characteristics from the +geological make-up of the area and from land-use. The Arkansas River +typically has low banks; however, in a few places, as in the NE 1/4 of +Section 21, T. 33 S, R. 3 E, it cuts into limestone members to form +steep rocky banks. The bottom is predominantly sand. In years of heavy +rainfall the river is turbid, but during 1956, when it occupied only a +small portion of its channel, it was clear each time observed. All +streams surveyed were clear except after short periods of flooding in +June, and except in some isolated pools where cattle had access to the +water. + +In the Walnut River, sand bottoms occur in the lower part of the stream +but the sand is coarser than that of the Arkansas River. Upstream, +gravel and rubble bottoms become more common. Steep rocky banks border +most of the course of the Walnut. During 1956, stream-flow was confined +to the center of the channel, remote from these rocky banks. + +The rubble and bedrock bottoms found in most streams of the Flint Hills +have been described. In the alluvial valleys of their lower courses mud +bottoms are found. Gravel is present in some places but sand is absent. +Banks are variable but often steep and wooded. Along east- or +west-flowing streams the north bank characteristically is low and +sloping whereas the south bank is high, rises abruptly, and in many +places is continuous with wooded hills. The lower sections of Otter +Creek, Cedar Creek, and Rock Creek fit this description (Bass, 1929:19) +especially well, as does Elk River near Howard. + +Streams in the Chautauqua Hills resemble those of the Flint Hills in +physical characteristics, except that a larger admixture of sandstone +occurs in the rubble. + + + + +CLIMATE + + +The climate of the area is characterized by those fluctuations of +temperature, wind, and rainfall typical of the Great Plains. The mean +annual temperature is 58 degrees; the mean July temperature is 81 +degrees; the mean January temperature is approximately 34 degrees. The +mean annual precipitation is 32.9 in Cowley County, 38.5 in Chautauqua +County, and 35.1 in Elk County. Wind movement is great; Flora (1948:6) +states that south-central Kansas ranks close to some of the windiest +inland areas in the United States. + +The area has been periodically subjected to droughts and floods. Such +phenomena are of special interest to ichthyological workers in the area. +At the time of this study drought conditions, which began in 1952, +prevailed. Even in this period of drought, however, flooding occurred on +Grouse Creek and water was high in Big Caney River after heavy local +rains on the headwaters of these streams on June 22, 1956. Some of the +lower tributaries of these same streams (such as Crab Creek and Cedar +Creek) did not flow while the mainstreams were flooding. This +illustrates the local nature of many of the summer rains in the area. + +Table 1 indicates maximum, minimum, and average discharges in cubic feet +per second at several stations in the area and on nearby streams. These +figures were provided by the U. S. Geological Survey. + + TABLE 1.--CUBIC FEET PER SECOND OF WATER DISCHARGED AT GAUGING + STATIONS IN CHAUTAUQUA, ELK, MONTGOMERY, AND COWLEY + COUNTIES FOR YEARS PRIOR TO 1951. + + ======================================================================= + Gauging |Drainage |Avg |Maximum| |Minimum| + station |area |dis- |dis- | |dis- | + |(sq. mi.)|charge|charge | Date |charge | Date + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|----------- + Arkansas River | 43,713 |1,630 |103,000| June 10, | 1 |October 9, + at Arkansas | | | | 1923 | | 1921 + City | | | | | | + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|---------- + Walnut River | 1,840 | 738 |105,000| April 23,| 0 |1928, 1936 + at Winfield | | | | 1944 | | + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|---------- + Big Caney River| 445 | 264 | 35,500| April 10,| 0 |1939, 1940, + at Elgin | | | | 1944 | |1946, 1947 + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|---------- + Elk River near | 575 | 393 | 39,200| April 16,| 0 |1939, 1940, + Elk City | | | | 1945 | |1946 + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|---------- + Fall River near| 591 | 359 | 45,600| April 16,| 0 |1939, 1940, + Fall River | | | | 1945 | |1946 + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|---------- + Verdigris River| 2,892 |1,649 |117,000| April 17,| 0 |1932, 1934, + at Independence| | | | 1945 | |1936, 1939, + | | | | | |1940 + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- + +Something of the effect that drought and flash-flood have had on Big +Caney River is shown by the monthly means of daily discharge from +October, 1954, to September, 1956, at the stream-gauging station near +Elgin, Kansas (Table 2). Within these monthly variations there are also +pronounced daily fluctuations; on Big Caney River approximately 1/4 mile +south of Elgin, Kansas, discharge in cubic feet per second for May, +1944, ranged from .7 to 9,270.0 and for May, 1956, from .03 to 20.0. + + TABLE 2.--MONTHLY MEANS OF DAILY DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER + SECOND FOR BIG CANEY RIVER AT ELGIN, KANSAS + + _Month_ _1954-55_ _1955-56_ + + October 103.00 69.60 + November .31 .78 + December .18 1.92 + January .78 1.65 + February 4.76 2.08 + March 3.37 1.27 + April 4.91 .47 + May 624.00 7.37 + June 51.30 35.20 + July 1.20 1.85 + August 0.00 0.00 + September .04 0.00 + + + + +PRESENT FLORA + + +The flora of the region varies greatly at the present time. Land-use has +altered the original floral communities, especially in the intensively +cultivated area of western Cowley County and in the river valleys. + +The sandy Arkansas River floodplain exhibits several stages ranging from +sparsely vegetated sandy mounds near the river through stages of Johnson +grass, willow, and cottonwood, to an elm-hackberry fringe-forest. The +Wellington formation bordering the floodplain supports a prairie flora +where not disturbed by cultivation; Gates (1936:15) designates this as a +part of the mixed bluestem and short-grass region. _Andropogon gerardi_ +Vitman., _Andropogon scoparius_ Michx., _Sorghastrum nutans_ (L.), and +_Panicum virgatum_ L. are important grasses in the hilly pasture-lands. +Although much of this land is virgin prairie, the tall, lush condition +of the grasses described by early writers such as Mooso (1888:304), and +by local residents, is not seen today. These residents speak of slough +grasses (probably _Tripsacum dactyloides_ L. and _Spartina pectinata_ +Link.) that originally formed rank growths. These no doubt helped +conserve water and stabilize flow in small headwater creeks. Remnants of +some of these sloughs can still be found. The streams in the Flint Hills +have fringe-forests of elm, hackberry, walnut, ash, and willow. + +Eastward from the Flint Hills these fringe-forests become thicker with a +greater admixture of hickories and oaks. The north slopes of hills also +become more wooded. However, grassland remains predominant over woodland +in western Chautauqua and Elk counties, whereas in the eastern one-half +of Chautauqua County and the eastern one-third of Elk County the wooded +Chautauqua Hills prevail. This is one of the most extensive wooded +upland areas in Kansas. Hale (1955:167) describes this woodland as part +of an ecotonal scrub-oak forest bordering the Great Plains south through +Texas. He found stand dominants in these wooded areas to be _Quercus +marilandica_ Muenchh., _Quercus stellata_ Wang., and _Quercus velutina_ +Lam. + +Few true aquatic plants were observed in the Arkansas River although +mats of duckweed were found in shallow backwater pools at station A-3 +(Fig. 2) on December 22, 1956. In the Walnut River _Najas guadalupensis_ +Spreng. was common at station W-2. Stones were usually covered with +algae in both the Arkansas and Walnut rivers. A red bloom, possibly +attributable to _Euglena rubra_ (Johnson), was observed on a tributary +of the Walnut River on July 9, 1956, at station W-4. + +Green algae were abundant at all stations in the Caney, Elk, and Grouse +systems during May and June, 1956, and reappeared late in September. +_Chara_ sp. was common in these streams in April and May. + +The most characteristic rooted aquatic of streams in the Flint Hills was +_Justicia americana_ L. At station G-7 on Grouse Creek and Station C-8 +on Big Caney River (Fig. 3), _Nelumbo lutea_ (Willd.) was found. +_Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ Michx. formed dense floating mats at a +number of stations. Other aquatic plants observed in the Caney, Elk, and +Grouse systems included _Potamogeton gramineus_ L., _Potamogeton +nodosus_ Poir., _Potamogeton foliosus_ Raf., _Sagittaria latifolia_ +Willd., _Typha latifolia_ L., and _Jussiaea diffusa_ Forsk. + + + + +HISTORY + + +In 1857, a survey was made of the southern boundary of Kansas. Several +diaries (Miller, 1932; Caldwell, 1937; Bieber, 1932) were kept by +members of the surveying party, which traveled from east to west. These +accounts contain complaints of difficulty in traversing a country of +broken ridges and gulleys as the party approached the area now +comprising Chautauqua County. One account by Hugh Campbell, astronomical +computer for the party (Caldwell, 1937) mentions rocky ridges covered +with dense growth of "black jack," while another by Col. Joseph Johnson, +Commander (Miller, 1932) speaks of "a good deal of oakes in the +heights"--indicating that the upland oak forest of the Chautauqua Hills +was in existence at that time. On reaching Big Caney River near Elgin, +Campbell wrote of a stream with very high banks and of a valley timbered +with oak and black walnut. While the party was encamped on Big Caney +River some fishing was done. Campbell (Caldwell, 1937:353) described the +fish taken as "Cat, Trout or Bass, Buffalo and Garr." Eugene Bandel +(Bieber, 1932:152) wrote, "This forenoon we did not expect to leave +camp, and therefore we went fishing. In about two hours we caught more +fish than the whole company could eat. There were some forty fish +caught, some of them weighing over ten pounds." It was noted that the +waters of Big Caney and its tributaries were "very clear." Progressing +up Rock Creek, Johnson wrote of entering a high rolling plain covered +with fine grass, and crossed occasionally by clear wooded streams +(probably Big and Little Beaver Creeks and Grouse Creek). The diary of +Hugh Campbell (Caldwell, 1937:354) contains a description of the +Arkansas River Valley near the Oklahoma border. "The Arkansas River at +this point is about 300 yards wide, its waters are muddy, not quite so +much so, as those of the Mississippi or Rio Bravo. Its valley is wooded +and about two miles in width, the main bottom here, being on the east +side. On the west it is a rolling prairie as far as the eye can see, +affording excellent grass." Some seining was done while encamped on the +Arkansas River and "buffalo, catfish, sturgeons, and gars" were taken +(Bieber, 1932:156). + +An editorial in the Winfield Courier of November 16, 1899, vigorously +registers concern about a direct effect of settlement on fish +populations in rivers of the area: + +"The fish in the streams of Cowley County are being slaughtered by the +thousands, by the unlawful use of the seine and the deadly hoop net. +Fish are sold on the market every day, sometimes a tubful at a time, +which never swallowed a hook. + +"The fish law says it is unlawful to seine, snare, or trap fish but some +of the smaller streams in the county, it is said are so full of hoop and +trammel nets that a minnow cannot get up or down stream. These nets not +only destroy what fish there are in the streams but they keep other fish +from coming in, they are not operated as a rule by farmers to supply +their own tables but by fellows who catch the fish to sell with no +thought or care for the welfare of others who like to catch and eat +fish. + +"If there is a fishwarden in Cowley County so far as his utility goes +the county would be as well off without him and his inactivity has +caused many of those interested to get together for the purpose of +seeing that the law is enforced. + +"Depredations like this work injury in more ways than one. They not only +deplete the streams of fish large enough to eat and destroy the source +of supply but if the U. S. Fish Commission discovers that the law is not +enforced and the fish not protected, there will be no free government +fish placed in Cowley County streams. It is useless for the Government +to spend thousands of dollars to keep the streams well supplied if a few +outlaws are allowed to ruthlessly destroy them. The new organization has +its eye on certain parties now and something is liable to drop +unexpectedly soon." + +Graham (1885:78) listed 13 species of fish that had already been +introduced into Kansas waters prior to 1885 by the State Fish +Commission. + +These early references indicate that direct effects of settlement on the +native flora and fauna were recognized early. Concern such as that +expressed in the editorial above persists today; however, it is not +clear whether the fish fauna of the streams of the area has been +essentially changed by man's predation. The indirect effects through +human modifications of the environment seem to be of much importance. +Three modifications which have especially affected streams have been +agricultural use, urbanization, and industrialization. + +The effect of land-use on streams is closely related to its effect on +the flora of the watershed. Turbidity, sedimentation, and the rate, +periodicity, and manner of flow all bear some relationship to the +land-use of the watershed. Stream-flow in the area has been discussed in +the section on climate. + +The effects of urbanization are more tangible and better recognized than +those of agricultural land-use. Streams that flow through cities and +other populous areas undergo some modification, especially of the +streamside flora. Another effect of urbanization has been increased +loads of sewage discharged into the streams. The combined populations of +Arkansas City and Winfield rose from 3,986 in 1880 to 23,167 in 1950. +Arkansas City found it necessary to construct a sewage system in 1889; +Winfield in 1907. + +There are, at the present time, nine towns within the area that have +municipal sewage systems. The State Training Home at Winfield also has a +sewage system. The Kansas State Board of Health, Division of Sanitation, +has provided information concerning adequacy of these systems and +certain others in nearby counties as of February 5, 1957. This +information is shown in Table 3. + +Representatives of the Division of Sanitation, Kansas State Board of +Health, expressed the belief that pollution by both domestic sewage and +industrial wastes would be largely eliminated in the "lower Arkansas" +and in the Walnut watershed by 1959. + +Important oil and gas resources have been discovered in each of the +three counties. The first producing wells were drilled between 1900 and +1902 (Jewett and Abernathy, 1945:24). The Arkansas River flows through +several oilfields in its course across Cowley County (Jewett and +Abernathy, 1945:97). A number of producing wells have been drilled in +the Grouse Creek watershed since 1939 and many of these wells are near +the banks of the creek. In the Big Caney watershed of Cowley and +Chautauqua counties there has been little oil production in recent +years; however, a few small pools are presently producing in +southwestern Elk County. + +Clapp (1920:33) stated that "Many of the finest streams of our state are +now destitute of fish on account of oil and salt pollution. The Walnut +River, once as fine a bass stream as could be found anywhere, and a +beautiful stream, too, is now a murky oil run, and does not contain a +single fish so far as I know. The Fall and Verdigris rivers are +practically ruined. Both the Caney rivers are affected, and may soon be +ruined for fishing." Doze (1924:31) noted "Some of the finest streams in +the state have been ruined as habitat for wild life, the Walnut River is +probably the most flagrant example." + + TABLE 3.--SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN SOME SOUTH-CENTRAL KANSAS + COMMUNITIES. + + ======================================================================= + Community | Status on February 5, | Remarks + | 1957 | + -----------------------+------------------------+---------------------- + Cowley County: | | + Arkansas City | Discharging raw sewage | Adequate plant in + | | design stage. + Geuda Springs | Discharging raw sewage | + Winfield | Inadequate | + State training school| Adequate | + Udall | Adequate | + -----------------------+------------------------+---------------------- + Chautauqua County: | | + Cedar Vale | Inadequate | + Sedan | Adequate | In operation 30 + | | days. + Elgin | Adequate | + -----------------------+------------------------+---------------------- + Elk County: | | + Moline | Inadequate | + Howard | Adequate | + -----------------------+------------------------+---------------------- + Sumner County: | | + Belle Plaine | Discharging raw sewage | Adequate plant under + | | construction. + Mulvane | Discharging raw sewage | Adequate plant under + | | construction. + Oxford | Discharging raw sewage | Construction on + | | adequate plant to + | | start soon. + -----------------------+------------------------+---------------------- + Butler County: | | + Augusta | Adequate | + El Dorado | Discharging raw sewage | Adequate plant under + | | construction. + Douglass | Discharging raw sewage | Adequate plant to + | | go into operation + | | within 30 days. + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- + +Pollution by petroleum wastes from refineries has also affected the +streams studied. The only refinery within the area is at Arkansas City. +In Butler County there are four refineries on the Walnut watershed +upstream from the area surveyed. Metzler (1952) noted that "fish-kills" +occurred from the mid-1940's until 1952 in connection with wastes +periodically discharged from these refineries. However, the largest +kill, in 1944, was attributed to excessive brine pollution. + +In Arkansas City a meat-packing plant, a large railroad workshop, two +flour mills, two milk plants, and several small manufacturing plants +contribute wastes which may figure in industrial pollution. There are +milk plants and small poultry processing plants at Winfield. In +Chautauqua and Elk Counties there is little industrial activity. + + + + +CONSERVATION + + +In recent years several measures have been implemented or proposed to +conserve the water and land resources of the Arkansas River Basin. +Droughts and floods have focused public attention on such conservation. +Less spectacular, but nevertheless important, problems confronting +conservationists include streambank erosion, channel deterioration, +silting, recreational demands for water, and irrigation needs. + +Congress has authorized the U. S. Corps of Engineers (by the Flood +Control Act of 1941) to construct six dam and reservoir projects in the +Verdigris watershed. Two of these--Hulah Reservoir in Osage County, +Oklahoma, on Big Caney River, and Fall River Reservoir in Greenwood +County, Kansas--have been completed. Other reservoirs authorized in the +Verdigris watershed include Toronto, Neodesha, and Elk City (Table +Mound) in Kansas and Oologah in Oklahoma. Construction is underway on +the Toronto Reservoir and some planning has been accomplished on the +Neodesha and Elk City projects. + +The possibilities of irrigation projects in the Verdigris and Walnut +River basins are under investigation by the United States Bureau of +Reclamation (Foley, _et al._, 1955:F18). + +An area of 11 square miles in Chautauqua and Montgomery Counties is +included in the Aiken Creek "Pilot Watershed Project," a co-operative +effort by federal, state, and local agencies to obtain information as to +the effects of an integrated watershed protection program (Foley, _et +al._, 1955:131). + + + + +PREVIOUS ICHTHYOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS + + +Few accounts of fishes in the area here reported on have been published. +Evermann and Fordice (1886:184) made a collection from Timber Creek at +Winfield in 1884. + +The State Biological Survey collected actively from 1910 to 1912, but +localities visited in the Arkansas River System were limited to the +Neosho and Verdigris River basins (Breukelman, 1940:377). The only +collection made in the area considered here was on the Elk River in Elk +County on July 11, 1912. The total species list of this collection is +not known. + +In the years 1924-1929 Minna E. Jewell collected at various places in +central Kansas. On June 30, 1925, Jewell and Frank Jobes made +collections on Timber Creek and Silver Creek in Cowley County. + +Hoyle (1936:285) mentions collections made by himself and Dr. Charles E. +Burt, who was then Professor of Biology at Southwestern College, +Winfield, Kansas. Records in the Department of Biology, Kansas State +Teachers College at Emporia, indicate that Dr. Burt and others made +collections in the area which have not been published on. + + TABLE 4.--COLLECTIONS MADE BY DR. FRANK B. CROSS OF THE STATE + BIOLOGICAL SURVEY IN 1955. + + ==================================================================== + Collection number | Date | River | Location + ------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------------- + C-131 | April 5, 1955 | Elk | Sec. 3, T31S, R11E + ------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------------- + C-132 | April 5, 1955 | Sycamore | Sec. 5, T34S, R10E + ------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------------- + C-133 | April 5, 1955 | Big Caney | Sec. 12, T34S, R8E + ------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------------- + C-136 | April 6, 1955 | Walnut | Sec. 29 or 32, T32S, + | | | R4E + -------------------------------------------------------------------- + +Claire Schelske (1957) studied fishes of the Fall and Verdigris Rivers +in Wilson and Montgomery counties from March, 1954, to February, 1955. + +In the annotated list of species that follows, records other than mine +are designated by the following symbols: + + E&F--Evermann and Fordice + SBS--State Biological Survey (1910-1912) + J&J--Jewell and Jobes (collection on Silver Creek) + C--Collection number--Cross (State Biological Survey, 1955) + UMMZ--University of Michigan Museum of Zoology + OAM--Oklahoma A&M College Museum of Zoology + + + + +ACKNOWLEDGMENTS + + +I am grateful to Professor Frank B. Cross for his interest in my +investigation, for his counsel, and for his penetrating criticism of +this paper. This study would have been impossible without the assistance +of several persons who helped in the field. Mr. Artie C. Metcalf and Mr. +Delbert Metcalf deserve special thanks for their enthusiastic and +untiring co-operation in collecting and preserving of specimens. Mrs. +Artie C. Metcalf, Miss Patricia Metcalf, Mr. Chester Metcalf, and Mr. +Forrest W. Metcalf gave help which is much appreciated. I am indebted to +the following persons for numerous valuable suggestions: Dr. John +Breukelman, Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, Kansas; Dr. George +Moore, Oklahoma A&M College, and Mr. W. L. Minckley, Lawrence, Kansas. + + + + +MATERIALS AND METHODS + + +Collections were made by means of: (1) a four-foot net of nylon screen; +(2) a 10×4-foot "common-sense" woven seine with 1/4-inch mesh; (3) a +15×4-foot knotted mesh seine; (4) a 20×5-foot 1/4-inch mesh seine; (5) +pole and line (natural and artificial baits). At most stations the +four-foot, ten-foot, and twenty-foot seines were used; however, the +equipment that was used varied according to the size of pool, number of +obstructions, nature of bottom, amount of flow, and type of streambank. +Usually several hours were spent at each station and several stations +were revisited from time to time. Percentages noted in the List of +Species represent the relative number taken in the first five +seine-hauls at each station. + + + + +COLLECTING STATIONS + + +Collecting was done at stations listed below and shown in Fig. 2. Each +station was assigned a letter, designating the stream system on which +the station was located, and a number which indicates the position of +the station on the stream. This number increases progressively upstream +from mouth to source. Code letters used are as follows: A--Arkansas +River; W--Walnut River System; B--Beaver Creek System; C--Big Caney +River System; G--Grouse Creek System; M--Middle Caney Creek System; +E--Elk River System. All dates are in the year 1956. + + [Illustration: FIG. 2. + Map of Cowley, Chautauqua and Elk counties, Kansas, + showing stations at which collecting was done.] + +A-1. Arkansas River. Sec. 2 and 3, T. 35 S, R. 4 E. June 14 and August +20. Braided channel with sand bottom. Water slightly turbid, with layer +of oil sludge on bottom. + +A-2. Arkansas River. Sec. 22, T. 34 S, R. 3 E. August 25. Flowing +through diverse channels. Average depth 12 inches. Bottom sand. (Plate +9, fig. 1.) + +A-3. Arkansas River. Sec. 21, T. 33 S, R. 3 E. August 27 and December +22. Flowing over fine sand. Average depth 11 inches. Some areas of +backwater with oil sludge on bottom. + +W-1. Walnut River. Sec. 20, T. 34 S, R. 4 E. July 7. Flowing rapidly, +with large volume, because of recent rains. Average width 300 feet. +Bottom gravel. Water turbid. + +W-2. Walnut River. Sec. 11, T. 34 S, R. 4 E. July 20. Rubble riffles and +large shallow pools with gravel bottoms. Average width, 100 feet. Water +clear. + +W-3. Walnut River. Sec. 29, T. 32 S, R. 4 E. July 17. Pools and riffles +below Tunnel Mill Dam at Winfield. Water clear. + +W-4. Badger Creek. Sec. 6, T. 33 S, R. 5 E. July 17. Small pools. +Average width 7 feet, average length 40 feet, average depth 8 inches. +Water turbid and malodorous. Bottoms and banks mud. Much detritus +present. + +W-5. Timber Creek. Sec. 35, T. 31 S, R. 4 E. June 6. Intermittent pools, +widely separated. Average width 9 feet, average depth 8 inches. Bottom +mud and gravel. + +B-1. Big Beaver Creek. Sec. 8, T. 35 S, R. 7 E. May 28. Isolated pools. +Average width 10 feet, average depth one foot. Water turbid. Bottom +rubble. + +B-2. Little Beaver Creek. Sec. 18, T. 35 S, R. 6 E. July 21. +Intermittent pools. Average width 10 feet, average length 35 feet, +average depth 10 inches. Bottoms rubble, mud, and bedrock. + +B-3. Big Beaver Creek. Sec. 28, T. 34 S, R. 7 E. July 22. Series of +small turbid pools. + +G-1. Grouse Creek. Sec. 5, T. 35 S, R. 5 E. May 30, September 5, and +September 24. Intermittent pools in close succession. Average width 22 +feet, average depth 16 inches. Water turbid on May 30 but clear in +September. Bottom rubble. Steep banks. Little shade for pools. + +G-2. Grouse Creek. Sec. 23, T. 34 S, R. 5 E. August 29. Series of +shallow intermittent pools. Average width 42 feet, average length 120 +feet, average depth 15 inches. Bottom bedrock and mud. (Plate 9, fig. +2.) + +G-3. Grouse Creek. Sec. 6, T. 34 S, R. 6 E. July 12. Intermittent pools. +Average width 20 feet, average length 65 feet, average depth 14 inches. +Bottom bedrock and gravel. _Justicia americana_ L. abundant. + +G-4. Grouse Creek. Sec. 12, T. 33 S, R. 6 E. June 1 and September 7. +Intermittent pools. Average width 15 feet, average length 100 feet, +average depth 18 inches. Water turbid in June, clear in September. +_Najas guadalupensis_ Spreng., and _Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ Michx. +common. + +G-5. Grouse Creek. Sec. 19, T. 32 S, R. 7 E. July 2. Succession of +riffles and pools. Water clear. Volume of flow approximately one cubic +foot per second, but creek bankful after heavy rains on June 22. Average +width 20 feet, average depth 18 inches. + +G-6. Grouse Creek. Sec. 32, T. 31 S, R. 7 E. July 8. Small intermittent +pools to which cattle had access. Water turbid, bottom mud and rubble. +Average width 10 feet, average depth 8 inches. Stream-bed covered with +tangled growths of _Sorghum halepense_ (L.). + +G-7. Grouse Creek. Sec. 34, T. 30 S, R. 7 E. July 8. Stream flowing +slightly. Water clear. Average width of pools 30 feet; average depth 20 +inches. Bottom bedrock and gravel. _Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ Michx., +_Nelumbo lutea_ (Willd.), and _Justicia americana_ L. common in shallow +water. + +G-8. Silver Creek. Sec. 1, T. 33 S, R. 5 E. July 17. Intermittent pools. +Average width 30 feet, average length 120 feet, average depth 12 inches. +Water clear. + +G-9. Silver Creek. Sec. 4, T. 32 S, R. 6 E. July 17. Small upland brook +with volume less than one-half cfs. Average width 12 feet, average depth +10 inches. Water clear, bottom mostly rubble. + +G-10. Crab Creek. Sec. 33, T. 33 S, R. 6 E. June 24. Intermittent pools, +showing evidence of having flowed after rains on June 22. Average width +15 feet, average depth 16 inches. + +G-11. Crab Creek. Sec. 35, T. 33 S, R. 6 E. July 16. Small intermittent +pools. Average width 13 feet, average length 55 feet, average depth 11 +inches. Water clear. Bottom rubble and mud. + +G-12. Crab Creek. Sec. 28, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. June 2 and July 20. Isolated +pools. Average width 18 feet, average depth one foot. Water turbid. +Bottom bedrock and rubble. _Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ and _Justicia +americana_ abundant. + +G-13. Crab Creek. Sec. 21, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. July 29. Isolated pools 300 +feet by 24 feet. Average depth 12 inches. Water turbid. + +G-14. Unnamed creek (hereafter called Grand Summit Creek). Sec. 26, T. +31 S, R. 7 E. August 30. Intermittent pools. Average width 15 feet, +average length 45 feet, average depth 11 inches. Water clear. Bottom +rubble. + + [Illustration: PLATE 9 + + 1. Station A-2. Arkansas River. (Cowley County, Section 22, + T. 34 S, R. 3 E.) + + 2. Station G-2. Grouse Creek. (Cowley County, Section 23, + T. 34 S, R. 5 E.)] + + [Illustration: PLATE 10 + + 1. Station C-12. Cedar Creek. (Cowley County, Section 17, + T. 34 S, R. 8 E.) + + 2. Station C-16. Spring Creek. (Elk County, Section 26, + T. 31 S, R. 8 E.) Volume of flow of this small creek + is indicated by riffle in foreground.] + +G-15. Unnamed creek (same as above). Sec. 17, T. 31 S, R. 8 E. July 27. +Small upland creek bordered by bluestem pastures. Pools with average +width of 10 feet, average length 30 feet, average depth 9 inches. Water +slightly turbid. Bottom rubble and mud. + +G-16. Crab Creek. Sec. 22, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. July 25. Small isolated +pools. Average width 17 feet, average length 58 feet, average depth 9 +inches. Water turbid. + +G-17. Crab Creek. Sec. 23, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. July 25. Upland brook +bordered by bluestem pastures. Unshaded intermittent pools. Average +width 7 feet, average length 40 feet, average depth 9 inches. Water +turbid. + +C-1. Big Caney River. Sec. 16, T. 33 S, R. 10 E. July 19. Intermittent +pools. Average width 47 feet, average length 90 feet, average depth 13 +inches. Bottom rubble and bedrock. Water clear to slightly turbid. + +C-2. Big Caney River. Sec. 1, T. 35 S, R. 9 E. September 5. Series of +intermittent pools. Bottom rubble and large stones. + +C-3. Big Caney River. Sec. 29, T. 34 S, R. 9 E. June 17. Large shallow +pool below ledge 3 feet high forming "Osro Falls." Bottom bedrock. + +C-4. Big Caney River. Sec. 32, T. 34 S, R. 9 E. June 3. Three large +pools (50 feet by 300 feet) with connecting riffles. Water turbid. +Bottom bedrock and rubble. + +C-5. Big Caney River. Sec. 11 and 12, T. 34 S, R. 8 E. May 27, May 29, +June 11, June 18, June 19, and June 27. From a low-water dam, 6 feet +high, downstream for 1/4 mile. Pools alternating with rubble and bedrock +riffles. Collecting was done at different times of day and night, and +when stream was flowing and intermittent. + +C-6. Big Caney River. Sec. 26, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 16. Intermittent +pools with bedrock bottom. Water slightly turbid. Average width 16 feet, +average depth 10 inches. + +C-7. Otter Creek. Sec. 26, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 16. Pools and riffles. +Water clear. Algae abundant. Average width 10 feet, average depth 10 +inches. + +C-8. Big Caney River. Sec. 1, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 10. Intermittent +pools. Average width 10 feet, average depth 14 inches. Water clear. +Bottom rubble and gravel. Aquatic plants included _Chara_ sp., +_Sagittaria latifolia_ Willd., _Jussiaea diffusa_ Forsk., and _Nelumbo +lutea_ (Willd.). + +C-9. Big Caney River. Sec. 6 and 7, T. 32 S, R. 9 E. June 27. Clear, +flowing stream, 20 feet wide, volume estimated at 5 cfs. Bottom gravel +and rubble. Extensive gravel riffles. + +C-10. Big Caney River. Sec. 29 and 32, T. 31 S, R. 9 E. June 27. Water +clear and flowing rapidly, volume estimated at 5-6 cfs. Bottom rubble +with a few muddy backwater areas. + +C-11. Big Caney River. Sec. 7, T. 31 S, R. 9 E. July 26. Flowing, with +less than 1 cfs. Average width 20 feet, average depth 22 inches. Water +extremely clear. Bottom gravel and rubble. _Myriophyllum heterophyllum_, +_Potamogeton foliosus_, and _Justicia americana_ common. + +C-12. Cedar Creek. Sec. 17, T. 34 S, R. 8 E. March 10, April 2, June 1, +June 6, and August 24. Pools and riffles along 1/4 mile of stream were +seined in the early collections. In August only small isolated pools +remained. Bottom bedrock and rubble. Much detritus along streambanks. +(Plate 10, fig. 1.) + +C-13. Otter Creek. Sec. 16, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 15. Flowing, less than +1 cfs. Pools interspersed with rubble riffles. Water clear. + +C-14. Otter Creek. Sec. 30, T. 32 S, R. 8 E. May 31, and September 3. +Series of small pools. Average width 10 feet, average depth 15 inches. +Shallow rubble riffles. Water extremely clear. Temperature 68° at 6:30 +p.m. on May 31; 78° at 2:00 p.m. on September 3. + +C-15. Spring Creek. Sec. 35, T. 31 S, R. 8 E. June 28. Small, clear, +upland brook with rubble bottom. Pools 10 feet in average width and +11 inches in average depth. Numerous shallow rubble riffles. + +C-16. Spring Creek. Sec. 26, T. 31 S, R. 8 E. July 9. Small intermittent +pools. Average width 10 feet; average depth 8 inches. Bottom gravel. +(Plate 10, fig. 2.) + +C-17. West Fork Big Caney River. Sec. 36, T. 30 S, R. 8 E. July 27. +Small pool below low-water dam. Pool 20 feet by 30 feet with average +depth of 20 inches. + +C-18. East Fork Big Caney River. Sec. 31, T. 30 S, R. 9 E. July 27. +Isolated pool 25 feet by 25 feet with an average depth of 15 inches. + +M-1. Middle Caney Creek. Sec. 23, T. 33 S, R. 10 E. July 4. Intermittent +pools. Average width 45 feet, average depth 15 inches. Water stained +brown. Oil fields nearby but no sludge or surface film of oil noted. +Bottom rubble and bedrock. + +M-2. Pool Creek. Sec. 25, T. 33 S, R. 10 E. May 26. Pool 120 feet by 40 +feet below limestone ledge approximately 12 feet high forming Butcher's +Falls. Other smaller pools sampled. Water clear. Bottom bedrock and +rubble. + +E-1. Elk River. Sec. 12, T. 31 S, R. 11 E. July 9. Four intermittent +pools seined. Average width 32 feet, average depth 13 inches. Bottom +bedrock, rubble, and mud. Water turbid. + +E-2. Elk River. Sec. 3, T. 31 S, R. 11 E. June 28. Intermittent pools +below and above sandstone ledge approximately 6 feet high forming +"falls" at Elk Falls. Average width 33 feet, average depth 15 inches. +Bottom bedrock, rubble and mud. Water slightly turbid. + +E-3. Elk River. Sec. 21, T. 30 S, R. 11 E. June 28. Two small pools, 10 +feet by 30 feet with average depth of 6 inches. Bottom bedrock. + +E-4. Elk River. Sec. 12, T. 30 S, R. 10 E. June 28. One long pool 500 +feet by 50 feet with a variety of depths and bottom conditions ranging +from mud to bedrock. Average depth 18 inches. Water turbid and pools +unshaded. + +E-5. Elk River. Sec. 32, T. 29 S, R. 10 E. August 30. Intermittent +pools. Average width 21 feet, average depth 20 inches. Bottom rubble. +Water clear. + +E-6. Elk River. Sec. 23, T. 29 S, R. 9 E. August 30. Small isolated +pools. River mostly dry. Bottom bedrock. Water slightly turbid with +gray-green "bloom." + +E-7. Wildcat Creek. Sec. 11, T. 31 S, R. 10 E. Volume of flow less than +one cfs. Average width 20 feet, average depth 18 inches. Domestic sewage +pollution from town of Moline suspected. + + + + +ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES + + +#Lepisosteus osseus oxyurus# (Linnaeus): Stations A-1, W-2, W-3, G-2, +G-3, G-4, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-5, C-8. + +Of 34 longnose gar taken, 27 were young-of-the-year. The latter were +from shallow isolated pools (bedrock bottom at C-1, C-3, C-4; gravel +bottom at C-6). At station W-1 in moderate flood conditions several +young-of-the-year were found in the most sheltered water next to the +banks. + +The longnose gar was found only in the lower parts of the streams +surveyed (but were observed by me in smaller tributaries of these +streams in years when the streams had a greater volume of flow). A +preference for downstream habitat is suggested in several other surveys: +Cross (1950:134, 1954a:307) on the South Fork of the Cottonwood and on +Stillwater Creek; Cross and Moore (1952:401) on the Poteau and Fourche +Maline rivers; Moore and Buck (1953:21) on the Chikaskia River. + + +#Lepisosteus platostomus# Rafinesque: One shortnose gar (K. U. 3157) has +been taken from the Arkansas River in Cowley County. This gar was taken +by Mr. Richard Rinker on a bank line on April 10, 1955, at station A-3. + + +#Dorosoma cepedianum# (Le Sueur): Stations W-3, G-4, C-4, C-5, M-1, E-1, +E-4. + +In smaller streams such as the Elk and Caney rivers adult gizzard shad +seemed scarce. They were more common in collections made in larger +rivers (Walnut, Verdigris, and Neosho). In impoundments of this region +shad often become extremely abundant. Schoonover (1954:173) found that +shad comprised 97 per cent by number and 83 per cent by weight of fishes +taken in a survey of Fall River Reservoir. + + +#Carpiodes carpio carpio# (Rafinesque): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, W-3, +G-1, C-3. + +Hubbs and Lagler (1947:50) stated that the river carpsucker was "Mostly +confined to large silty rivers." Of the stations listed above C-3 least +fits this description being a large shallow pool about 1/3 acre in area +having bedrock bottom and slightly turbid water. The other stations +conform to conditions described by Hubbs and Lagler (_loc. cit._). + + +#Carpiodes velifer# (Rafinesque): SBS. Three specimens of the highfin +carpsucker (K. U. 177-179) were collected on July 11, 1912, from an +unspecified location on Elk River in Elk County. + + +#Ictiobus bubalus# (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, G-1, G-2, C-1, C-3, C-4, +C-6, E-1, E-2, E-3. + +The smallmouth buffalo shared the downstream proclivities of the river +carpsucker. In half of the collections (G-2, C-1, E-1, E-2, E-3) only +large juveniles were taken; in the other half only young-of-the-year +were found. In one pool at station C-1 hundreds of young buffalo and gar +were observed. This large shallow pool was 100 × 150 feet, with an +average depth of 8 inches. The bottom consisted of bedrock. Station C-6 +was a small pool with bedrock bottom, eight feet in diameter, with an +average depth of only 4 inches. Station E-3 was also a small isolated +pool with bedrock bottom and an average depth of 6 inches. + + +#Ictiobus niger# (Rafinesque): Station C-5. + +Only two specimens of the black buffalo were taken. An adult was caught +on spinning tackle, with doughballs for bait. The second specimen was a +juvenile taken by seining one mile below Station C-5 on September 22. + + +#Ictiobus cyprinella# (Valenciennes): Station G-2. + +Two juvenal bigmouth buffalo were taken in a shallow pool, along with +several juvenal smallmouth buffalo. + + +#Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum# Trautman and #Moxostoma carinatum# +(Cope): SBS. + +Two specimens of _Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum_ (K. U. 242-243) and one +specimen of _Moxostoma carinatum_ (K. U. 223) were taken from an +unspecified locality on Elk River in Elk County on July 11, 1912. There +are no other records for any of these fish in the collection area. _M. +aureolum pisolabrum_ has been taken in recent years in eastern Kansas +(Trautman, 1951:3) and has been found as far west as the Chikaskia +drainage in northern Oklahoma by Moore and Buck (1953:21). That +occasional northern redhorse enter the larger rivers of the area here +reported on seems probable. + +_M. carinatum_ has been reported only a few times from Kansas. The only +recent records are from the Verdigris River (Schelske, 1957:39). Elkins +(1954:28) took four specimens of _M. carinatum_ from cutoff pools on +Salt Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma, in 1954. This recent record +suggests that occurrences in southern Kansas are probable. + + +#Moxostoma erythrurum# (Rafinesque): Stations G-5, G-7, G-10, G-12, C-4, +C-5, C-6, C-8, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-15, E-1, E-2, E-4 (C-131, +C-133, C-136). + +The golden redhorse was common in several of the streams surveyed, and +utilized the upland parts of streams more extensively than any of the +other catostomids occurring in the area. _M. erythrurum_ and _Ictiobus +bubalus_ were taken together at only two stations. In no case was _I. +bubalus_ taken from a tributary of Grouse Creek or of Big Caney River. +In contrast _M. erythrurum_ reached its greatest concentrations in such +habitat, although it was always a minor component of the total fish +population. Stations C-5 and E-2 were the lowermost environments in +which this redhorse was taken. + +The largest relative number of golden redhorse was found at station G-12 +on Crab Creek where 7.5 per cent of the fishes taken were of this +species. This station consisted of intermittent pools averaging one foot +in depth. Bottoms were bedrock and rubble and the water was clear and +shaded. The fish were consistently taken in the deeper, open part of +the pool where aquatic vegetation, which covered most of the pool, was +absent. + +Another station at which _M. erythrurum_ was abundant was C-12 on Cedar +Creek. Here a long, narrow, clear pool was the habitat, with average +depth of 17 inches, and bottom of bedrock. + + +#Minytrema melanops# (Rafinesque): Stations G-10, C-4, C-12, E-1. + +Occurrences of the spotted sucker were scattered. At stations C-4 and +G-10 single specimens were taken. At station E-1 (July 9) one specimen +was taken at the mouth of a small tributary where water was turbid and +quiet. This specimen (K. U. 3708) was the largest (9-3/8 inches total +length) found, and possessed pits of lost tubercles. + + +#Cyprinus carpio# Linnaeus: Stations A-1, W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, G-3, G-4, +G-6, G-8, C-3, C-5, E-4. + +Carp were taken most often in downstream habitat. No carp were taken +above station C-5 on Big Caney River. + +The earliest date on which young were taken was July 7, when 46 +specimens, approximately 1/2 inch in total length, were taken from the +Walnut River at station W-1. The small carp showed a preference for +small shallow pools; adults were found in deeper pools. + + +#Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus# (Gilbert): Station A-3. + +Only one specimen of the speckled chub was taken. The species has been +recorded from nearby localities in the Arkansas River and its +tributaries both in Kansas and Oklahoma. Its habitat seems to be shallow +water over clean, fine sand, and it occurs in strong current in +mid-channel in the Arkansas River. Suitable habitat does not occur in +other parts of the area covered by this report. + + +#Notropis blennius# (Girard): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3. + +The river shiner was taken only in the Arkansas River and in small +numbers. In all instances _N. blennius_ was found over sandy bottom in +flowing water. Females were gravid at station A-1 on June 14. To my +knowledge there are no published records of this shiner from the +Arkansas River Basin in Kansas. In Oklahoma this species prefers the +large, sandy streams such as the Arkansas River. Cross and Moore +(1952:403) found it in the Poteau River only near the mouth. + + +#Notropis boops# Gilbert: Stations G-5, G-7, C-3, C-5, C-8, C-9, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-15, C-16, E-4, E-5, M-1, M-2. + +Widespread occurrence of the bigeye shiner in this area seems +surprising. Except for this area it is known in Kansas only from the +Spring River drainage in the southeastern corner of the state (Cross, +1954b:474). _N. boops_ chose habitats that seemed most nearly like +Ozarkian terrain. The largest relative number of bigeye shiners was +taken at C-11 in a clear stream described in the discussion of _Notropis +rubellus_. At this station _N. boops_ comprised 14.11 per cent, and _N. +boops_ and _N. rubellus_ together comprised 24.78 per cent of all fish +taken. + +At station G-7 on Grouse Creek the percentage of _N. boops_ was 7.15. +Here, as at station C-11, water was clear. At both stations +_Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ was abundant and at G-7 _Nelumbo lutea_ was +also common. At G-7 _N. boops_ seemed most abundant in the deeper water, +but at C-11 most shiners were found in the shallower part of a large +pool. + +Two other collections in which _N. boops_ were common were from Spring +Creek. It is a small, clear Flint Hills brook running swiftly over clean +gravel and rubble. It had, however, been intermittent or completely dry +in its upper portion throughout the winter of 1955-'56 and until June +22, 1956. In collections at C-15 on June 28, _N. boops_ formed 6.5 per +cent of the fish taken. Farther upstream, at C-16 on July 9, in an area +one mile from the nearest pool of water that existed prior to the rains +of June 22, _N. boops_ made up 7.2 per cent of the fish taken. + +In streams heading in the hilly area of western Elk County, the relative +abundance of _Notropis boops_ decreased progressively downstream. On +upper Elk River percentages were lower than on upper Grouse Creek and +upper Big Caney River. + +Hubbs and Lagler (1947:66) characterize the habitat of this species as +clear creeks of limestone uplands. There are numerous records of the +bigeye shiner from extreme eastern Oklahoma. It has been reported as far +west as Beaver Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma. Beaver Creek originates +in Cowley County, Kansas, near the origin of Cedar Creek and Crab Creek. +Drought had left a few pools of water in Beaver Creek in Kansas at the +time of my survey. The fish-fauna seemed sparse and _N. boops_ was not +among the species taken. Of interest in considering the somewhat +isolated occurrence of the bigeye shiner in the Flint Hills area of +Kansas is a record of it by Ortenburger and Hubbs (1926:126) from +Panther Creek, Comanche County, Oklahoma, in the Wichita Mountain area +of that state. + + +#Notropis buchanani# Meek: Stations G-1, E-4 (C-131). + +At station G-1 the ghost shiner was taken in small numbers in the +shallow end of a long pool (150 × 40 feet.) The three individuals taken +at station E-4 were in an isolated pool (50 × 510 feet) averaging 1-1/2 +feet in depth. Water was turbid, and warm due to lack of shade. + +The habitat preferences of this species and of the related species _N. +volucellus_ have been described as follows by Hubbs and Ortenburger +(1929b:68): "It seems probable that _volucellus_ when occurring in the +range of _buchanani_ occupies upland streams, whereas _buchanani_ is +chiefly a form of the large rivers and adjacent creek mouths." The +results of this survey and impressions gained from other collections, +some of which are unpublished, are in agreement with this view. A +collection on the Verdigris River at Independence, Kansas, directly +downstream from the mouth of the Elk River, showed _N. buchanani_ to be +common while _N. volucellus_ was not taken. At station E-5 upstream from +E-4, however, _N. volucellus_ was taken but _N. buchanani_ was not +found. + +In the upper Neosho basin, Cross (1954a:310) took _N. volucellus_ but +not _N. buchanani_. Other collections have shown _N. buchanani_ to be +abundant in the lower Neosho River in Kansas. Moore and Paden (1950:85) +observe that _N. buchanani_ was found only near the mouth of the +Illinois River in Oklahoma and was sharply segregated ecologically from +_N. volucellus_ that occupied a niche in the clear main channels in +contrast to the more sluggish waters inhabited by _N. buchanani_. + + +#Notropis camurus# (Jordan and Meek): Stations C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, +C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, E-1, E-5 (C-131). + +Highest concentrations of the bluntface shiner were found close to the +mouths of two tributaries of Big Caney River: Rock Creek and Otter +Creek. On Rock Creek (Station C-4) this shiner was abundant in a shallow +pool below a riffle where water was flowing rapidly. Many large males in +breeding condition were taken (June 3). The species formed 20.2 per cent +of the fish taken. + +On Otter Creek (Station C-13) the species was common in shallow bedrock +pools below riffles. It formed 12.1 per cent of the fish taken. + +At station C-5, _N. camurus_ was characteristically found in an area of +shallow pools and riffles. At station C-10 it was found in clear flowing +water over rubble bottom and in small coves over mud bottom. At C-11 +(July 26) _N. camurus_ was taken only in one small pool with rapidly +flowing water below a riffle. In this pool _N. camurus_ was the dominant +fish. At station C-12, on April 2, _N. camurus_ was abundant in the +stream, which was then clear and flowing. On August 24, it was not taken +from the same pool, which was then turbid and drying. + +The frequent occurrence of this species in clear, flowing water seems +significant. Cross (1954a:309) notes that the bluntface shiner prefers +moderately fast, clear water. Hall (1952:57) found _N. camurus_ only in +upland tributaries east of Grand River and not in lowland tributaries +west of the river. Moore and Buck (1953:22) took this species in the +Chikaskia River, which was at that time a clear, flowing stream. They +noted that in Oklahoma it seems to be found only in relatively clear +water. + +_N. camurus_ did not seem to ascend the smaller tributaries of Big Caney +River as did _N. rubellus_ and _N. boops_ even when these tributaries +were flowing. + + +#Notropis deliciosus missuriensis# (Cope): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, W-1, +W-2, W-3 (C-136). + +Sand shiners seemed to be abundant in the Arkansas River, rare in the +Walnut River and absent from other streams surveyed. This shiner was +most abundant in shallow, flowing water in the Arkansas River; in +backwaters, where _Gambusia affinis_ prevailed, _N. deliciosus_ formed +only a small percentage of the fish population. + + +#Notropis girardi# Hubbs and Ortenburger: Stations A-2 and A-3. + +At station A-2 the Arkansas River shiner made up 14.6 per cent of all +fish taken. At A-2, it was found only in rapidly-flowing water over +clean sand in the main channels. It was absent from the shallow, +slowly-flowing water where _N. deliciosus missuriensis_ was abundant. At +A-3 _N. girardi_ made up 22 per cent of the total catch, and again +preferred the deeper, faster water over clean-swept sand. Failure to +find _N. girardi_ at station A-1 is not understood. + +Females were gravid in both collections (August 25 and 27). In neither +collection were young-of-the-year taken. Moore (1944:210) has suggested +that _N. girardi_ requires periods of high water and turbidity to spawn. +Additional collecting was done at station A-3 on December 22, 1957. A +few adults were taken in flowing water but no young were found. + +In this area, _N. girardi_ showed no tendency to ascend tributaries of +the Arkansas River. Not far to the west, however, this pattern changes +as shown by Hubbs and Ortenburger (1929a:32) who took this fish at seven +of ten stations on the Cimarron, Canadian, and Salt Fork of the +Arkansas. _N. girardi_ was taken only in the lowermost stations on both +Stillwater Creek (Cross, 1950:136) and the Chikaskia River (Moore and +Buck, 1953:22). In the next major stream west of the Chikaskia, the +Medicine River, _N. girardi_ seems to occur farther upstream than in the +Chikaskia. (Collection C-5-51 by Dr. A. B. Leonard and Dr. Frank B. +Cross on Elm Creek near Medicine Lodge on July 20, 1951.) + + +#Notropis lutrensis# (Baird and Girard): Stations A-1, A-2, W-1, W-2, +W-3, W-4, G-1, G-2, G-4, G-5, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12, G-13, G-14, +G-15, G-16, B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-9, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, M-1, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-7 (E&F, C-131, C-133, +C-136). + +The red shiner was taken in every stream surveyed. The relative +abundance seemed to be greatest in two types of habitat which were +separated geographically. The first habitat was in large rivers such as +the Arkansas and Walnut. In the Arkansas River the red shiner +consistently made up 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the catch. On the +Walnut River percentages ranged from 10 per cent (station W-3) to 45 per +cent (station W-2). + +The second habitat in which numbers of _N. lutrensis_ reached high +proportions was in the upper parts of the most intermittent tributaries. +At the uppermost station in Silver Creek this species formed 30 per cent +of the fish taken. In Crab Creek the following percentages were taken in +six collections from mouth to source: 20.6%, 26.1%, 25%, 85%, 14.6%, and +1%. In the mainstream of Grouse Creek the highest percentage taken was +19.27 near the mouth at station G-1. In middle sections of Grouse Creek +this species was either absent or made up less than 2 per cent of the +fish taken. + +At no station on Big Caney River was the red shiner abundant. The +smallest relative numbers were found at upstream stations, in contrast +to collections made on tributaries of Grouse Creek. This distributional +pattern possibly may be explained by the severe conditions under which +fish have been forced to live in the upper tributaries of Grouse Creek. +Water was more turbid, and pools were smaller than in Big Caney. These +factors possibly decimate numbers of the less hardy species permitting +expansion by more adaptable species, among which seems to be _N. +lutrensis_. In the upper tributaries of Big Caney River conditions have +not been so severe due to greater flow from springs and less cultivation +of the watershed in most places. Under such conditions _N. lutrensis_ +seems to remain a minor faunal constituent. + + +#Notropis percobromus# (Cope): Stations A-1, A-2, W-1, W-2, W-3, G-1. + +At station W-1 the plains shiner constituted 20 per cent of the fish +taken. The river was flowing rapidly with large volume at the time of +this collection, and all specimens were taken near the bank in +comparatively quiet water over gravel bottom. At station W-3, below +Tunnel Mill Dam at Winfield, _N. percobromus_ comprised 18.7 per cent of +the fish taken, second only to _Lepomis humilis_ in relative abundance. +Immediately below the west end of the dam, plains shiners were so +concentrated that fifty or more were taken in one haul of a four-foot +nylon net. The amount of water overflowing the dam at this point was +slight. Water was shallow (8-12 inches) and the bottom consisted of the +pitted apron or of fine gravel. At the east end of the dam where water +was deeper (1-3 feet) and the flow over the dam greater, large numbers +of _Lepomis humilis_ were taken while _N. percobromus_ was rare. + +In the Arkansas River smaller relative numbers of this shiner were +obtained. At station A-2, it formed 4.68 per cent of the total. At this +station _N. percobromus_ was taken with _N. lutrensis_ in water about 18 +inches deep next to a bank where the current was sluggish and tangled +roots and detritus offered some shelter. + +At station G-1 on Grouse Creek the plains shiner made up 7.68 per cent +of the fish taken. The habitat consisted of intermittent pools with +rubble bottoms at this station, which was four miles upstream from the +mouth of the creek. The plains shiner seems rarely to ascend the upland +streams of the area. + + +#Notropis rubellus# (Agassiz): Stations C-3, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14 (J&J). + +No fish in these collections showed a more persistent preference than +_Notropis rubellus_ for clear, cool streams. All collections of the +rosyface shiner were in the Big Caney River system, but at only four +stations in this system was it common. At station C-11 the highest +relative numbers (10.6 per cent) were obtained. This site possessed the +most limpid water of any station on the mainstream of Big Caney. Aquatic +plants (_Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ and _Potamogeton nodosus_) were +common. Other fishes that flourished at this station were _N. boops_, +_N. camurus_, _Campostoma anomalum_, and _Etheostoma spectabile_. The +water temperature was 86° at surface and 80° at bottom whereas air +temperature was 97°. + +_N. rubellus_ was common at all stations in Otter Creek, the clear, +upland character of which has been discussed. In May and June only +adults were found. On September 1, examination of several pools in upper +Otter Creek revealed numerous young-of-the-year in small spring-fed +pools. + +Literature is scarce concerning this shiner in Kansas. Cross (1954a:308) +stated that it was abundant in the South Fork of the Cottonwood River +and was one of those fishes primarily associated with the Ozarkian +fauna, rather than with the fauna of the plains. Elliott (1947) found +_N. rubellus_ in Spring Creek, a tributary of Fall River which seems +similar to Otter Creek in physical features. Between the Fall River and +Big Caney River systems is the Elk River, from which there is no record +of the rosyface shiner. Perhaps its absence is related to the +intermittent condition of this stream at present. The Elk River is poor +in spring-fed tributaries, which seem to be favorite environs of the +rosyface shiner. + +_N. rubellus_ was taken by Minna Jewell and Frank Jobes in Silver Creek +on June 30, 1925 (UMMZ 67818). The shiner was not found in any stream +west of the Big Caney system in my collections. + +In Oklahoma, Hall (1952:57) found _N. rubellus_ in upland tributaries on +the east side of Grand River and not in the lowland tributaries on the +west side. Martin and Campbell (1953:51) characterize _N. rubellus_ as +preferring riffle channels in moderate to fast current in the Black +River, Missouri. It is the only species so characterized by them which +was taken in my collections. Moore and Paden (1950:84) state "_Notropis +rubellus_ is one of the most abundant fishes of the Illinois River, +being found in all habitats but showing a distinct preference for fast +water...." + + +#Notropis topeka# (Gilbert): Two specimens (formerly Indiana University +4605) of the Topeka shiner labeled "Winfield, Kansas" are now at the +University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Collector and other data are +not given. Evermann and Fordice (1886:185) noted that two specimens of +_N. topeka_ were taken from Sand Creek near Newton in Harvey County, but +do not list it from Cowley County near Winfield. They deposited their +fish in the museum of Indiana University. + + +#Notropis umbratilis# (Girard): Stations G-1, G-3, G-4, G-7, G-8, G-9, +G-12, G-14, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, M-1, M-2 (J&J, +C-131, C-132). + +The redfin shiner flourished in all the streams surveyed except the +Arkansas and Walnut Rivers. _N. umbratilis_ has been found in upland +tributaries of the Walnut River, some of which originate in terrain +similar to that in which Elk River, Big Caney River, and Grouse Creek +originate. (Collection C-26-51 by Cross on Durechon Creek, October 7, +1951.) This suggests downstream reduction in relative numbers of this +species, a tendency which also seemed to exist on both Big Caney River +and Grouse Creek. _N. umbratilis_ was the most abundant species in Big +Caney River except at the lowermost stations where it was surpassed in +relative abundance by _N. lutrensis_ and _Gambusia affinis_. + +_N. umbratilis_ was a pool-dweller, becoming more concentrated in the +deeper pools as summer advanced. In May and early June, large +concentrations of adult _N. umbratilis_ were common in the shallow ends +of pools together with _N. rubellus_, _N. boops_, _Pimephales notatus_, +and _Pimephales tenellus_. By July and August, only young of the year +were taken in shallow water, and adults were scarcely in evidence. + + +#Notropis volucellus# (Cope): Stations G-5, G-8, C-3, C-5, C-7, C-8, +C-9, C-10, M-1, E-4, E-5. + +The mimic shiner was a minor element in the fauna, 2.02 per cent at +station C-5 being the largest percentage taken. In the Big Caney River +system _N. volucellus_ was taken only in the main stream. In the Grouse +Creek drainage it was found at two stations in the upper part of the +watershed, where water is clearer, gradient greater, and pools +well-shaded and cool. + +In the Elk River the mimic shiner was taken only in the upper part of +the main stream. The dominant shiner in situations where _N. volucellus_ +was taken was, in all cases, _N. umbratilis_. Elliott (1947) found _N. +volucellus_ in Spring Creek, a tributary of Fall River. Farther north in +the Flint Hills region, _N. volucellus_ was reported by Cross +(1954a:310). + + +#Notemigonus crysoleucas# (Mitchell): Station W-5. + +This isolated record for the golden shiner consisted of nine specimens +collected on June 6 in Timber Creek, a tributary of the Walnut River. +Most of the creek was dry. _N. crysoleucas_ was taken in one pool with +dimensions of 8 feet by 4 feet with an average depth of 4 inches. This +creek is sluggish and silt-laden, even under conditions of favorable +precipitation. Hubbs and Ortenburger (1929b:89) observed that the golden +shiner prefers sluggish water. Hall (1952:58) took the golden shiner +only in the lowland tributaries west of Grand River and not east of the +river in upland tributaries. + + +#Phenacobius mirabilis# Girard: Stations W-3, C-3. + +In no case was the suckermouth minnow common; it never comprised more +than 1 per cent of the fish population. + + +#Pimephales notatus# (Rafinesque): Stations W-4, G-5, G-7, G-9, G-12, +G-13, B-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, +C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, M-1, M-2, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, +E-7 (J&J, C-131, C-132, C-133). + +This was much the most abundant of the four species of _Pimephales_ in +this area. It was taken at 33 stations as compared with 10 for _P. +tenellus_, 8 for _P. promelas_, and 3 for _P. vigilax_. + +The bluntnose minnow was taken almost everywhere except in the main +stream of the Arkansas and Walnut rivers and in lower Grouse Creek. _P. +notatus_ seemed to prefer clearer streams of the Flint Hills part of my +area. There was a marked increase in percentages taken in the upland +tributaries of both Caney River and Grouse Creek. In the Elk River, too, +higher concentrations were found upstream. + +The highest relative numbers of bluntnose minnows were taken at station +G-12 on Crab Creek, station C-12 on Cedar Creek and station C-16 on +Spring Creek. At G-12, this minnow was abundant in the deeper isolated +pools. Males in breeding condition were taken on June 9. In Cedar Creek +the population of bluntnose minnows was observed periodically in one +pool in which they were dominant. This pool was 100 feet by 50 feet, +shallow, and with bedrock bottom. At its upper end, however, there was a +small area of heavily-shaded deeper water. Throughout the spring +bluntnose minnows were found in large schools in the shallow area. As +the summer progressed they were no longer there, but seining revealed +their presence in the deeper, upper end. + +At station C-16 on Spring Creek on July 9 male _P. notatus_ were taken +in extreme breeding condition, being light brick-red in color and with +large tubercles. + + +#Pimephales tenellus# (Girard): Stations G-1, C-2, C-3, C-5, C-6, C-7, +C-8, M-1, E-2, E-4 (C-131 C-133). + +The mountain minnow was never taken far from the mainstream of Big +Caney, Middle Caney, or Elk River. In this respect it differed from _P. +notatus_, which reached large concentrations in the small upland +tributaries. On the other hand, _P. tenellus_ was not so abundant as _P. +vigilax_ in the silty larger streams. In no collection was the mountain +minnow common. The highest percentages were 2.4 per cent (Station C-5), +and 2.1 per cent (Station C-7) on Big Caney River. These stations +consisted of clear, flowing water over rubble bottoms. Males at C-7 +(June 16) were in breeding condition. + +Moore and Buck (1953:23) reported finding this species among rocks in +very fast water rather than in the quiet backwaters frequented by _P. +vigilax_. Other records of the mountain minnow from the Flint Hills +indicate that it seeks areas of maximum gradient and flow; in this +distributional respect it is like _Notropis camurus_. The two species +are recorded together from other streams in this region such as the +Chikaskia (Moore and Buck, 1953:23), Cottonwood (Cross, 1954a:310), and +Spring Creek, tributary of Fall River (Elliott, 1947). It is conceivable +that a preference for flowing water might explain its restriction to +the medium-sized, less intermittent streams in this area. The only +tributary which the species seemed to ascend to any extent was Otter +Creek, which is seldom intermittent downstream. + + +#Pimephales vigilax perspicuus# (Girard): Stations A-3, C-1, C-4. + +The parrot minnow was found only in downstream habitats. Collection C-4 +(June 3) on Rock Creek was made about 1/2 mile from the mouth of this +tributary of Big Caney and the creek here had almost the same character +as the river proper. The presence of other channel fishes such as +_Ictiobus bubalus_ indicates the downstream nature of the creek. Some +males of _P. vigilax_ in breeding condition were taken in this +collection. + +At C-1, only one specimen was found in a turbid, isolated pool with +bedrock bottom. At A-1 only one parrot minnow was taken; it was in deep, +fairly quiet water near the bank. + +Other collections outside the three-county area revealed the following: +In the Neosho River, several parrot minnows were found in quiet +backwaters and in shallow pools. In the Verdigris River three were taken +directly under water spilling over the dam at this station, while others +were found, together with _P. promelas_, in the mouth of a small creek +that provided a backwater habitat with mud bottom. + +Cross and Moore (1952:405) found this species only at stations in the +lower portion of the Poteau River. Farther west the minnow may ascend +the smaller sandy streams to greater distances. Moore and Buck (1953:23) +took parrot minnows at six of 15 stations on the Chikaskia River and +found the species as far upstream as Drury, Kansas. Elliott (1947), in +comparing the South Ninnescah and Spring Creek fish faunas, found only +_P. vigilax_ and _P. promelas_ on the sandy, "flatter" Ninnescah and +only _P. notatus_ and _P. tenellus_ on Spring Creek, an upland, Flint +Hills stream in Greenwood County. + + +#Pimephales promelas# Rafinesque: Stations A-2, A-3, W-3, W-4, G-9, B-1, +M-1, E-4 (E&F, C-136). + +Occurrences of the fathead minnow were scattered, but included all +streams sampled except Big Caney. + +Three of the collections were in small intermittent streams where +conditions were generally unfavorable for fishes and in one instance +extremely foul. Two of these stations had turbid water and all suffered +from siltation. + +In Middle Caney Creek the species was rare but in the Elk River (June +28) more than 100 specimens, predominantly young, were taken. This +station consisted of a large isolated pool with a variety of bottom +types. Water was turbid and the surface temperature was high (93° F.). +In different parts of the pool the following numbers of specimens were +taken in single seine-hauls: 15 over shallow bedrock; 35 over gravel +(1-1/2 feet deep); 50 over mud bottom (1 foot deep). + +_P. promelas_ was found also in the large, flowing rivers: Arkansas, +Walnut, Verdigris, and Neosho. The species was scarce in the Arkansas +River, and was found principally in muddy coves. In the Walnut (W-3), +this minnow comprised 7.65 per cent of the fish taken and was common in +quiet pools. + + +#Campostoma anomalum# Rafinesque: Stations W-4, G-4, C-1, C-3, C-5, C-6, +C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, B-3 +(E&F, C-131, C-136). + +Although the stoneroller was found in most streams surveyed, it was +taken most often in the Big Caney system, where it occurred at 16 of the +18 stations. In contrast, it was represented at only one of 17 stations +on Grouse Creek. High percentages were found in three creeks--Cedar, +Otter, and Spring. As noted above, these streams are normally clear, +swift and have steep gradients and many rubble and gravel riffles. On +these riffles young stonerollers abounded. Station C-16 on Spring Creek +typifies the habitat in which this species was most abundant. The stream +has an average width of 10 feet and depth of a few inches. The volume of +flow was less than 1 cubic foot per second but turbulence was great. +Water was clear and the bottom was gravel and rubble. Following rains in +June, stonerollers quickly occupied parts of Spring Creek (upstream from +C-16) that had been dry throughout the previous winter. + +On April 2 many _C. anomalum_ and _Etheostoma spectabile_ were taken in +shallow pools and riffles in an extensive bedrock-riffle area on Cedar +Creek near station C-12. Most of the females were gravid and the males +were in breeding condition. On June 6 these pools were revisited. Flow +had ceased and the pools were drying up. Young-of-the-year of the two +species were abundant, but only a few mature stonerollers were taken. On +August 24, prolonged drought had drastically altered the stream and all +areas from which stonerollers and darters had been taken were dry. +Seining of other pools which were almost dry revealed no stonerollers. + +Collections on May 31, June 15, and June 16 in Otter Creek revealed +large numbers of stonerollers. They were found in riffle areas, in +aquatic vegetation, and especially in detritus alongside banks. Most of +the specimens were young-of-the-year. + + +#Anguilla bostoniensis# (Le Sueur): An American eel was caught by me in +Grouse Creek in 1949. + + +#Gambusia affinis# (Baird and Girard): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, W-1, W-2, +W-3, W-4, W-5, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-9, C-1, C-2, C-3, +C-4, C-6, C-15, E-1. + +Mosquitofish occurred widely but in varied abundance. Huge populations +were in the shallow sandy backwaters and cut-off pools of the Arkansas +River. In the shallow pools of several intermittent streams such as +station G-8 on Silver Creek this fish also flourished. + +_G. affinis_ was taken at every station in the Arkansas, Walnut and +Grouse systems except those stations on two upland tributaries of Grouse +Creek (Crab Creek and Grand Summit Creek). The mosquitofish was not +observed in the clear upland tributaries of Big Caney, nor on upper Big +Caney River itself in May, June, and July. On September 3, however, +_Gambusia_ were taken at station C-15 on Otter Creek and others were +seen at station C-14 on the same date. + +Hubbs and Ortenburger (1929b:99) and Cross and Moore (1952:407) observed +that _G. affinis_ usually was absent from small upland tributaries, even +though it was abundant in lower parts of the same river systems. + + +#Fundulus kansae# (Garman): Stations A-2, A-3, Evermann and Fordice as +_Fundulus zebrinus_. + +At station A-2, seven plains killifish were taken together with a great +many _Notropis deliciosus_ and _Gambusia affinis_ in a shallow, +algae-covered channel with slight flow and sand bottom. At station A-3 +many young killifish were taken in small shallow pools on December 22. +_Fundulus kansae_ has been found in the lower part of the Walnut River +Basin, especially where petroleum pollution was evident. Eastward from +the Walnut River plains killifish have not been taken. + + +#Fundulus notatus# (Rafinesque): Stations B-1, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, +G-7, G-8, G-10, G-11, G-14, C-1, M-1, E-1, Evermann and Fordice as +_Zygonectes notatus_. + +The black-banded topminnow was not taken in the Arkansas River but was +common in the Walnut and Grouse systems. It was common also in Middle +Caney, but in Big Caney and Elk River it was taken only at the lowermost +stations. + +This species did not seem to ascend far into smaller tributaries of +Grouse Creek. In Crab Creek it was taken at the lower two of six +stations and in Grand Summit Creek at the lower of two stations. + +The highest relative numbers were taken at stations G-3 (17.5 per cent), +G-4 (24 per cent), G-10 (25.75 per cent) and G-11 (41.52 per +cent), on Crab Creek and Grouse Creek. Both upstream and downstream from +these stations, which were within five miles of each other, the relative +abundance dropped off sharply. The bottoms at these stations were mostly +rubble and mud, and water was turbid at three of the stations. At G-10 +(June 24) and G-11 (July 16) young-of-the-year were abundant. + + +#Ictalurus melas# (Girard): Stations W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, +G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-8, G-9, G-11, G-12, G-13, G-14, G-17, C-1, +C-9, C-11, C-12, C-14, C-15, C-17, C-18, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, E-6, N-1, +Evermann and Fordice as _Ameiurus melas_ (C-133). + +The black bullhead was taken at slightly more than half of the stations, +and probably was present at others. Larger numbers were taken in Grouse +Creek than in any other stream system. In many small, shallow pools in +the Grouse Creek system young black bullheads shared dominance with +_Gambusia affinis_ in the late summer. _I. melas_ was also abundant in +isolated pools at the extreme upper ends of Crab Creek, Beaver Creek and +Grand Summit Creek. _I. melas_ was most common in areas with silty +bottoms. The species seemed scarce in the main stream of Big Caney River +but was common in some of its tributaries. + + +#Pylodictis olivaris# (Rafinesque): Stations A-3, G-1, C-5. + +Flathead catfish were taken by angling at stations A-3 and C-5. At +station G-1 (September 5) a flathead catfish five inches long was taken +in the four-foot nylon net. + + +#Ictalurus punctatus# (Rafinesque): Stations A-3, W-2, W-3, G-2, C-5, +E-4. + +Channel catfish from stations W-3, A-3, and C-5 were taken on hook and +line. At station G-2 (August 29) twenty young-of-the-year were seined +from the shallow narrow end of a large pool. All collections of both _I. +punctatus_ and _P. olivaris_ were in the larger streams surveyed. + + +#Ictalurus natalis# (LeSueur): Stations G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-8, G-11, +C-12, C-14, C-15. + +The yellow bullhead was taken at only 9 stations, compared with 33 +stations for the black bullhead. _I. natalis_ was represented in 7 of +17 stations in the Grouse Creek system but in only 3 of 18 stations in +the Big Caney system. Of the seven records from Grouse Creek four were +from the main stream. At every station where yellow bullheads were +taken, black bullheads were found also and were abundant, usually +several times more abundant than _I. natalis_. + +At G-11 on Crab Creek (July 16), _I. natalis_ made up 3.8 per cent of +the fish taken. All were young-of-the-year, existing in a tiny, gravelly +pool containing not more than five gallons of water, and were the only +fish present. Young yellow bullheads were also found in small pools with +gravel bottoms at station G-4 on September 7. + + +#Labidesthes sicculus# (Cope): Stations G-1, G-2, G-3, G-7, G-10, B-2, +C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-12, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-7, M-1 (E&F, C-131). + +The brook silversides was taken, sometimes abundantly, in all stream +systems except the Walnut and Arkansas. At station G-7 on July 8, 41.8 +per cent of the fish taken were of this species. _L. sicculus_ was most +abundant in large pools where the bottom was predominantly bedrock and +gravel. The highest concentrations were in the mainstreams of Big Caney, +Grouse, and Elk Rivers. Brook silversides were taken rarely in the +smaller tributaries of these streams. + + +#Percina phoxocephala# (Nelson): Stations C-2, C-3, C-5, G-1 (C-133). + +Slenderhead darters were scarce, and were found only over gravel +bottoms. Specimens were taken from flowing and quiet water, and from +both shallow and deep water. + +Larger numbers of _P. phoxocephala_ were taken by the writer in other +collections made during 1956 on the Neosho and Verdigris Rivers over +bottoms of rubble or gravel. Restriction of this darter to the larger +streams follows a pattern observed by Cross (1954a:313) who noted it was +absent from smaller riffles in minor tributaries. Elliott (1947), +however, took one specimen of _P. phoxocephala_ in Spring Creek, a +tributary of Fall River. + + +#Percina caprodes carbonaria# (Baird and Girard): Stations G-3, G-4, +G-7, G-12, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-9, C-12, C-13, C-14 (J&J, C-131, C-133). + +The logperch was generally distributed in the Caney, Elk, and Grouse +systems. This species usually comprised less than 1 per cent of the fish +taken; however, at station G-12 it formed 3.76 per cent of the total. + +In many instances the logperch was taken over submerged gravel bars, +often along the edges of the larger pools. At 8 of 13 stations where the +logperch was taken, the golden redhorse was also found. At every station +where logperch were found, _Notropis umbratilis_ was taken and +_Pimephales notatus_ also occurred at all but three of these stations. + + +#Percina copelandi# (Jordan): Stations C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8, G-1 (C-131, +C-133, J&J). + +Channel darters were collected over bottoms of rubble or gravel, both in +flowing streams and in isolated pools. Although _P. copelandi_ was found +only in Big Caney River and at the lowermost station on Grouse Creek +(G-1) in this survey, this species has been taken previously from Elk +River (K. U. 3463 and K. U. 3197) and from Silver Creek. _Notropis +camurus_ occurred everywhere that _H. copelandi_ was found. In several +instances the two species were taken in the same seine-haul. + + +#Etheostoma spectabile pulchellum# (Girard): Stations W-4, G-1, G-4, +G-5, C-6, C-9, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, E-1, E-5. +Evermann and Fordice as _Etheostoma coeruleum_ (C-131, C-132). + +The habitat preferences of the orangethroat darter seemed similar to +those of _Campostoma anomalum_. There were sixteen stations at which +both species were taken, seven where only _E. spectabile pulchellum_ was +taken and six where only _C. anomalum_ was taken. The largest relative +numbers of both species were found in the same small, clear upland +tributaries of Big Caney River. On May 31, collections from riffles at +station C-15 (upper Otter Creek) consisted almost entirely of these two +species. On September 1 at this station the stream was intermittent, but +even the tiniest pools abounded with young darters and stonerollers. + +Gravid females and males in breeding condition were taken in riffles in +Cedar Creek on April 2. During June numerous young and adult +orangethroat darters were taken in Cedar Creek, in partly decayed leaves +which lined the banks. On June 15 in Otter Creek young darters were +abundant in streamside detritus and in clear, shallow, rubble riffles. +At station C-11 a few darters were taken on rubble riffles; however, +large numbers were found inhabiting thick mats of _Potamogeton foliosus_ +Raf., which grew in shallow water. Many darters (_Etheostoma spectabile +pulchellum_ and _Percina phoxocephala_) were taken in September along +gravelly banks at stations C-2 and C-3 by disturbing small rocks and +leaf-litter along the shores. Young orangethroat darters seemed to +seek out sheltered areas and in some cases were found in sluggish, even +foul, water (Stations W-4, B-1 and G-12). Moore and Buck (1953:26) note +that the orangethroat darter is able to thrive in Oklahoma in rather +sluggish and even intermittent waters which reach quite high summer +temperatures. + +Unlike other darters taken in this survey, the orangethroat darter was +common to abundant at several stations and was found at a great many +more stations than any other darter. The comparatively great tolerance +of this species to varying habitats, suggested by this survey, is also +reflected by its widespread distribution in Kansas. + + +#Micropterus salmoides salmoides# (Lacepede): Stations B-1, G-4, G-5, +G-7, G-12, C-1, C-3, E-1, E-2, E-3. + +Most of the largemouth bass taken were young-of-the-year. In Big Caney +River this species seemed rare, being found at only two downstream +stations compared with eight stations at which _M. punctulatus_ was +taken. + +Many ponds in the Flint Hills have been stocked with largemouth bass. At +present largemouth bass are frequently caught by hook and line in Crab +Creek (Station G-12); however, Mr. A. C. Metcalf, who has fished this +stream for approximately 45 years, states that he took no bass in the +creek prior to the building and stocking of large ponds on nearby +ranches. + + +#Micropterus punctulatus# (Rafinesque): Stations C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, +C-8, C-10, C-14, C-15, E-2, E-5 (C-133). + +The spotted bass was taken only in tributaries of the Verdigris River, +where it seemed more numerous than the preceding species. It has been +reported from other Verdigris tributaries such as Fall River (Elliott, +1947) and is common eastward from the Verdigris Basin. A spotted bass +(K. U. 3467) was taken by Cross on the Little Walnut River in Butler +County on April 5, 1955. This seems to be the only record of this +species from the Walnut River Basin at the present time. + + +#Pomoxis annularis# (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, W-5, G-1, G-2, G-5, +G-10, G-11, G-12, C-1, C-2, C-4, C-5, C-6, M-1, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5 +(C-136). + +White crappie were found in almost all habitats and were taken in all +rivers except the Arkansas. The relative abundance of this species was +greater at downstream than at upstream stations on Grouse Creek, Big +Caney, and Elk River. Schools of young crappie were frequently found and +the factor of chance in taking or failing to take a school of crappie +prevented confident appraisal of abundance. White crappie usually sought +quiet waters. Often they were found in backwaters and many times +schools were taken over bottoms where mud and detritus had been +deposited. It was not uncommon to take _Pomoxis annularis_ and +_Ictalurus melas_ in the same seine-haul in such areas. + + +#Pomoxis nigromaculatus# (LeSueur): Station C-1. + +Black crappie were taken in Otter Creek on May 29 and September 3. +Several ponds in eastern Cowley County are stocked with black crappie, +but none was taken from streams into which these ponds drain. + + +#Lepomis cyanellus# (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, W-4, W-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, +G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-12, G-13, G-14, G-15, G-16, +G-17, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, +C-13, C-14, C-16, C-17, C-18, E-1, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, M-2 (C-131, +C-132, C-133, C-136, E&F). + +The green sunfish was taken at 45 of 60 stations, which is the greatest +number recorded for one species. The only stream from which it was not +obtained was the Arkansas River. Green sunfish constituted a minor but +consistent part of the fauna in Big Caney River except for some +intermittent pools on small tributaries, where it was high in relative +abundance. It usually comprised approximately 4 per cent of the fish +taken at stations on Grouse Creek. In some intermittent tributaries of +Grouse Creek and Elk River percentages also were high. + +Funk and Campbell (1953:74) observed that _L. cyanellus_ held a definite +but minor place in all collections made on the Black River in Missouri. +This pattern was also observed by the writer in collections made on the +Neosho and Spring Rivers in southeastern Kansas. This seems to indicate +that the Big Caney River populations (exclusive of the upstream stations +in intermittent streams) follow a pattern commonly found in southeastern +Kansas and probably in the Ozark region. + + +#Lepomis humilis# (Girard): Stations A-3, W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, G-1, G-2, +G-3, G-4, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12, G-14, G-15, C-1, C-2, +C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-16, C-17, +B-2, B-3, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, M-1. (C-131, C-132, C-133, +C-136, J&J, E&F.) + +The orangespotted sunfish was found in every stream surveyed, although +only one specimen was taken from the Arkansas River. + +The largest relative number of this species (44.6) was taken at station +G-1. Percentages at other stations on Grouse Creek and its tributaries +progressively declined in an upstream direction. + +In Big Caney River representation of _L. humilis_ in collections varied +from 1.56 per cent at station C-1 to 23.47 per cent at station +C-7. This sunfish was usually the dominant species in collections made +from the Elk River, where the relative abundance ranged from 10 to 30 +per cent. + +The orangespotted sunfish is widespread in Kansas and seems to be a +diagnostic constituent of the Plains Fauna. Moore and Buck (1953:26) +found it "very common" in the Chikaskia River in Kansas and Oklahoma. +Cross (1950:140) noted that in Stillwater Creek it seemed to be the most +tolerant and consequently the most abundant of the stream's cent +rarchids. Moore and Paden (1950:91) note that _L. humilis_ is most +common in muddy waters and found in overflow pools, backwaters, and +oxbow lakes. This species is frequently found in farm ponds in the area +surveyed, which further suggests a wide range of habitat tolerance. + + +#Lepomis megalotis breviceps# (Baird and Girard): Stations W-3, W-4, +W-5, B-1, B-2, G-1, G-4, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12, G-13 (all +Big Caney River stations except C-18), E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6, +M-1, M-2 (C-131, C-132, C-133, J&J, E&F). + +In Big Caney River the longear sunfish shared dominance with the redfin +shiner (_Notropis umbratilis_) at almost every station. The average of +its relative abundance at all stations in the Big Caney system was 16.5 +per cent. It was also abundant at several stations on Grouse Creek and +made up 43.25 per cent of all fish taken at station G-4. + +Cross (1950:140) observed that _L. megalotis breviceps_ increased in +Stillwater Creek probably as a result of clearer water and stabilized +water level. + +In collections made west of the area treated here (Moore and Buck, +1953:26; Elliott, 1947) the longear sunfish is less abundant than in Big +Caney River and Grouse Creek. + + +#Lepomis macrochirus# (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, G-3, G-4, G-5, C-3, +C-5, E-1, E-2 (C-131, C-132, C-133). + +The bluegill was, in all cases, a minor constituent in the fish fauna. +No clear pattern of habitat preference can be deduced. In the Verdigris +River at Independence (collection AM-53, August 22, 1956) bluegills were +common in quiet pools and coves below a low-water dam. Moore and Paden +(1950:91) note that _L. macrochirus_ prefers quiet waters and Hubbs and +Lagler (1947:94) state that it is "generally restricted to the quieter +pools." + +The bluegill is widely-stocked in impoundments of the area treated +here. + + +#Aplodinotus grunniens# (Rafinesque): Stations C-4, E-2. + +The dearth of stations from which the freshwater drum is reported may +indicate difficulty in taking this species with seines, rather than +scarcity. Both collections were at downstream stations. At station C-4 +three half-grown drum were taken. Fishermen take "drum" at least as far +upstream as station C-5 on Big Caney River. In the Elk River one +specimen was taken in a 20-foot seine below a dam at Elk Falls. + + + + +FISHES OF DOUBTFUL OR POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE + + +In addition to the species listed above, the following species have been +reported nearby and may occur within the area surveyed. + +_Lepisosteus productus_ (Cope)--This gar has not been reported from +Kansas. It has been taken at several points in the northern half of +Oklahoma and as far west as Canton Reservoir by Buck and Cross (1951). A +specimen of the spotted gar was taken by Elkin (1954:28) in Salt Creek +in Osage County, Oklahoma. + +_Polyodon spathula_ (Walbaum)--The paddlefish has never been reported +from the Arkansas River system in Kansas. Several reports by fishermen +were traced by the writer, but authentication was not achieved. One +mounted specimen was examined in a sporting goods store in Arkansas +City. This fish was said to have been taken on the Arkansas River south +of Arkansas City but information on the date and method of capture were +vague. Mr. Darrell Wheat of Arkansas City reported taking four +paddlefish below a dam at Oxford, Kansas, in 1948 and 1949. + +_Hiodon alosoides_ (Rafinesque)--One specimen (K. U. 3095) of the +goldeye was taken in 1953 on the Arkansas River near Oxford in Sumner +County. Fishermen also report taking this fish occasionally in the +Walnut River in Cowley County. + +_Noturus flavus_ (Rafinesque)--The stonecat was taken in the Verdigris +system by R. D. Lindsay in 1911 (K. U. 2058) and more recently by Cross +in Montgomery County (C-120) and Schelske (1957:46) in Wilson and +Montgomery Counties. The close proximity of these collection areas to +lower portions of the Elk River indicate probable occurrence in Elk +River and other Verdigris tributaries. + +_Noturus nocturnus_ (Jordan and Gilbert)--The freckled madtom has been +taken on all sides of the area studied making its occurrence therein +highly probable. This madtom has been taken in Beaver Creek in Osage +County, Oklahoma (OAM 4771); from a tributary of the Walnut River in +Sedgwick County by Cross (1954); from the Chikaskia River (Moore and +Buck, 1953:24); and from several localities on the Verdigris River +(Schelske, 1957:47). + +_Etheostoma cragini_ (Gilbert)--One Cragin's darter (K. U. 3470) was +taken by Cross in the Arkansas River near the Sumner-Cowley county line +(Sec. 25, T31S, R2E). Records of this darter are few and widely +scattered geographically. Several collections from north-eastern +Oklahoma are noted by Moore and Cross (1950:144). + +_Etheostoma whipplii_ (Girard)--Schelske (1957:38) reports the redfin +darter from the Verdigris River three miles southeast of Benedict, +Kansas. Dr. George Moore of Oklahoma A. & M. College states that it has +been taken in the Verdigris drainage in Oklahoma at several locations. + +_Etheostoma zonale arcansanum_ (Jordan and Gilbert)--Two banded darters +(K. U. 3213) have been reported by Schelske (1957:49) from Fall River +near Neodesha, Kansas. Because a tributary of Fall River enters Elk +County its presence in this and other Verdigris tributaries in the area +seems possible. This darter has been reported from only one other stream +in Kansas, Shoal Creek in Cherokee County, where it has been collected +often. + +_Roccus chrysops_ (Rafinesque)--The white bass has been stocked in Hulah +Reservoir on Big Caney River in Oklahoma. To date it has not been +reported from the Big Caney in Kansas. White bass are common in many +reservoirs of Kansas and Oklahoma and have been taken in rivers in both +states. Mr. Clement Gillespie of Arkansas City, Kansas Forestry, Fish +and Game Commission wildlife protector for the area, states that two +hundred young of _R. chrysops_ were released in Grouse Creek several +years ago under auspices of the Commission. The fish has not been +reported by fishermen since that time to the knowledge of Mr. Gillespie +or of the writer. + +_Lepomis microlophus_ (Gunther)--One redear sunfish was taken on Salt +Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma, by Elkin (1954:28). Because this +species has been stocked widely in Oklahoma its eventual occurrence in +Kansas seems probable. + +_Chaenobryttus gulosus_ (Cuvier)--The warmouth has been taken south of +the collection area in Osage County on Salt Creek by Elkin (1954:28). + + + + +FAUNAL COMPARISONS OF DIFFERENT STREAMS + + +The faunas of Elk River, Big Caney River, and Grouse Creek were +generally similar. These streams and most of their tributaries originate +in the same hilly area of eastern Cowley County and western Elk and +Chautauqua counties; their similarities and differences have been +pointed out. + +The following species were taken in all of these streams: + + _Lepisosteus osseus_ + _Dorosoma cepedianum_ + _Ictiobus bubalus_ + _Moxostoma erythrurum_ + _Minytrema melanops_ + _Cyprinus carpio_ + _Campostoma anomalum_ + _Notropis boops_ + _Notropis lutrensis_ + _Notropis umbratilis_ + _Notropis volucellus_ + _Pimephales notatus_ + _Pimephales tenellus_ + _Fundulus notatus_ + _Gambusia affinis_ + _Ictalurus melas_ + _Ictalurus punctatus_ + _Etheostoma spectabile_ + _Percina caprodes_ + _Micropterus salmoides_ + _Pomoxis annularis_ + _Lepomis cyanellus_ + _Lepomis humilis_ + _Lepomis megalotis_ + _Lepomis macrochirus_ + _Labidesthes sicculus_ + +No species was found in Elk River to the exclusion of Big Caney and +Grouse Creek. Fish taken exclusively in Grouse Creek were _Ictiobus +cyprinella_ at station G-2 and _Notropis percobromus_ at station G-1. +The following species were taken only in Big Caney River: _Ictiobus +niger_, _Notropis rubellus_, _Phenacobius mirabilis_, _Pimephales +vigilax_, and _Pomoxis nigromaculatus_. + +_Notropis buchanani_ and _Pimephales promelas_ were taken in Grouse +Creek and Elk River, but not in Big Caney River, although the watershed +of Big Caney lies largely between these two streams. Three species, +_Notropis camurus_, _Micropterus punctulatus_, and _Aplodinotus +grunniens_, were found in Elk River and Big Caney but not in Grouse +Creek. _Ictalurus natalis_, _Pylodictis olivaris_, and _Percina +phoxocephala_ were taken in Big Caney River and Grouse Creek but not in +Elk River. _Percina copelandi_ was taken by Cross on Elk River in 1954 +and 1955 (K. U. 3464 and K. U. 3197). + +Forty species were taken in Big Caney River, 35 in Grouse Creek and 31 +in Elk River. Collections were made from only six stations on Elk River +as compared with 18 from Big Caney and 17 from Grouse Creek. + +Twenty-four species were taken in the Walnut River system, only one of +which (_Notemigonus crysoleucas_) was taken exclusively there. + +In the Arkansas River 18 species were found, four of which did not occur +elsewhere. These were _Hybopsis aestivalis_, _Notropis blennius_, _N. +girardi_, and _Fundulus kansae_. + +Table 5 lists the number of stations in each of the streams surveyed +from which each species was taken. + + TABLE 5.--SPECIES OF FISHES COLLECTED AND NUMBER OF STATIONS IN + EACH STREAM SYSTEM AT WHICH EACH SPECIES WAS FOUND. + + KEY: + A: Arkansas River 3 stations + B: Walnut River 5 stations + C: Grouse Creek 17 stations + D: Big Caney River 18 stations + E: Elk River 6 stations + F: Middle Caney 2 stations + G: Beaver Creek 3 stations + + ============================================================ + Total number | | | | | | | + of stations | A | B | C | D | E | F | G + --------------------+-------+---+----+----+--------+---+---- + _L. osseus_ | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | Seen | | + _D. cepedianum_ | Seen | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | + _Carpiodes carpio_ | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | + _I. bubalus_ | | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | | + _I. cyprinella_ | | | 1 | | | | + _I. niger_ | | | | 2 | | | + _M. erythrurum_ | | | 4 | 10 | 3 | | + _M. melanops_ | | | 1 | 3 | 1 | | + _Cyprinus carpio_ | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | | + _C. anomalum_ | | 1 | 1 | 14 | 2 | | 1 + _H. aestivalis_ | 1 | | | | | | + _N. blennius_ | 2 | | | | | | + _N. boops_ | | | 2 | 14 | 2 | 2 | + _N. buchanani_ | | | 1 | | 1 | | + _N. camurus_ | | | | 13 | 2 | | + _N. deliciosus_ | 3 | 3 | | | | | + _N. girardi_ | 2 | | | | | | + _N. lutrensis_ | 3 | 4 | 13 | 14 | 5 | 1 | 3 + _N. rubellus_ | | | | 11 | | | + _N. percobromus_ | 3 | 3 | 1 | | | | + _N. umbratilis_ | | | 8 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 2 + _N. volucellus_ | | | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | + _N. crysoleucas_ | | 1 | | | | | + _H. placita_ | 3 | 2 | | | | | + _P. mirabilis_ | | 1 | | 1 | | | + _P. notatus_ | | 1 | 6 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 1 + _P. promelas_ | 2 | 2 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 1 + _P. vigilax_ | 1 | | | 3 | | 1 | + _P. tenellus_ | | | 1 | 7 | 1 | 2 | + _F. notatus_ | | 4 | 10 | 1 | 1 | | 1 + _F. kansae_ | 2 | | | | | | + _G. affinis_ | 3 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 1 | | + _I. melas_ | 1 | 4 | 12 | 9 | 5 | | 3 + _I. natalis_ | | | 6 | 3 | | | + _I. punctatus_ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | | + _P. olivaris_ | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | | + _E. spectabile_ | | 1 | 4 | 17 | 2 | | 1 + _P. copelandi_ | | | 1 | 5 | | | + _P. phoxocephala_ | | | 1 | 4 | | | + _P. caprodes_ | | | 5 | 8 | 1 | | + _M. salmoides_ | | | 4 | 2 | 3 | | 1 + _M. punctulatus_ | | | | 7 | 1 | | + _P. annularis_ | | 2 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 1 | + _P. nigromaculatus_ | | | | 1 | | | + _L. cyanellus_ | | 3 | 14 | 17 | 5 | 1 | 3 + _L. humilis_ | 1 | 4 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 1 | 2 + _L. megalotis_ | | 3 | 9 | 18 | 6 | 2 | 2 + _L. macrochirus_ | | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | | + _A. grunniens_ | | | | 1 | 1 | | + _L. sicculus_ | | | 5 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 + ------------------------------------------------------------ + + + + +DISTRIBUTIONAL VARIATIONS WITHIN THE SAME STREAM + + +An analysis of faunal variations in different parts of the same stream +system was made for Big Caney River and Grouse Creek. Collecting was +more extensive in these streams, and sampling was done over a wider +range of habitat, than in the Arkansas and Walnut rivers. + +The fish taken in the first five seine hauls at each station were +counted and the number of each species was recorded as a percentage of +the total number of fish taken. These percentages were calculated for +the main stream and for each tributary in an attempt to discern possible +intra-stream faunal patterns. In Table 6 lower, middle, and upper +segments of each stream have been segregated and the average of all +stations within each segment is shown. + +The results are subject to several sources of error, some of which are +discussed below: + +(1) Seining techniques could not be entirely standardized. One station +might present a series of long narrow riffles and narrow, shallow pools +in which only a small seine could be used effectively; another station +might consist of a large, deep, isolated pool in which a larger seine +was needed for effective sampling. In practice, the five seine hauls +were made with any of several seines ranging from ten to twenty feet in +length. + +(2) Seines are species-selective, due partly to the preference of +certain fishes for special habitat niches. Fishes that are often found +under stones or in weedy pools require special collecting techniques and +frequently were not represented in the initial five hauls. If work +subsequent to the first five hauls indicated that such fish were a +prominent part of the fauna at a particular station, these results were +considered before percentages were calculated. + +(3) Temporal variations occur in populations at the same station. There +were both seasonal and diurnal differences in relative numbers of +species taken in these collections. This was noted especially at station +C-5 where collecting was done both at night and by day. Spawning by +certain species during the course of the study complicated estimates of +their relative abundance. + +(4) In tabulating percentages of fishes obtained an arbitrary element is +often unavoidable in deciding whether a station, especially a station on +a tributary, should be considered as part of the lower, middle, or upper +segment of a river system. + +Despite these disadvantages it is felt that table 6 has factual basis +permitting some reliable interpretation. + + TABLE 6.--RELATIVE ABUNDANCE IN PER CENT OF FISHES IN + COLLECTIONS FROM THREE STREAM SEGMENTS. + + ==================================================================== + | Big Caney River Grouse Creek + |------------------------+----------------------- + | Lower | Middle | Upper | Lower | Middle | Upper + -------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+------ + _L. osseus_ | .7 | .5 | | .6 | .02 | + _D. cepedianum_ | .3 | | | | .02 | + _Carpiodes carpio_ | .06 | | | 1.0 | | + _I. bubalus_ | .6 | .45 | | 1.4 | | + _I. cyprinella_ | | | | .1 | | + _I. niger_ | .01 | | | | | + _M. erythrurum_ | .2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | .03 | .5 | 1.1 + _M. melanops_ | .1 | .01 | | | .1 | + _Cyprinus carpio_ | .7 | | | 1.3 | .2 | + _C. anomalum_ | .6 | 5.9 | 18.0 | | .1 | + _N. boops_ | .6 | .6 | 5.1 | | 1.3 | + _N. buchanani_ | | | | .01 | | + _N. camurus_ | 6.4 | 5.5 | .4 | | | + _N. lutrensis_ | 8.8 | 1.0 | .5 | 6.4 | 11.4 | 15.2 + _N. percobromus_ | | | | 1.1 | | + _N. rubellus_ | .4 | 1.4 | 3.9 | | | + _N. umbratilis_ | 17.6 | 28.3 | 15.4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 5.5 + _N. volucellus_ | .3 | .4 | | | .3 | + _P. mirabilis_ | .3 | | | | | + _P. notatus_ | 3.5 | 5.7 | 13.0 | | .9 | 6.6 + _P. vigilax_ | .8 | | | | | + _P. promelas_ | | | | | | 2.9 + _P. tenellus_ | .7 | .5 | | .01 | | + _G. affinis_ | 14.6 | .4 | .4 | 20.8 | 10.2 | 1.0 + _F. notatus_ | .1 | | | 6.6 | 17.2 | 1.4 + _I. melas_ | .9 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 2.3 | 18.0 + _I. natalis_ | | | .5 | .5 | .8 | + _P. olivaris_ | .01 | | | .01 | | + _I. punctatus_ | .3 | | | .4 | | + _E. spectabile_ | 1.9 | 4.9 | 18.0 | .4 | .3 | .3 + _P. copelandi_ | .8 | .1 | | .01 | | + _P. phoxocephala_ | .1 | | | .1 | | + _P. caprodes_ | .4 | .6 | .2 | .2 | .2 | .4 + _M. salmoides_ | .06 | | | | 1.1 | .3 + _M. punctulatus_ | .5 | 1.7 | .4 | | | + _P. annularis_ | 3.9 | .8 | | 2.9 | 4.2 | .3 + _L. cyanellus_ | 3.4 | .8 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 30.5 + _L. humilis_ | 10.6 | 13.1 | 1.8 | 31.4 | 17.7 | 14.8 + _L. megalotis_ | 12.4 | 22.3 | 12.0 | 3.6 | 14.0 | 1.7 + _L. macrochirus_ | .3 | | | .2 | 1.3 | + _A. grunniens_ | .1 | | | | | + _L. sicculus_ | 7.1 | 1.6 | .4 | 7.7 | 10.2 | + -------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +_Big Caney River_ + +The "lower segment" of Big Caney River is immediately upstream from +Hulah Reservoir, and is not the lowermost portion of the entire river +basin, but merely the lower part of the river in the area studied. A +conspicuous characteristic of the lower segment was the general +restriction of the deep-bodied suckers and the carp to this part of the +stream. Other fishes that were most common in the lower section were +_Pimephales vigilax_, _Percina phoxocephala_, _Gambusia affinis_, and +_Aplodinotus grunniens_. _Labidesthes sicculus_ and _Lepisosteus osseus_ +ranged into the middle section of the stream, but were present in larger +numbers downstream. _Ictalurus punctatus_, _Pomoxis annularis_, and +_Lepomis macrochirus_ were taken chiefly in downstream habitats; +however, stocking has confused the distributional pattern of these +species. _Notropis lutrensis_, although found throughout the system, +progressively declined in numbers taken in the middle and upper +sections. Approximately 18 species were usually taken in downstream +collections. + +No species were found exclusively in the middle section of the Big Caney +system. _Micropterus punctulatus_, _Notropis umbratilis_, and _Lepomis +megalotis_ tended to be most common in the middle section of the main +stream. These three species were taken together at stations C-5, C-6, +C-8, and C-10. + +The upper section yielded no species that did not occur also in another +section. Fishes most abundant in the upper section included: _Campostoma +anomalum_, _Etheostoma spectabile_, _Notropis boops_, _Notropis +rubellus_, _Pimephales notatus_, and _Lepomis cyanellus_. _Ictalurus +natalis_ also seemed more common upstream than in lower parts of the +basin. + +_Campostoma anomalum_ was one of the most common fishes taken at many of +the stations on small upland tributaries. In downstream collections its +relative abundance was less, although it was often concentrated on +riffles. + +In the Big Caney system as a whole _Notropis umbratilis_ was the most +abundant species. Several species were present throughout the system in +proportions varying, sometimes greatly, from station to station. +_Lepomis megalotis_ and _Lepomis humilis_ were erratic in occurrence, +and the numbers of _Notropis camurus_ and _Ictalurus melas_ varied +without pattern. + + +_Grouse Creek_ + +The fauna of the main stream of Grouse Creek fluctuated more in number +and kinds of fish from station to station than did the fauna of Big +Caney River. Again, the deep-bodied suckers showed downstream +proclivities. In addition, _Notropis buchanani_, _Pimephales tenellus_, +_Percina copelandi_, _Percina phoxocephala_, _Notropis percobromus_ and +_Pylodictis olivaris_ were taken only at the lowermost station (G-1). At +stations G-2 and G-3 the creek is sluggish and often turbid, meandering +between high mud banks in a flood plain. At these stations _Fundulus +notatus_, _Gambusia affinis, La_-_bidesthes sicculus_, _Ictalurus +melas,_ and _Lepomis humilis_ were the most common fishes. Shiners +(_Notropis_ spp.) and _Lepomis megalotis_ were rarely taken. Hall +(1953:36) states that _Gambusia affinis_, _Fundulus notatus_, and +_Labidesthes sicculus_ are usually associated with overflow pools, +oxbows, and vegetated backwaters. + +Those fishes mentioned in the preceding paragraph remained common in +the middle section of the stream. In addition _Notropis lutrensis_, +_Notropis umbratilis_, and _Lepomis megalotis_ were important members +of the fauna. + +In the uppermost section shiners (_Notropis_ spp.) were common. In the +few upstream stations that were still in good condition with clear +flowing water, the fauna resembled that of the upstream stations on Big +Caney River. Most upstream stations on Grouse Creek were located on +highly intermittent streams that are treated below. + + + + +FAUNAS OF INTERMITTENT STREAMS + + +Because of severe, protracted drought, most of the streams studied had +ceased to flow by the close of the survey period. However, the duration +of intermittency varied greatly in different streams, as did its effect +in terms of the number and sizes of residual pools, water temperatures, +pollution, and turbidity. Crab Creek, Beaver Creek, and a small unnamed +tributary of Grouse Creek were severely affected by intermittency. Their +faunas are discussed below. + +In Crab Creek six collections were made from points near the mouth to +the uppermost pool in which water was found. Pools near the mouth were +as large as thirty feet in width and ninety feet in length, while those +that were uppermost were shallow puddles averaging ten feet in length +and five feet in width. The uppermost station was situated in bluestem +pasture without benefit of shade from trees. + +The species taken and their relative abundances based on five seine +hauls at each station are shown in Table 7. At the uppermost pool (G-17) +only small green sunfish were found. At G-16, next downstream, this +species was joined by large numbers of black bullheads and a few redfin +shiners and red shiners. G-13 was similar to G-16, but two additional +species occurred there. G-12 was a clear, deep pool much larger than any +at the stations upstream. Here, seven species were added to the fauna, +and the percentages of _Ictalurus melas_ and _Lepomis cyanellus_ were +much less. At G-10 _Fundulus notatus_, _Labidesthes sicculus_, and +_Minytrema melanops_ appeared. Nevertheless, fewer species (10) were +captured here than at station G-12 upstream. + + TABLE 7.--PERCENTAGES OF FISHES TAKEN ON CRAB CREEK. + + ==================================================================== + Stations | G-10 | G-11 | G-12 | G-13 | G-16 | G-17 + --------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------ + _Minytrema melanops_ | 8.7 | | | | | + _Labidesthes sicculus_ | 20.0 | 1.0 | | | | + _Fundulus notatus_ | 25.7 | 41.0 | | | | + _Ictalurus natalis_ | | 3.8 | .43| | | + _Pomoxis annularis_ | 8.8 | 11.8 | 1.9 | | | + _Lepomis humilis_ | 15.45| 9.9 | 8.5 | | | + _Micropterus salmoides_ | | | 1.9 | | | + _Etheostoma spectabile_ | 1.0 | | 1.9 | | | + _Percina caprodes_ | | | 3.8 | | | + _Moxostoma erythrurum_ | 1.0 | | 7.0 | | | + _Lepomis megalotis_ | 5.7 | 2.3 | 7.0 | 2.0 | | + _Pimephales notatus_ | | 34.0 | 9.0 | | | + _Ictalurus melas_ | 5.3 | .5 | 29.0 | 49.0 | | + _Notropis umbratilis_ | | 4.7 | 9.0 | 1.0 | | + _Notropis lutrensis_ | 20.6 | 26.0 | 25.0 | 14.0 | 1.0 | + _Lepomis cyanellus_ | 1.0 | | 1.9 | 34.0 | 49.0 | 100.0 + --------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------ + + + TABLE 8.--FISH TAKEN IN NINE POOLS ON UPPER BEAVER CREEK + (PROGRESSING FROM DOWNSTREAM TO UPSTREAM). + + ===================================================================== + | _Notropis | _Notropis | _Lepomis | _Lepomis | _Ictalurus + | umbratilis_ | lutrensis_| humilis_ | cyanellus_ | melas_ + ------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------+------------ + Pools:| | | | | + 1 | 5 adults | 4 adults | adults | young | 1 juvenile + | | 7 young | abundant | abundant | + | | | | | + 2 | 2 adults | 4 adults | 6 adults | young | + | | | | abundant | + | | | | | + 3 | | 1 adult | 7 adults | 3 juveniles| 2 juveniles + | | | | | + 4 | | | 4 adults | young | young + | | | | abundant | abundant + | | | | | + 5 | | | 2 adults | | + | | | | | + 6 | | | | 28 young | + | | | | | + 7 | | | | | + | | | | | + 8 | | | | | 1 adult + | | | | | + 9 | | | | | 1 adult + -------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------+------------ + +A series of collections similar to that on Crab Creek was carried out +along 1-1/2 miles of Beaver Creek on July 22, 1956. Nine pools were +sampled (Table 8) of which number nine was the uppermost point where +water was found (except for farm ponds). Mainly young of _Lepomis +cyanellus_ and _Ictalurus melas_ were found in the uppermost stations, +as on Crab Creek. Only adults of _Notropis lutrensis_ and _Notropis +umbratilis_ were taken. + +In another small intermittent tributary of Grouse Creek two collections +(G-14 and G-15) were made. One was from several isolated pools near the +source of the creek and the other was 1-1/2 miles upstream from the +mouth. The two stations were approximately four miles apart. Table 9 +indicates approximate percentages of fish taken in five seine hauls at +these stations. + + TABLE 9.--FISHES TAKEN IN A TRIBUTARY OF GROUSE CREEK. + + ================================================= + Species | Upstream | Downstream + | station | station + --------------------------+----------+----------- + _Ictalurus melas_ | 45% | + _Lepomis humilis_ | 48% | 40% + _Notropis lutrensis_ | 5% | 30% + _Lepomis cyanellus_ | 2% | 20% + _Fundulus notatus_ | | 10% + --------------------------+----------+----------- + +At two other stations, only _Lepomis cyanellus_ was found. One of these +stations consisted of several small spring-fed pools in a dry arroyo +tributary to Little Beaver Creek. Around these small "oases" rushes and +smartweeds grew and blackbirds were nesting in the rushes. Although +green sunfish up to eight inches in length were common in the shallow +pools, no other species was found. The second station (C-17) on the East +Fork Big Caney River is of special interest. The pool was isolated, had +dimensions of about 25×25 feet, and had an average depth of 15 inches. +The water was foul; cows had been fed fodder in a sheltered area above +the pool during the preceding winter and the entire bottom was covered +to a depth of 6 inches to 1 foot with a detritus of decomposing fodder, +cattle feces, and leaves. The water became almost inky in consistency +when the bottom was stirred and its odor was offensive. A thick +gray-green bloom lay on the surface. This bloom was full of bubbles +indicating gases rising from the bottom muds. One hundred fifty-three +green sunfish, all less than 5 inches in length, were taken in one +seine-haul at this station. + + + + +EAST-WEST DISTRIBUTION + + +In the Arkansas River system in Kansas there are marked differences +between fish faunas of the western and eastern parts of the state. This +can be illustrated by comparison of Spring River in Cherokee County with +the Cimarron River in southwestern Kansas. Single collections from +Spring River or its tributaries usually contain 25 or more species of +fish. Collections from the Cimarron rarely contain more than five or six +species. Many of those fishes found in Spring River are characteristic +of an Ozarkian fauna, and some are endemic to the Ozark uplands. Fish +found in the Cimarron or Arkansas in western Kansas are members of a +plains fauna of wide distribution. There is mingling of these two faunal +groups across the state, with the number of Ozarkian species diminishing +westward, and certain plains species diminishing eastward. A number of +species such as _Moxostoma duquesnii_ and _Notropis spilopterus_ are +limited, on the basis of present records, to Spring River and its +tributaries in Kansas. Others have not been taken west of the Neosho +drainage. The Verdigris River provides the next major avenue of westward +dispersal followed by Caney River, Grouse Creek, and the Walnut River. +West of the Walnut River system Ozarkian species have been almost always +absent from collections. The Chikaskia River is somewhat exceptional. +Moore and Buck (1953) reported from this river several species that seem +more typical of eastern faunal associations. Table 10 indicates the +stream system in which the present westernmost records are located for a +number of fishes found in the Arkansas River system in Kansas. + + TABLE 10.--PRESENT WESTERNMOST RECORDS OF SOME FISHES IN THE + ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN IN KANSAS. + + Spring River + _Cottus carolinae_ + _Dionda nubila_ + _Etheostoma blennioides_ + _Etheostoma gracile_ + _Etheostoma nigrum nigrum_ + _Etheostoma punctulatum_ + _Etheostoma saxatile_ + _Hypentelium nigricans_ + _Moxostoma duquesnii_ + _Notropis spilopterus_ + _Noturus exilis_ + + Neosho River + _Cycleptus elongatus_ + _Etheostoma chlorosomum_ + _Etheostoma flabellare lineolatum_ + _Hybopsis amblops_ + _Hybopsis biguttata_ + _Hybopsis x-punctata_ + _Notropis zonatus pilsbryi_ + + Verdigris River + _Etheostoma whipplii_ + _Etheostoma zonale arcansanum_ + _Percina copelandi_ + _Moxostoma carinatum_ + _Notropis boops_ + _Notropis volucellus_ + _Noturus miurus_ + + Chikaskia River + _Ictalurus natalis_ + _Percina phoxocephala_ + _Labidesthes sicculus_ + _Lepomis megalotis breviceps_ + _Micropterus punctulatus_ + _Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum_ + _Moxostoma erythrurum_ + _Notropis camurus_ + _Pimephales notatus_ + _Pimephales tenellus_ + _Noturus nocturnus_ + +The westernmost records for seven species are in the area studied. + +1. _Lepisosteus platostomus._ + +2. _Carpiodes velifer._ + +3. _Moxostoma carinatum._ + +4. _Minytrema melanops._ One specimen taken at station G-10 near the +mouth of Crab Creek constitutes the present westernmost record. A +specimen has been taken by Cross (C-24-51) in the headwaters of the +Walnut River. + +5. _Notropis boops._ The westernmost record is station G-5 on Grouse +Creek. This fish has been reported slightly west of this in Oklahoma on +Big Beaver Creek in Kay County (number 4776, Oklahoma A & M College +Museum of Zoology). + +6. _Notropis volucellus._ Two specimens were taken at station G-8 on +Silver Creek. + +7. _Percina copelandi._ The westernmost record is from station G-1, two +miles above the mouth of Grouse Creek. + +The easternmost occurrences of four species are in the area studied. +These species are _Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus_ (Station A-2), +_Notropis blennius_ (Station A-1), _Notropis girardi_ (Station A-2), +and _Fundulus kansae_ (Station A-2 and Walnut River). These fish are +associated with the Arkansas River proper and its sandy western +tributaries. In Oklahoma, these fish are found in the Arkansas River +as it proceeds eastward and in the downstream portions of some of its +tributaries. These fish show little tendency to ascend the streams of +the Flint Hills. + + + + +SUMMARY + + +The fish fauna of the area studied is transitional between the Ozarkian +and Great Plains faunas. + +Fluctuation in water level seemed especially important in determining +distribution of fishes in the area studied. Variable climate +characteristic of the region studied causes recurrent floods and +intermittency in streams. Both of these conditions have probably been +accentuated by man's modifications of the habitat. The effects of +intermittency were most strikingly demonstrated in small creeks of the +uplands. The number of species of fish in the highly intermittent +streams was small--especially in the uppermost pools sampled--but the +actual number of fish was often high even though the number of species +was low. In several instances the only fishes found in these isolated +pools were _Lepomis cyanellus_ and _Ictalurus melas_. This phenomenon of +concentrated numbers of individuals of a few species would indicate the +presence of limiting factors that allow only those species most +tolerant of the particular factor to flourish. + +Soon after rains restored flow in these intermittent creeks _L. +cyanellus_ and _I. melas_ appeared in parts of the channels that had +previously been several miles from the nearest water. Rapid upstream +movements of other species after rains was also noted. + +It was impossible to ascertain the precise effects of gradient and +bottom-type on distribution, but certain species such as _Notropis +blennius_, _Notropis girardi_, and _Fundulus kansae_ were taken only in +streams with sandy bottoms. _Notropis deliciosus_ and _Hybognathus +placita_ were most abundant over sandy bottoms. + +The high gradient of upland tributaries in the Flint Hills area produced +turbulence and bottoms predominantly of rubble. A fauna of which +_Etheostoma spectabile_ and _Campostoma anomalum_ were characteristic +existed in these waters while they were flowing. As flow decreased and +intermittency commenced, qualitative and quantitative changes in the +fish faunas were observed. Gradient did not change during drought, but +turbulence did. Because turbulence varies with water level as well as +gradient, the effect of gradient on fish distribution ultimately is +linked to climate. + +Probably the small number of fish taken on the Walnut River in +comparison with other eastern Kansas rivers (Verdigris, Neosho) results, +in part, from the long-term pollution of the stream noted by Clapp +(1920:33) and Doze (1924). No percid fishes, black bass, or madtom +catfish were taken on the Walnut in Cowley County and the species of +_Notropis_ numbered only three. + +Four faunal associations seem to be recognizable in the area. + + +_Arkansas River Fauna_ + +This fauna contained _Notropis girardi_, _Notropis blennius_, _Hybopsis +aestivalis tetranemus_, and _Fundulus kansae_ which, in this area, did +not seem to wander far from the sandy main stream of the Arkansas. +Minnows abounded; _Notropis lutrensis_ and _N. deliciosus missuriensis_ +predominated; and _Notropis girardi_, _N. percobromus_, and _Hybognathus +placita_ were common. In quiet backwaters, coves, and shallow pools +_Gambusia affinis_ occurred in great numbers. _Lepisosteus osseus_ +seemed to be the most important predator. + + +_Lower Walnut River Fauna_ + +The Walnut River in Cowley County supported large populations of +deep-bodied suckers, carp, and gar. _Notropis lutrensis_ and _N. +percobromus_ were characteristic minnows. _Lepomis_ _humilis_ abounded +at some stations. The fauna of the main stream of the Walnut River was +somewhat intermediate between that of the Arkansas River and that of the +three streams considered below. Fifteen of the species common to the Big +Caney, Elk, and Grouse systems were also taken in the Walnut River main +stream. Thirteen species were common to the Walnut and Arkansas rivers. +Seven species were common to all these streams. + + +_Caney-Elk-Grouse Main Stream Fauna_ + +This fauna includes fishes living not only in the main streams but also +in the lower parts of the larger tributaries of these streams. The fauna +was comparatively rich: in the main stream of Big Caney River 39 species +were taken, in Grouse Creek 35 species, in the Walnut River main stream +21 species, and in the Arkansas River 19 species. It has been pointed +out that large rivers such as the Walnut and Arkansas have been +subjected to greater direct and indirect modification by man, possibly +resulting in a less diverse fauna than would otherwise occur in these +streams. At present, there is a paucity of ecological niches in the +upland tributaries and large rivers, as compared with streams of +intermediate size. Fishes typical of the Caney-Elk-Grouse association +were _Notropis umbratilis_, _Lepomis megalotis_, _Lepomis humilis_, +_Labidesthes sicculus_, _Fundulus notatus_, and the two species of +_Micropterus (Micropterus punctulatus_ was not taken in Grouse Creek). + + +_Upland Tributary Fauna_ + +Tributary faunas were divisible into two categories: (1) Those of the +Walnut River and Grouse Creek (intermittency was severe, species were +few, with _Ictalurus melas_ and _Lepomis cyanellus_ predominating); (2) +those of Big Caney River (stream-flow was more stable, and eastern +fishes, some of which have Ozarkian affinities, occurred in greater +abundance than in any other part of the area surveyed). In the latter +streams _Campostoma anomalum_ and _Etheostoma spectabile_ usually were +dominant. _Pimephales notatus_, _Notropis volucellus_, _N. camurus_, _N. +boops_, and _N. rubellus_ characteristically occurred. _Notropis +lutrensis_ was sparsely represented in flowing tributaries. _Notropis +umbratilis_, which seems to prefer habitats intermediate between those +of _Notropis lutrensis_ and Ozarkian shiners, was usually represented. +Deep-bodied suckers and carp were not taken in upland tributaries but +_Moxostoma erythrurum_ was common and _Minytrema melanops_ was taken. + +The kinds and numbers of shiners (_Notropis_) taken at different points +along Grouse Creek seem significant. _N. lutrensis_ and _N. umbratilis_ +occurred throughout the stream but were rare in sluggish areas where +populations of _Gambusia affinis_, _Fundulus notatus_, and _Labidesthes +sicculus_ flourished. At the lowermost station _Notropis percobromus_ +and _N. buchanani_ were taken; these were not present in other +collections. In the uppermost stations where water remained plentiful, +_N. boops_ and _N. volucellus_ were taken, and _N. rubellus_ has been +recorded. + +In the broader distributional sense those fishes that seemed most +tolerant of intermittency (_Lepomis cyanellus_, _Lepomis humilis_, +_Ictalurus melas_, _Notropis lutrensis_) are widely distributed in the +Arkansas River Basin, and are common in the western part of the Arkansas +River Basin. Species less tolerant of intermittency are _Notropis +boops_, _Notropis camurus_, _Notropis rubellus_, _Notropis volucellus_, +and _Pimephales tenellus_; they have not been taken far west of the area +studied, and become more common east of it. + + + + +LITERATURE CITED + + + BASS, N. W. + + 1929. The geology of Cowley County, Kansas. Kansas Geol. Survey + Bull., 12:1-203, 23 figs., 12 pls. + + BIEBER, R. P. + + 1932. Frontier life in the army, 1854-1861. Southwest Historical + Series, 2:1-330. + + BREUKELMAN, J. + + 1940. A collection of fishes in the State University Museum. Trans. + Kansas Acad. Sci., 43:377-384. + + BUCK, H., and CROSS, F. B. + + 1951. Early limnological and fish population conditions of Canton + Reservoir, Oklahoma, and fishery management recommendations. + A Report to the Oklahoma Game and Fish Council reprinted by + the Research Foundation, Oklahoma A&M College. 110 pp., + 17 figs. + + CALDWELL, M. B. + + 1937. The southern Kansas boundary survey. Kansas Hist. Quart., + 6:339-377. + + CLAPP, A. + + 1920. Stream pollution. Kansas Fish and Game Department Bull., + 6:33. + + CROSS, F. B. + + 1950. Effects of sewage and of a headwaters impoundment on the + fishes of Stillwater Creek in Payne County, Oklahoma. Amer. + Midl. Nat., 43 (1):128-145, 1 fig. + + 1954a. Fishes of Cedar Creek and the south fork of the Cottonwood + River, Chase County, Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. + 57:303-314. + + 1954b. Records of fishes little-known from Kansas. Trans. Kansas + Acad. Sci. 57:473-479. + + CROSS, F. B., and MOORE, G. A. + + 1952. The fishes of the Poteau River, Oklahoma and Arkansas. + American Midl. Nat., 47 (2):396-412. + + DOZE, J. B. + + 1924. Stream pollution. Bien. Report. Kansas Fish and Game Dept. + 5:1-42. + + ELKIN, R. E. + + 1954. The fish population of two cut-off pools in Salt Creek, Osage + County, Oklahoma. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 35:25-29. + + ELLIOTT, A. + + 1947. A preliminary survey and ecological study of the fishes of + the South Ninnescah and Spring Creek. Unpublished thesis, + Kansas State College. + + EVERMANN, B. W., and FORDICE, M. W. + + 1886. List of fishes collected in Harvey and Cowley counties, + Kansas. Bull. Washburn Lab. Nat. Hist., 1:184-186. + + FLORA, S. D. + + 1948. Climate of Kansas. Rept. Kansas State Board Agric. + 67:xii-320, Illus. + + FOLEY, F. C., SMRHA, R. V., and METZLER, D. F. + + 1955. Water in Kansas. A report to the Kansas State Legislature as + directed by the Kansas State Finance Council. University of + Kansas, pp. 1-216--A1-J6. + + FRYE, J. C., and LEONARD, A. B. + + 1952. Pleistocene geology of Kansas. Bull. Kansas Geol. Surv., + 99:1-230. 17 figs., 19 pls. + + FUNK, J. L., and CAMPBELL, R. S. + + 1953. The population of larger fishes in Black River, Missouri. + Univ. Missouri Studies, 26:69-82. + + GATES, F. C. + + 1936. Grasses in Kansas. Rept. Kansas State Board Agric., 55 + (220-A):1-349, frontispiece, 270 figs., 224 maps. + + GRAHAM, I. D. + + 1885. Preliminary list of Kansas fishes. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., + 9:69-78. + + HALE, M. E., Jr. + + 1955. A survey of upland forests in the Chautauqua Hills, Kansas. + Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 58:165-168. + + HALL, G. E. + + 1952. Observations on the fishes of the Fort Gibson and Tenkiller + reservoir areas, 1952. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 33:55-63. + + 1953. Preliminary observations on the presence of stream-inhabiting + fishes in Tenkiller Reservoir, a new Oklahoma impoundment. + Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 34:34-40. + + HOYLE, W. L. + + 1936. Notes on faunal collecting in Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. + Sci., 39:283-293. + + HUBBS, C. L., and ORTENBURGER, A. I. + + 1929a. Further notes on the fishes of Oklahoma with descriptions of + new species of cyprinidae. Publ. Univ. Oklahoma Biol. Surv., + 1(2):17-43. + + 1929b. Fishes collected in Oklahoma and Arkansas in 1927. Publ. + Univ. Oklahoma Biol. Surv., 1 (3):47-112, 13 pls. + + HUBBS, C. L., and LAGLER, K. F. + + 1947. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. Cranbrook Inst. Sci. Bull., + 26 (Revised Edition):i-xi-1-186, illus. + + JEWETT, J. M., and ABERNATHY, G. E. + + 1945. Oil and gas in eastern Kansas. Bull. Kansas Geol. Survey, + 57:1-244, 21 figs., 4 pls. + + METZLER, D. F. + + 1952. Water Pollution Report, Walnut River Basin. Department of + Sanitation, Kansas State Board of Health (Unpublished), + 64 pp. + + MILLER, N. H. + + 1932. Surveying the southern boundary line of Kansas. Kansas Hist. + Quarterly, 1:104-139. + + MOORE, G. A. + + 1944. Notes on the early life history of _Notropis girardi_. + Copeia, 1944 (4):209-214, 4 Figs. + + MOORE, G. A., and CROSS, F. B. + + 1950. Additional Oklahoma fishes with validation of _Poecilichthys + parvipinnis_ (Gilbert and Swain). Copeia, 1950 (2):139-148. + + MOORE, G. A., and PADEN, J. M. + + 1950. The fishes of the Illinois River in Oklahoma and Arkansas. + Amer. Midl. Nat, 44:76-95, 1 Fig. + + MOORE, G. A., and BUCK, D. H. + + 1953. The fishes of the Chikaskia River in Oklahoma and Kansas. + Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 34:19-27. + + MOORE, R. C. + + 1949. Divisions of the Pennsylvanian system in Kansas. Bull. Kansas + Geol. Survey, 83:1-203, 37 Figs. + + MOORE, R. C., FRYE, J. C., JEWETT, J. M., LEE, W., and O'CONNER, H. G. + + 1951. The Kansas rock column. Bull. Kansas Geol. Survey, 89:1-132, + 52 Figs. + + MOOSO, J. + + 1888. The life and travels of Josiah Mooso. Telegram Post, + Winfield, Kansas, pp. 1-400. + + ORTENBURGER, A. I., and HUBBS, C. L. + + 1926. A report on the fishes of Oklahoma, with descriptions of new + genera and species. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 6:132-141. + + SCHELSKE, C. L. + + 1957. An ecological study of the fishes of the Fall and Verdigris + rivers in Wilson and Montgomery counties, Kansas, March 1954, + to February 1955. Emporia State Research Studies, 5(3):31-56. + + SCHOONOVER, R., and THOMPSON, W. H. + + 1954. A post-impoundment study of the fisheries resources of Fall + River Reservoir, Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 57:172-179. + + TRAUTMAN, M. B. + + 1951. _Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum_, a new subspecies of sucker + from the ozarkian streams of the Mississippi River System. + Occ. Papers Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 534:1-10, 1 pl. + + + _Transmitted December 19, 1958._ + + + 27-7079 + + + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS + MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + + +Institutional libraries interested in publications exchange may obtain +this series by addressing the Exchange Librarian, University of Kansas +Library, Lawrence, Kansas. Copies for individuals, persons working in a +particular field of study, may be obtained by addressing instead the +Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. There +is no provision for sale of this series by the University Library which +meets institutional requests, or by the Museum of Natural History which +meets the requests of individuals. However, when individuals request +copies from the Museum, 25 cents should be included, for each separate +number that is 100 pages or more in length, for the purpose of defraying +the costs of wrapping and mailing. + +* An asterisk designates those numbers of which the Museum's supply (not +the Library's supply) is exhausted. Numbers published to date, in this +series, are as follows: + + Vol. 1. Nos. 1-26 and index. Pp. 1-638, 1946-1950. + + *Vol. 2. (Complete) Mammals of Washington. By Walter W. Dalquest. + Pp. 1-444, 140 figures in text. April 9, 1948. + + Vol. 3. *1. The avifauna of Micronesia, its origin, evolution, and + distribution. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 1-359, 16 figures + in text. June 12, 1951. + + *2. A quantitative study of the nocturnal migration of birds. + By George H. Lowery, Jr. Pp. 361-472, 47 figures in text. + June 29, 1951. + + 3. Phylogeny of the waxwings and allied birds. By M. Dale + Arvey. Pp. 473-530, 49 figures in text, 13 tables. + October 10, 1951. + + 4. Birds from the state of Veracruz, Mexico. By George H. + Lowery, Jr., and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. 531-649, + 7 figures in text, 2 tables. October 10, 1951. + + Index. Pp. 651-681. + + *Vol. 4. (Complete) American weasels. By E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 1-466, + 41 plates, 31 figures in text. December 27, 1951. + + Vol. 5. Nos. 1-37 and index. Pp. 1-676, 1951-1953. + + *Vol. 6. (Complete) Mammals of Utah, _taxonomy and distribution_. + By Stephen D. Durrant. Pp. 1-549, 91 figures in text, + 30 tables. August 10, 1952. + + Vol. 7. *1. Mammals of Kansas. By E. Lendell Cockrum. Pp. 1-303, + 73 figures in text, 37 tables. August 25, 1952. + + 2. Ecology of the opossum on a natural area in + northeastern Kansas. By Henry S. Fitch and Lewis L. + Sandidge. Pp. 305-338, 5 figures in text. August 24, + 1953. + + 3. The silky pocket mice (Perognathus flavus) of Mexico. + By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 339-347, 1 figure in text. + February 15, 1954. + + 4. North American jumping mice (Genus Zapus). By Philip + H. Krutzsch. Pp. 349-472, 47 figures in text, 4 tables. + April 21, 1954. + + 5. Mammals from Southeastern Alaska. By Rollin H. Baker + and James S. Findley. Pp. 473-477. April 21, 1954. + + 6. Distribution of Some Nebraskan Mammals. By J. Knox + Jones, Jr. Pp. 479-487. April 21, 1954. + + 7. Subspeciation in the montane meadow mouse. Microtus + montanus, in Wyoming and Colorado. By Sydney Anderson. + Pp. 489-506, 2 figures in text. July 23, 1954. + + 8. A new subspecies of bat (Myotis velifer) from + southeastern California and Arizona. By Terry A. + Vaughan. Pp. 507-512. July 23, 1954. + + 9. Mammals of the San Gabriel mountains of California. + By Terry A. Vaughan. Pp. 513-582, 1 figure in text, 12 + tables. November 15, 1954. + + 10. A new bat (Genus Pipistrellus) from northeastern + Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 583-586. November 15, + 1954. + + 11. A new subspecies of pocket mouse from Kansas. By E. + Raymond Hall. Pp. 587-590. November 15, 1954. + + 12. Geographic variation in the pocket gopher, + Cratogeomys castanops, in Coahuila, Mexico. By Robert J. + Russell and Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 591-608. March 15, + 1955. + + 13. A new cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) from + northeastern Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 609-612. + April 8, 1955. + + 14. Taxonomy and distribution of some American shrews. + By James S. Findley. Pp. 613-618. June 10, 1955. + + 15. The pigmy woodrat, Neotoma goldmani, its + distribution and systematic position. By Dennis G. + Rainey and Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 619-624, 2 figures in + text. June 10, 1955. + + Index. Pp. 625-651. + + Vol. 8. 1. Life history and ecology of the five-lined skink, + Eumeces fasciatus. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 1-156, + 26 figs, in text. September 1, 1954. + + 2. Myology and serology of the Avian Family + Fringillidae, a taxonomic study. By William B. Stallcup. + Pp. 157-211, 23 figures in text, 4 tables. November 15, + 1954. + + 3. An ecological study of the collared lizard + (Crotaphytus collaris). By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 213-274, + 10 figures in text. February 10, 1956. + + 4. A field study of the Kansas ant-eating frog, + Gastrophryne olivacea. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 275-306, 9 + figures in text. February 10, 1956. + + 5. Check-list of the birds of Kansas. By Harrison B. + Tordoff. Pp. 307-359, 1 figure in text. March 10, 1956. + + 6. A population study of the prairie vole (Microtus + ochrogaster) in northeastern Kansas. By Edwin P. Martin. + Pp. 361-416, 19 figures in text. April 2, 1956. + + 7. Temperature responses in free-living amphibians and + reptiles of northeastern Kansas. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. + 417-476, 10 figures in text, 6 tables. June 1, 1956. + + 8. Food of the crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos Brehm, in + south-central Kansas. By Dwight Platt. Pp. 477-498, 4 + tables. June 8, 1956. + + 9. Ecological observations on the woodrat, Neotoma + floridana. By Henry S. Fitch and Dennis G. Rainey. Pp. + 499-533, 3 figures in text. June 12, 1956. + + 10. Eastern woodrat, Neotoma floridana: Life history and + ecology. By Dennis G. Rainey. Pp. 535-646, 12 plates, 13 + figures in text. August 15, 1956. + + Index. Pp. 647-675. + + Vol. 9. 1. Speciation of the wandering shrew. By James S. Findley. + Pp. 1-68, 18 figures in text. December 10, 1955. + + 2. Additional records and extensions of ranges of + mammals from Utah. By Stephen D, Durrant, M. Raymond + Lee, and Richard M. Hansen. Pp. 69-80. December 10, + 1955. + + 3. A new long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) from + northeastern Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker and Howard J. + Stains. Pp. 81-84. December 10, 1955. + + 4. Subspeciation in the meadow mouse, Microtus + pennsylvanicus, in Wyoming. By Sydney Anderson. Pp. + 85-104, 2 figures in text. May 10, 1956. + + 5. The condylarth genus Ellipsodon. By Robert W. Wilson. + Pp. 105-116, 6 figures in text. May 19, 1956. + + 6. Additional remains of the multituberculate genus + Eucosmodon. By Robert W. Wilson. Pp. 117-123, 10 figures + in text. May 19, 1956. + + 7. Mammals of Coahuila, Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. + 125-335, 75 figures in text. June 15, 1956. + + 8. Comments on the taxonomic status of Apodemus + peninsulae, with description of a new subspecies from + North China. By J. Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 337-346, 1 figure + in text, 1 table. August 15, 1956. + + 9. Extensions of known ranges of Mexican bats. By Sydney + Anderson. Pp. 347-351. August 15, 1956. + + 10. A new bat (Genus Leptonycteris) from Coahuila. By + Howard J. Stains. Pp. 353-356. January 21, 1957. + + 11. A new species of pocket gopher (Genus Pappogeomys) + from Jalisco, Mexico. By Robert J. Russell. Pp. 357-361. + January 21, 1957. + + 12. Geographic variation in the pocket gopher, Thomomys + bottae, in Colorado. By Phillip M. Youngman. Pp. + 363-387, 7 figures in text. February 21, 1958. + + 13. New bog lemming (genus Synaptomys) from Nebraska. By + J. Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 385-388. May 12, 1958. + + 14. Pleistocene bats from San Josecito Cave, Nuevo Leon, + Mexico. By J. Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 389-396. December 19, + 1958. + + 15. New Subspecies of the rodent Baiomys from Central + America. By Robert L. Packard. Pp. 397-404. December 19, + 1958. + + More numbers will appear in volume 9. + + Vol. 10. 1. Studies of birds killed in nocturnal migration. By + Harrison B. Tordoff and Robert M. Mengel. Pp. 1-44, + 6 figures in text, 2 tables. September 12, 1956. + + 2. Comparative breeding behavior of Ammospiza caudacuta + and A. maritima. By Glen E. Woolfenden. Pp. 45-75, 6 + plates, 1 figure. December 20, 1956. + + 3. The forest habitat of the University of Kansas + Natural History Reservation. By Henry S. Fitch and + Ronald R. McGregor. Pp. 77-127, 2 plates, 7 figures in + text, 4 tables. December 31, 1956. + + 4. Aspects of reproduction and development in the + prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). By Henry S. Fitch. + Pp. 129-161, 8 figures in text, 4 tables. December 19, + 1957. + + 5. Birds found on the Arctic slope of northern Alaska. + By James W. Bee. Pp. 163-211, pls. 9-10, 1 figure in + text. March 12, 1958. + + 6. The wood rats of Colorado: distribution and ecology. + By Robert B. Finley, Jr. Pp. 213-552, 34 plates, 8 + figures in text, 35 tables. November 7, 1958. + + More number will appear in volume 10. + + Vol. 11. 1. The systematic status of the colubrid snake, Leptodeira + discolor Günther. By William E. Duellman. Pp. 1-9, + 4 figs. July 14, 1958. + + 2. Natural history of the six-lined racerunner, + Cnemidophorus sexlineatus. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 11-62, + 9 figs., 9 tables. September 19, 1958. + + 3. Home ranges, territories, and seasonal movements of + vertebrates of the Natural History Reservation. By Henry + S. Fitch. Pp. 63-326, 6 plates, 24 figures in text, 3 + tables. December 12, 1958. + + 4. A new snake of the genus Geophis from Chihuahua, + Mexico. By John M. Legler. Pp. 327-334, 2 figures in + text. January 28, 1959. + + 5. A new tortoise, genus Gopherus, from north-central + Mexico. By John M. Legler. Pp. 335-343, 2 plates. April + 24, 1959. + + 6. Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk counties, + Kansas. By Artie L. Metcalf. Pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 + figures in text, 10 tables. May 6, 1959. + + More numbers will appear in Volume 11. + + * * * * * + + + + + TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES + + +1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_. + +2. Passages in bold-italics are surrounded by #bold#. + +3. Images and tables have been moved from the middle of a paragraph to +the closest paragraph break. + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk +Counties, Kansas, by Artie L. Metcalf + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FISHES *** + +***** This file should be named 34523-8.txt or 34523-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/4/5/2/34523/ + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/34523-8.zip b/34523-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c8f702d --- /dev/null +++ b/34523-8.zip diff --git a/34523-h.zip b/34523-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cca1b27 --- /dev/null +++ b/34523-h.zip diff --git a/34523-h/34523-h.htm b/34523-h/34523-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..30b83ae --- /dev/null +++ b/34523-h/34523-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,3948 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> +<html> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css"> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk Counties, Kansas, by Artie L. Metcalf. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 90%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + } /* page numbers */ + + .linenum {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */ + .pblockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + + .bb {border-bottom: solid 2px;} + .bl {border-left: solid 2px;} + .bt {border-top: solid 2px;} + .br {border-right: solid 2px;} + .bbox {border: solid 2px;} + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + .u {text-decoration: underline;} + + .caption {font-weight: bold;} + + .figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center;} + + + .hr30 {width:30%;} + .blockquot p {margin-left: 3.5em; text-indent: -2em;} + .cover {background: #d0d0d0;} + .caption1 {font-weight: bold; font-size:2.00em; text-align: center;} + .caption2 {font-weight: bold; font-size:1.50em; text-align: center;} + .caption3 {font-weight: bold; font-size:1.15em; text-align: center;} + .caption4 {font-weight: bold; font-size:0.75em; text-align: center;} + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk +Counties, Kansas, by Artie L. Metcalf + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk Counties, Kansas + +Author: Artie L. Metcalf + +Release Date: November 30, 2010 [EBook #34523] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FISHES *** + + + + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +</pre> + + + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Cover" id="Cover">[Cover]</a></span></p> + +<div class="cover"> +<p> </p> +<img src="images/bar_double.png" width="100%" height="15" border="0" alt="double bar"> +<div class="caption2"><div class="smcap">University of Kansas Publications<br> +Museum of Natural History</div></div> +<hr class="hr30"><br> +<div class="caption2">Volume 11, No. 6, pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 figs. in text, 10 tables</div><br> +<div class="center"><img src="images/bar_single.png" width="28%" height="15" title="bar" alt="bar"> <span class="caption2">May 6, 1959</span> <img src="images/bar_single.png" width="28%" height="15" title="bar" alt="bar"></div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<div class="caption1"> +Fishes of<br> +Chautauqua, Cowley and<br> +Elk Counties, Kansas +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<div class="caption3"> +BY<br> +<p> </p> +ARTIE L. METCALF<br> +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<div class="caption2"> +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas</span><br> +<span class="smcap">Lawrence</span><br> +1959 +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">[Pg 345]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<img src="images/bar_double.png" width="100%" height="15" border="0" alt="double bar"> +<div class="caption2"><div class="smcap">University of Kansas Publications<br> +Museum of Natural History</div></div> +<hr class="hr30"><br> +<div class="caption2">Volume 11, No. 6, pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 figs. in text, 10 tables</div><br> +<div class="center"><img src="images/bar_single.png" width="28%" height="15" title="bar" alt="bar"> <span class="caption2">May 6, 1959</span> <img src="images/bar_single.png" width="28%" height="15" title="bar" alt="bar"></div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<div class="caption1"> +Fishes of<br> +Chautauqua, Cowley and<br> +Elk Counties, Kansas +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<div class="caption3"> +BY<br> +<p> </p> +ARTIE L. METCALF<br> +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<div class="caption2"> +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas</span><br> +<span class="smcap">Lawrence</span><br> +1959 +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<hr> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">[Pg 346]</a></span></p> +<div class="center"> +<div class="caption3"> +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History</span><br> +<br> +Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, Henry S. Fitch,<br> +Robert W. Wilson<br> +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +Volume 11, No. 6, pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 figs. in text, 10 tables<br> +<br> +Published May 6, 1959<br> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas</span><br> +Lawrence, Kansas<br> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<span class="smcap">A Contribution From<br> +The State Biological Survey of Kansas</span><br> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<div class="caption4"> +PRINTED IN<br> +THE STATE PRINTING PLANT<br> +TOPEKA, KANSAS<br> +1959<br> +<br> +27-7079<br> +</div> +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + + + + + + +<hr> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">[Pg 347]</a></span></p> +<h1>Fishes of<br> +Chautauqua, Cowley and<br> +Elk Counties, Kansas</h1> + +<h4>BY</h4> + +<h3>ARTIE L. METCALF</h3> + + +<hr> +<h2>CONTENTS</h2> + + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Introduction</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_347">347</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Physical characteristics of the streams</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_351">351</a><a href="#Page_351"></a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Climate</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_351">351</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Present flora</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_353">353</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>History</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_354">354</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Conservation</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_357">357</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Previous ichthyological collections</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_357">357</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Acknowledgments</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_358">358</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Materials and methods</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_358">358</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Collecting stations</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_359">359</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Annotated list of species</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Fishes of doubtful or possible occurrence</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_383">383</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Faunal comparisons of different streams</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_384">384</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Distributional variations within the same stream</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_387">387</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Faunas of intermittent streams</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_390">390</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>East-west distribution</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_392">392</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Summary</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_394">394</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'>Literature cited</td><td align='left'><a href="#Page_397">397</a></td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<hr> + +<h2>INTRODUCTION</h2> + +<p>Aims of the distributional study here reported on concerning the fishes +of a part of the Arkansas River Basin of south-central Kansas were as +follows:</p> + +<p>(1) Ascertain what species occur in streams of the three counties.</p> + +<p>(2) Ascertain habitat preferences for the species found.</p> + +<p>(3) Distinguish faunal associations existing in different parts of the +same stream.</p> + +<p>(4) Describe differences and similarities among the fish faunas of the +several streams in the area.</p> + +<p>(5) Relate the findings to the over-all picture of east-west +distribution of fishes in Kansas.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">[Pg 348]</a></span></p> + +<p>(6) List any demonstrable effects of intermittency of streams on fish +distribution within the area.</p> + +<p>Cowley and Chautauqua counties form part of the southern border of +Kansas, and Elk County lies directly north of Chautauqua. The following +report concerns data only from those three counties unless otherwise +noted. They make up an area of 2,430 square miles having a population of +50,960 persons in 1950 (55,552 in 1940, and 60,375 in 1930). The most +populous portion of the area is western Cowley County where Arkansas +City with 12,903 inhabitants and Winfield with 10,264 inhabitants are +located. Each of the other towns has less than 2,000 inhabitants. In the +Flint Hills, which cross the central portion of the area surveyed, +population is sparse and chiefly in the valleys.</p> + +<p>Topographically, the area is divisible into three general sections: the +extensive Wellington formation and the floodplain of the Arkansas River +in western Cowley County; the Flint Hills in the central part of the +area; and the "Chautauqua Hills" in the eastern part. The drainage +pattern is shown in Figure 1.</p> + +<p>The Wellington formation, which is devoid of sharp relief, borders the +floodplain of the Arkansas River through most of its course in Cowley +County. A short distance south of Arkansas City, however, the Arkansas +is joined by the Walnut River and enters a narrow valley walled by +steep, wooded slopes. Frye and Leonard (1952:198) suggest that this +valley was originally carved by the Walnut River, when the Arkansas +River flowed southward west of its present course. They further suggest +that during Nebraskan glacial time the Arkansas probably was diverted to +the rapidly downcutting Walnut. The Arkansas River has a gradient of 3.0 +ft. per mile in Cowley County. This gradient and others cited were +computed, by use of a cartometer, from maps made by the State Geological +Survey of Kansas and the United States Geological Survey.</p> + +<p>Northward along the Walnut, steep bluffs and eroded gulleys characterize +both sides of the river, especially in southern Cowley County. Two +massive limestones, the Fort Riley and the Winfield, form the bluffs in +most places. The well-defined Winfield limestone is persistent on the +west bank of the river across the entire county. The Walnut has only a +few small tributaries in the southern half of Cowley County (Fig. 1). In +the northern half, however, it is joined from the east by Timber Creek and +Rock Creek. Timber Creek drains a large level area, formed by the eroded upper +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">[Pg 349]</a></span> +portion of the Fort Riley limestone, in the north-central +portion of the county. The gradient of Timber Creek is 12.9 feet per +mile. The gradient of the Walnut River is only 2.3 ft. per mile from its +point of entrance into the county to its mouth.</p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 776px;"> +<img src="images/i007.jpg" width="776" height="600" alt="Fig. 1." title="Fig. 1."> +<span class="caption">Fig. 1. Map of Cowley, Chautauqua and Elk counties, +Kansas, showing the streams mentioned in the text</span> +</div> + +<p>Grouse Creek, like the Walnut, has formed a valley of one to three miles +in width, rimmed by prominent wooded bluffs. Those on the west side are +capped by the Fort Riley limestone with the resistant Wreford and Crouse +limestones forming lower escarpments. On the east side the Wreford and +Crouse limestones provide the only escarpments along the stream above +the Vinton community, except for occasional lower outcrops of Morrill +limestone. Below Vinton the Fort Riley limestone again appears, capping +the hills above the Wreford limestone. The headwaters of the western +tributaries of Grouse Creek are generally in the Doyle shale formation; +the eastern tributaries are in the Wreford limestone, Matfield shale, +and Barnestone limestone formations. The gradient of Grouse Creek is 9 +ft. per mile, of Silver Creek 14.6 ft. per mile, and of Crab Creek 14.4 +ft. per mile.</p> + +<p>The Big Caney River (Fig. 1), having a gradient of 15.4 ft. per mile in +the area studied, drains an area with considerable geological and +topographic variation. The main stream and its western tributaries +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">[Pg 350]</a></span> +originate in Permian formations, whereas the eastern tributaries +originate in Pennsylvanian formations. Cedar Creek is exemplary of +western tributaries of Big Caney. This creek arises in the Wreford +limestone, as do several nearby tributaries of Grouse Creek. Although +the Grouse tributaries descend through only part of the Council Grove +group, Cedar Creek flows downward through the entire Grove, Admire, and +Wabaunsee groups and part of the Shawnee Group (Moore, 1951). In only 15 +miles, Cedar Creek traverses formations comprising more than 60 per cent +of the entire exposed stratigraphic section in Cowley County. Bass +(1929:16) states that reliefs of 350 feet within a mile are present in +parts of this area.</p> + +<p>Large terraces of limestone characterize the eastern flank of the Flint +Hills, which the western tributaries of Big Caney drain. Most striking +is the Foraker limestone. It characteristically consists of three +massive members in Cowley County, the uppermost of which forms the +prominent first crest of the Flint Hills. As the rapid-flowing western +tributaries of Big Caney descend over these successive limestone +members, large quantities of chert and limestone rubble are transported +and deposited in stream beds of the system. In many places the streams +of the Big Caney system flow over resistant limestone members, which +form a bedrock bottom. The eastern tributaries of Big Caney drain, for +the most part, formations of the Wabaunsee group of the Pennsylvanian. +Most of these streams have lower gradients than those entering Big Caney +from the west. The tributaries of Big Caney, along with length in miles +and gradient in feet per mile, are as follows: Spring Creek, 7.1, 54.5; +Union Creek, 6.3, 42.9; Otter Creek, 14.6, 27.4; Cedar Creek, 11.6, +31.0; Rock Creek, 15.9, 26.5; Wolf Creek, 9.3, 17.2; Turkey Creek, 8.5, +26.4; Grant Creek, 13.9, 23.4; and Sycamore Creek, 8.9, 27.0.</p> + +<p>Spring Creek and Union Creek are short and have formed no extensive +floodplain. The high gradients of these creeks are characteristic also +of the upper portions of several other tributaries such as Cedar Creek +and Otter Creek.</p> + +<p>Middle Caney Creek (Fig. 1) has its source in the Wabaunsee and Shawnee +groups of the Pennsylvanian but its watershed is dominated by the +"Chautauqua Hills" of the Douglas Group. This area is described by Moore +(1949:127) as "an upland formed by hard sandstone layers." The rough +rounded hills supporting thick growths of oaks differ in appearance from +both the Big Caney watershed on the west and the Verdigris River +watershed on the east. The gradient of Middle Caney in Chautauqua County is +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">[Pg 351]</a></span> +10.8 feet per mile. Its largest tributary, North Caney Creek, has a +gradient of 15.5 feet per mile.</p> + +<p>The Elk River Basin resembles the Big Caney River Basin topographically. +Elk River has a gradient of 14.4 feet per mile.</p> + + +<hr> +<h2>PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS</h2> + +<p>The stream channels derive their physical characteristics from the +geological make-up of the area and from land-use. The Arkansas River +typically has low banks; however, in a few places, as in the NE ¼ of +Section 21, T. 33 S, R. 3 E, it cuts into limestone members to form +steep rocky banks. The bottom is predominantly sand. In years of heavy +rainfall the river is turbid, but during 1956, when it occupied only a +small portion of its channel, it was clear each time observed. All +streams surveyed were clear except after short periods of flooding in +June, and except in some isolated pools where cattle had access to the +water.</p> + +<p>In the Walnut River, sand bottoms occur in the lower part of the stream +but the sand is coarser than that of the Arkansas River. Upstream, +gravel and rubble bottoms become more common. Steep rocky banks border +most of the course of the Walnut. During 1956, stream-flow was confined +to the center of the channel, remote from these rocky banks.</p> + +<p>The rubble and bedrock bottoms found in most streams of the Flint Hills +have been described. In the alluvial valleys of their lower courses mud +bottoms are found. Gravel is present in some places but sand is absent. +Banks are variable but often steep and wooded. Along east- or +west-flowing streams the north bank characteristically is low and +sloping whereas the south bank is high, rises abruptly, and in many +places is continuous with wooded hills. The lower sections of Otter +Creek, Cedar Creek, and Rock Creek fit this description (Bass, 1929:19) +especially well, as does Elk River near Howard.</p> + +<p>Streams in the Chautauqua Hills resemble those of the Flint Hills in +physical characteristics, except that a larger admixture of sandstone +occurs in the rubble.</p> + + +<hr> +<h2>CLIMATE</h2> + +<p>The climate of the area is characterized by those fluctuations of +temperature, wind, and rainfall typical of the Great Plains. The mean +annual temperature is 58 degrees; the mean July temperature is 81 +degrees; the mean January temperature is approximately 34 degrees. The +mean annual precipitation is 32.9 in Cowley County, 38.5 in Chautauqua +County, and 35.1 in Elk County. Wind movement is great; Flora (1948:6) +states that south-central Kansas ranks close to some of the windiest +inland areas in the United States.</p> + +<p>The area has been periodically subjected to droughts and floods. Such +phenomena are of special interest to ichthyological workers in the area. +At the time of this study drought conditions, which began in 1952, +prevailed. Even in this period of drought, however, flooding occurred on +Grouse Creek and water was high in Big Caney River after heavy local +rains on the headwaters of these streams on June 22, 1956. Some of the +lower tributaries of these same streams (such as Crab Creek and Cedar +Creek) did not flow while the mainstreams were flooding. This +illustrates the local nature of many of the summer rains in the area.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">[Pg 352]</a></span></p> + +<p>Table 1 indicates maximum, minimum, and average discharges in cubic +feet per second at several stations in the area and on nearby +streams. These figures were provided by the U. S. Geological +Survey.</p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 1.—Cubic Feet Per Second of Water Discharged at Gauging Stations +in Chautauqua, Elk, Montgomery, and Cowley Counties for Years Prior to +1951.</span></h4> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1" summary="Table 1" width="70%"> +<tr><th>Gauging station</th><th>Drainage area (sq. mi.)</th><th>Avg discharge</th><th>Maximum discharge</th><th>Date</th><th>Minimum discharge</th><th>Date</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Arkansas River at Arkansas City</td><td align='right'>43,713</td><td align='right'>1,630</td><td align='right'>103,000</td><td align='right'>June 10, 1923</td><td align='right'>1</td><td align='right'>October 9, 1921</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Walnut River at Winfield</td><td align='right'>1,840</td><td align='right'>738</td><td align='right'>105,000</td><td align='right'>April 23, 1944</td><td align='right'>0</td><td align='right'>1928, 1936</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Big Caney River at Elgin</td><td align='right'>445</td><td align='right'>264</td><td align='right'>35,500</td><td align='right'>April 10, 1944</td><td align='right'>0</td><td align='right'>1939, 1940, 1946, 1947</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Elk River near Elk City</td><td align='right'>575</td><td align='right'>393</td><td align='right'>39,200</td><td align='right'>April 16, 1945</td><td align='right'>0</td><td align='right'>1939, 1940, 1946</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Fall River near Fall River</td><td align='right'>591</td><td align='right'>359</td><td align='right'>45,600</td><td align='right'>April 16, 1945</td><td align='right'>0</td><td align='right'>1939, 1940, 1946</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Verdigris River at Independence</td><td align='right'>2,892</td><td align='right'>1,649</td><td align='right'>117,000</td><td align='right'>April 17, 1945</td><td align='right'>0</td><td align='right'>1932, 1934, 1936, 1939, 1940</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>Something of the effect that drought and flash-flood have had on Big +Caney River is shown by the monthly means of daily discharge from +October, 1954, to September, 1956, at the stream-gauging station near +Elgin, Kansas (Table 2). Within these monthly variations there are also +pronounced daily fluctuations; on Big Caney River approximately ¼ mile +south of Elgin, Kansas, discharge in cubic feet per second for May, +1944, ranged from .7 to 9,270.0 and for May, 1956, from .03 to 20.0.</p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 2.—Monthly Means of Daily Discharge in Cubic Feet per Second for +Big Caney River at Elgin, Kansas</span></h4> + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Table 2" width="40%"> +<tr><th><i>Month</i></th><th><i>1954-55</i></th><th><i>1955-56</i></th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>October</td><td align='right'>103.00</td><td align='right'>69.60</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>November</td><td align='right'>.31</td><td align='right'>.78</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>December</td><td align='right'>.18</td><td align='right'>1.92</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>January</td><td align='right'>.78</td><td align='right'>1.65</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>February</td><td align='right'>4.76</td><td align='right'>2.08</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>March</td><td align='right'>3.37</td><td align='right'>1.27</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>April</td><td align='right'>4.91</td><td align='right'>.47</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>May</td><td align='right'>624.00</td><td align='right'>7.37</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>June</td><td align='right'>51.30</td><td align='right'>35.20</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>July</td><td align='right'>1.20</td><td align='right'>1.85</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>August</td><td align='right'>0.00</td><td align='right'>0.00</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>September</td><td align='right'>.04</td><td align='right'>0.00</td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<hr> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">[Pg 353]</a></span></p> + +<h2>PRESENT FLORA</h2> + +<p>The flora of the region varies greatly at the present time. Land-use has +altered the original floral communities, especially in the intensively +cultivated area of western Cowley County and in the river valleys.</p> + +<p>The sandy Arkansas River floodplain exhibits several stages ranging from +sparsely vegetated sandy mounds near the river through stages of Johnson +grass, willow, and cottonwood, to an elm-hackberry fringe-forest. The +Wellington formation bordering the floodplain supports a prairie flora +where not disturbed by cultivation; Gates (1936:15) designates this as a +part of the mixed bluestem and short-grass region. <i>Andropogon gerardi</i> +Vitman., <i>Andropogon</i> <i>scoparius</i> Michx., <i>Sorghastrum nutans</i> (L.), and +<i>Panicum</i> <i>virgatum</i> L. are important grasses in the hilly +pasture-lands. Although much of this land is virgin prairie, the tall, +lush condition of the grasses described by early writers such as Mooso +(1888:304), and by local residents, is not seen today. These residents +speak of slough grasses (probably <i>Tripsacum dactyloides</i> L. and +<i>Spartina pectinata</i> Link.) that originally formed rank growths. These +no doubt helped conserve water and stabilize flow in small headwater +creeks. Remnants of some of these sloughs can still be found. The +streams in the Flint Hills have fringe-forests of elm, hackberry, +walnut, ash, and willow.</p> + +<p>Eastward from the Flint Hills these fringe-forests become thicker with a +greater admixture of hickories and oaks. The north slopes of hills also +become more wooded. However, grassland remains predominant over woodland +in western Chautauqua and Elk counties, whereas in the eastern one-half +of Chautauqua County and the eastern one-third of Elk County the wooded +Chautauqua Hills prevail. This is one of the most extensive wooded +upland areas in Kansas. Hale (1955:167) describes this woodland as part +of an ecotonal scrub-oak forest bordering the Great Plains south through +Texas. He found stand dominants in these wooded areas to be <i>Quercus +marilandica</i> Muenchh., <i>Quercus stellata</i> Wang., and <i>Quercus velutina</i> +Lam.</p> + +<p>Few true aquatic plants were observed in the Arkansas River although +mats of duckweed were found in shallow backwater pools at station A-3 +(Fig. 2) on December 22, 1956. In the Walnut River <i>Najas guadalupensis</i> +Spreng. was common at station W-2. Stones were usually covered with +algae in both the Arkansas and Walnut rivers. A red bloom, possibly +attributable to <i>Euglena rubra</i> (Johnson), was observed on a tributary +of the Walnut River on July 9, 1956, at station W-4.</p> + +<p>Green algae were abundant at all stations in the Caney, Elk, and Grouse +systems during May and June, 1956, and reappeared late in September. +<i>Chara</i> sp. was common in these streams in April and May.</p> + +<p>The most characteristic rooted aquatic of streams in the Flint Hills was +<i>Justicia americana</i> L. At station G-7 on Grouse Creek and Station C-8 +on Big Caney River (Fig. 3), <i>Nelumbo lutea</i> (Willd.) was found. +<i>Myriophyllum heterophyllum</i> Michx. formed dense floating mats at a +number of stations. Other aquatic plants observed in the Caney, Elk, and +Grouse systems included <i>Potamogeton gramineus</i> L., <i>Potamogeton +nodosus</i> Poir., <i>Potamogeton foliosus</i> Raf., <i>Sagittaria latifolia</i> +Willd., <i>Typha latifolia</i> L., and <i>Jussiaea diffusa</i> Forsk.</p> + +<hr> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">[Pg 354]</a></span></p> + +<h2>HISTORY</h2> + +<p>In 1857, a survey was made of the southern boundary of Kansas. Several +diaries (Miller, 1932; Caldwell, 1937; Bieber, 1932) were kept by +members of the surveying party, which traveled from east to west. These +accounts contain complaints of difficulty in traversing a country of +broken ridges and gulleys as the party approached the area now +comprising Chautauqua County. One account by Hugh Campbell, astronomical +computer for the party (Caldwell, 1937) mentions rocky ridges covered +with dense growth of "black jack," while another by Col. Joseph +Johnson, Commander (Miller, 1932) speaks of "a good deal of oakes in the +heights"—indicating that the upland oak forest of the Chautauqua +Hills was in existence at that time. On reaching Big Caney River near +Elgin, Campbell wrote of a stream with very high banks and of a valley +timbered with oak and black walnut. While the party was encamped on Big +Caney River some fishing was done. Campbell (Caldwell, 1937:353) +described the fish taken as "Cat, Trout or Bass, Buffalo and Garr." +Eugene Bandel (Bieber, 1932:152) wrote, "This forenoon we did not expect +to leave camp, and therefore we went fishing. In about two hours we +caught more fish than the whole company could eat. There were some forty +fish caught, some of them weighing over ten pounds." It was noted +that the waters of Big Caney and its tributaries were "very clear." +Progressing up Rock Creek, Johnson wrote of entering a high rolling +plain covered with fine grass, and crossed occasionally by clear wooded +streams (probably Big and Little Beaver Creeks and Grouse Creek). The +diary of Hugh Campbell (Caldwell, 1937:354) contains a description of +the Arkansas River Valley near the Oklahoma border. "The Arkansas River +at this point is about 300 yards wide, its waters are muddy, not quite +so much so, as those of the Mississippi or Rio Bravo. Its valley is +wooded and about two miles in width, the main bottom here, being on the +east side. On the west it is a rolling prairie as far as the eye can +see, affording excellent grass." Some seining was done while +encamped on the Arkansas River and "buffalo, catfish, sturgeons, and +gars" were taken (Bieber, 1932:156).</p> + +<p>An editorial in the Winfield Courier of November 16, 1899, vigorously +registers concern about a direct effect of settlement on fish +populations in rivers of the area:</p> + +<p>"The fish in the streams of Cowley County are being slaughtered by the +thousands, by the unlawful use of the seine and the deadly hoop net. +Fish are sold on the market every day, sometimes a tubful at a time, +which never swallowed a hook.</p> + +<p>"The fish law says it is unlawful to seine, snare, or trap fish but some +of the smaller streams in the county, it is said are so full of hoop and +trammel nets that a minnow cannot get up or down stream. These nets not +only destroy what fish there are in the streams but they keep other fish +from coming in, they are not operated as a rule by farmers to supply +their own tables but by fellows who catch the fish to sell with no +thought or care for the welfare of others who like to catch and eat +fish.</p> + +<p>"If there is a fishwarden in Cowley County so far as his utility goes +the county would be as well off without him and his inactivity has +caused many of those interested to get together for the purpose of +seeing that the law is enforced.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">[Pg 355]</a></span></p> + +<p>"Depredations like this work injury in more ways than one. They not only +deplete the streams of fish large enough to eat and destroy the source +of supply but if the U. S. Fish Commission discovers that the law is not +enforced and the fish not protected, there will be no free government +fish placed in Cowley County streams. It is useless for the Government +to spend thousands of dollars to keep the streams well supplied if a few +outlaws are allowed to ruthlessly destroy them. The new organization has +its eye on certain parties now and something is liable to drop +unexpectedly soon."</p> + +<p>Graham (1885:78) listed 13 species of fish that had already been +introduced into Kansas waters prior to 1885 by the State Fish +Commission.</p> + +<p>These early references indicate that direct effects of settlement on the +native flora and fauna were recognized early. Concern such as that +expressed in the editorial above persists today; however, it is not +clear whether the fish fauna of the streams of the area has been +essentially changed by man's predation. The indirect effects through +human modifications of the environment seem to be of much importance. +Three modifications which have especially affected streams have been +agricultural use, urbanization, and industrialization.</p> + +<p>The effect of land-use on streams is closely related to its effect on +the flora of the watershed. Turbidity, sedimentation, and the rate, +periodicity, and manner of flow all bear some relationship to the +land-use of the watershed. Stream-flow in the area has been discussed in +the section on climate.</p> + +<p>The effects of urbanization are more tangible and better recognized than +those of agricultural land-use. Streams that flow through cities and +other populous areas undergo some modification, especially of the +streamside flora. Another effect of urbanization has been increased +loads of sewage discharged into the streams. The combined populations of +Arkansas City and Winfield rose from 3,986 in 1880 to 23,167 in 1950. +Arkansas City found it necessary to construct a sewage system in 1889; +Winfield in 1907.</p> + +<p>There are, at the present time, nine towns within the area that have +municipal sewage systems. The State Training Home at Winfield also has a +sewage system. The Kansas State Board of Health, Division of Sanitation, +has provided information concerning adequacy of these systems and +certain others in nearby counties as of February 5, 1957. This +information is shown in Table 3.</p> + +<p>Representatives of the Division of Sanitation, Kansas State Board of +Health, expressed the belief that pollution by both domestic sewage and +industrial wastes would be largely eliminated in the "lower Arkansas" +and in the Walnut watershed by 1959.</p> + +<p>Important oil and gas resources have been discovered in each of the +three counties. The first producing wells were drilled between 1900 and +1902 (Jewett and Abernathy, 1945:24). The Arkansas River flows through +several oilfields in its course across Cowley County (Jewett and +Abernathy, 1945:97). A number of producing wells have been drilled in +the Grouse Creek watershed since 1939 and many of these wells are near +the banks of the creek. In the Big Caney watershed of Cowley and +Chautauqua counties there has been little oil production in recent +years; however, a few small pools are presently producing in +southwestern Elk County.</p> + +<p>Clapp (1920:33) stated that "Many of the finest streams of our state are +now destitute of fish on account of oil and salt pollution. The Walnut +River, once as fine a bass stream as could be found anywhere, and a +beautiful stream, too, is now a murky oil run, and does not contain a +single fish so far as I know. The Fall and Verdigris rivers are +practically ruined. Both the Caney rivers are affected, and may soon be +ruined for fishing." Doze (1924:31) noted "Some of the finest +streams in the state have been ruined as habitat for wild life, the +Walnut River is probably the most flagrant example."</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">[Pg 356]</a></span></p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 3.—Sewage Disposal Facilities in Some South-central Kansas +Communities.</span></h4> + + + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" summary="Table 3"> +<tr><th>Community</th><th>Status on February 5, 1957</th><th>Remarks</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Cowley County:</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Arkansas City</td><td align='left'>Discharging raw sewage</td><td align='left'>Adequate plant in design stage.</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Geuda Springs</td><td align='left'>Discharging raw sewage</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Winfield</td><td align='left'>Inadequate</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> State training school</td><td align='left'>Adequate</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Udall</td><td align='left'>Adequate</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Chautauqua County:</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Cedar Vale</td><td align='left'>Inadequate</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Sedan</td><td align='left'>Adequate</td><td align='left'>In operation 30 days.</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Elgin</td><td align='left'>Adequate</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Elk County:</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Moline</td><td align='left'>Inadequate</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Howard</td><td align='left'>Adequate</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Sumner County:</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Belle Plaine</td><td align='left'>Discharging raw sewage</td><td align='left'>Adequate plant under construction.</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Mulvane</td><td align='left'>Discharging raw sewage</td><td align='left'>Adequate plant under construction.</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Oxford</td><td align='left'>Discharging raw sewage</td><td align='left'>Construction on adequate plant to start soon.</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Butler County:</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Augusta</td><td align='left'>Adequate</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> El Dorado</td><td align='left'>Discharging raw sewage</td><td align='left'>Adequate plant under construction.</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> Douglass</td><td align='left'>Discharging raw sewage</td><td align='left'>Adequate plant to go into operation within 30 days.</td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<p>Pollution by petroleum wastes from refineries has also affected the +streams studied. The only refinery within the area is at Arkansas City. +In Butler County there are four refineries on the Walnut watershed +upstream from the area surveyed. Metzler (1952) noted that "fish-kills" +occurred from the mid-1940's until 1952 in connection with wastes +periodically discharged from these refineries. However, the largest +kill, in 1944, was attributed to excessive brine pollution.</p> + + +<p>In Arkansas City a meat-packing plant, a large railroad workshop, two +flour mills, two milk plants, and several small manufacturing plants +contribute wastes which may figure in industrial pollution. There are +milk plants and small poultry processing plants at Winfield. In +Chautauqua and Elk Counties there is little industrial activity.</p> + + +<hr> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">[Pg 357]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CONSERVATION</h2> + +<p>In recent years several measures have been implemented or proposed to +conserve the water and land resources of the Arkansas River Basin. +Droughts and floods have focused public attention on such conservation. +Less spectacular, but nevertheless important, problems confronting +conservationists include streambank erosion, channel deterioration, +silting, recreational demands for water, and irrigation needs.</p> + +<p>Congress has authorized the U. S. Corps of Engineers (by the Flood +Control Act of 1941) to construct six dam and reservoir projects in the +Verdigris watershed. Two of these—Hulah Reservoir in Osage County, +Oklahoma, on Big Caney River, and Fall River Reservoir in Greenwood +County, Kansas—have been completed. Other reservoirs authorized in the +Verdigris watershed include Toronto, Neodesha, and Elk City (Table +Mound) in Kansas and Oologah in Oklahoma. Construction is underway on +the Toronto Reservoir and some planning has been accomplished on the +Neodesha and Elk City projects.</p> + +<p>The possibilities of irrigation projects in the Verdigris and Walnut +River basins are under investigation by the United States Bureau of +Reclamation (Foley, <i>et al.</i>, 1955:F18).</p> + +<p>An area of 11 square miles in Chautauqua and Montgomery Counties is +included in the Aiken Creek "Pilot Watershed Project," a co-operative +effort by federal, state, and local agencies to obtain information as to +the effects of an integrated watershed protection program (Foley, <i>et +al.</i>, 1955:131).</p> + + +<hr> +<h2>PREVIOUS ICHTHYOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS</h2> + +<p>Few accounts of fishes in the area here reported on have been published. +Evermann and Fordice (1886:184) made a collection from Timber Creek at +Winfield in 1884.</p> + +<p>The State Biological Survey collected actively from 1910 to 1912, but +localities visited in the Arkansas River System were limited to the +Neosho and Verdigris River basins (Breukelman, 1940:377). The only +collection made in the area considered here was on the Elk River in Elk +County on July 11, 1912. The total species list of this collection is +not known.</p> + +<p>In the years 1924-1929 Minna E. Jewell collected at various places in +central Kansas. On June 30, 1925, Jewell and Frank Jobes made +collections on Timber Creek and Silver Creek in Cowley County.</p> + +<p>Hoyle (1936:285) mentions collections made by himself and Dr. Charles E. +Burt, who was then Professor of Biology at Southwestern College, +Winfield, Kansas. Records in the Department of Biology, Kansas State +Teachers College at Emporia, indicate that Dr. Burt and others made +collections in the area which have not been published on.</p> + + + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">[Pg 358]</a></span></p> + + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 4.—Collections Made by Dr. Frank B. Cross of the State Biological +Survey in 1955.</span></h4> + + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Table 4"> +<tr><th>Collection number</th><th>Date</th><th>River</th><th>Location</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>C-131</td><td align='left'>April 5, 1955</td><td align='left'>Elk</td><td align='left'>Sec. 3, T31S, R11E</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>C-132</td><td align='left'>April 5, 1955</td><td align='left'>Sycamore</td><td align='left'>Sec. 5, T34S, R10E</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>C-133</td><td align='left'>April 5, 1955</td><td align='left'>Big Caney</td><td align='left'>Sec. 12, T34S, R8E</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>C-136</td><td align='left'>April 6, 1955</td><td align='left'>Walnut</td><td align='left'>Sec. 29 or 32, T32S, R4E</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>Claire Schelske (1957) studied fishes of the Fall and Verdigris Rivers +in Wilson and Montgomery counties from March, 1954, to February, 1955.</p> + +<p>In the annotated list of species that follows, records other than mine +are designated by the following symbols:</p> + + +<div class="pblockquot"> +<p>E&F—Evermann and Fordice<br> +SBS—State Biological Survey (1910-1912)<br> +J&J—Jewell and Jobes (collection on Silver Creek)<br> +C—Collection number—Cross (State Biological Survey, 1955)<br> +UMMZ—University of Michigan Museum of Zoology<br> +OAM—Oklahoma A&M College Museum of Zoology</p> +</div> + +<hr> +<h2>ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</h2> + +<p>I am grateful to Professor Frank B. Cross for his interest in my +investigation, for his counsel, and for his penetrating criticism of +this paper. This study would have been impossible without the assistance +of several persons who helped in the field. Mr. Artie C. Metcalf and Mr. +Delbert Metcalf deserve special thanks for their enthusiastic and +untiring co-operation in collecting and preserving of specimens. Mrs. +Artie C. Metcalf, Miss Patricia Metcalf, Mr. Chester Metcalf, and Mr. +Forrest W. Metcalf gave help which is much appreciated. I am indebted to +the following persons for numerous valuable suggestions: Dr. John +Breukelman, Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, Kansas; Dr. George +Moore, Oklahoma A&M College, and Mr. W. L. Minckley, Lawrence, +Kansas.</p> + + +<hr> +<h2>MATERIALS AND METHODS</h2> + +<p>Collections were made by means of: (1) a four-foot net of nylon screen; +(2) a 10&times;4-foot "common-sense" woven seine with ¼-inch mesh; +(3) a 15&times;4-foot knotted mesh seine; (4) a 20&times;5-foot +¼-inch mesh seine; (5) pole and line (natural and artificial baits). +At most stations the four-foot, ten-foot, and twenty-foot seines were +used; however, the equipment that was used varied according to the size +of pool, number of obstructions, nature of bottom, amount of flow, and +type of streambank. Usually several hours were spent at each station and +several stations were revisited from time to time. Percentages noted in +the List of Species represent the relative number taken in the first +five seine-hauls at each station.</p> + + +<hr> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">[Pg 359]</a></span></p> +<h2>COLLECTING STATIONS</h2> + +<p>Collecting was done at stations listed below and shown in Fig. 2. Each +station was assigned a letter, designating the stream system on which +the station was located, and a number which indicates the position of +the station on the stream. This number increases progressively upstream +from mouth to source. Code letters used are as follows: +A&Mdash;Arkansas River; W—Walnut River System; B—Beaver +Creek System; C—Big Caney River System; G—Grouse Creek +System; M—Middle Caney Creek System; E—Elk River System. All +dates are in the year 1956.</p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 814px;"> +<img src="images/i014.jpg" width="814" height="600" alt="Fig. 2." title="Fig. 2."> +<span class="caption">Fig. 2. Map of Cowley, Chautauqua and Elk counties, +Kansas, showing stations at which collecting was done.</span> +</div> + +<p> A-1. Arkansas River. Sec. 2 and 3, T. 35 S, R. 4 E. June 14 and August +20. Braided channel with sand bottom. Water slightly turbid, with layer +of oil sludge on bottom.</p> + +<p> A-2. Arkansas River. Sec. 22, T. 34 S, R. 3 E. August 25. Flowing +through diverse channels. Average depth 12 inches. Bottom sand. (Plate +9, fig. 1.)</p> + +<p>A-3. Arkansas River. Sec. 21, T. 33 S, R. 3 E. August 27 and December +22. Flowing over fine sand. Average depth 11 inches. Some areas of +backwater with oil sludge on bottom.</p> + +<p>W-1. Walnut River. Sec. 20, T. 34 S, R. 4 E. July 7. Flowing rapidly, +with large volume, because of recent rains. Average width 300 feet. +Bottom gravel. Water turbid.</p> + +<p>W-2. Walnut River. Sec. 11, T. 34 S, R. 4 E. July 20. Rubble riffles and +large shallow pools with gravel bottoms. Average width, 100 feet. Water +clear.</p> + +<p>W-3. Walnut River. Sec. 29, T. 32 S, R. 4 E. July 17. Pools and riffles +below Tunnel Mill Dam at Winfield. Water clear.</p> + +<p>W-4. Badger Creek. Sec. 6, T. 33 S, R. 5 E. July 17. Small pools. +Average width 7 feet, average length 40 feet, average depth 8 inches. +Water turbid and malodorous. Bottoms and banks mud. Much detritus +present.</p> + + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">[Pg 360]</a></span></p> + +<p>W-5. Timber Creek. Sec. 35, T. 31 S, R. 4 E. June 6. Intermittent pools, +widely separated. Average width 9 feet, average depth 8 inches. Bottom +mud and gravel.</p> + +<p>B-1. Big Beaver Creek. Sec. 8, T. 35 S, R. 7 E. May 28. Isolated pools. +Average width 10 feet, average depth one foot. Water turbid. Bottom +rubble.</p> + +<p>B-2. Little Beaver Creek. Sec. 18, T. 35 S, R. 6 E. July 21. +Intermittent pools. Average width 10 feet, average length 35 feet, +average depth 10 inches. Bottoms rubble, mud, and bedrock.</p> + +<p>B-3. Big Beaver Creek. Sec. 28, T. 34 S, R. 7 E. July 22. Series of +small turbid pools.</p> + +<p>G-1. Grouse Creek. Sec. 5, T. 35 S, R. 5 E. May 30, September 5, and +September 24. Intermittent pools in close succession. Average width 22 +feet, average depth 16 inches. Water turbid on May 30 but clear in +September. Bottom rubble. Steep banks. Little shade for pools.</p> + +<p>G-2. Grouse Creek. Sec. 23, T. 34 S, R. 5 E. August 29. Series of +shallow intermittent pools. Average width 42 feet, average length 120 +feet, average depth 15 inches. Bottom bedrock and mud. (Plate 9, fig. +2.)</p> + +<p>G-3. Grouse Creek. Sec. 6, T. 34 S, R. 6 E. July 12. Intermittent pools. +Average width 20 feet, average length 65 feet, average depth 14 inches. +Bottom bedrock and gravel. <i>Justicia americana</i> L. abundant.</p> + +<p>G-4. Grouse Creek. Sec. 12, T. 33 S, R. 6 E. June 1 and September 7. +Intermittent pools. Average width 15 feet, average length 100 feet, +average depth 18 inches. Water turbid in June, clear in September. +<i>Najas guadalupensis</i> Spreng., and <i>Myriophyllum heterophyllum</i> Michx. +common.</p> + +<p>G-5. Grouse Creek. Sec. 19, T. 32 S, R. 7 E. July 2. Succession of +riffles and pools. Water clear. Volume of flow approximately one cubic +foot per second, but creek bankful after heavy rains on June 22. Average +width 20 feet, average depth 18 inches.</p> + +<p>G-6. Grouse Creek. Sec. 32, T. 31 S, R. 7 E. July 8. Small intermittent +pools to which cattle had access. Water turbid, bottom mud and rubble. +Average width 10 feet, average depth 8 inches. Stream-bed covered with +tangled growths of <i>Sorghum halepense</i> (L.).</p> + +<p>G-7. Grouse Creek. Sec. 34, T. 30 S, R. 7 E. July 8. Stream flowing +slightly. Water clear. Average width of pools 30 feet; average depth 20 +inches. Bottom bedrock and gravel. <i>Myriophyllum heterophyllum</i> Michx., +<i>Nelumbo lutea</i> (Willd.), and <i>Justicia americana</i> L. common in shallow +water.</p> + +<p>G-8. Silver Creek. Sec. 1, T. 33 S, R. 5 E. July 17. Intermittent pools. +Average width 30 feet, average length 120 feet, average depth 12 inches. +Water clear.</p> + +<p>G-9. Silver Creek. Sec. 4, T. 32 S, R. 6 E. July 17. Small upland brook +with volume less than one-half cfs. Average width 12 feet, average depth +10 inches. Water clear, bottom mostly rubble.</p> + +<p>G-10. Crab Creek. Sec. 33, T. 33 S, R. 6 E. June 24. Intermittent pools, +showing evidence of having flowed after rains on June 22. Average width +15 feet, average depth 16 inches.</p> + +<p>G-11. Crab Creek. Sec. 35, T. 33 S, R. 6 E. July 16. Small intermittent +pools. Average width 13 feet, average length 55 feet, average depth 11 +inches. Water clear. Bottom rubble and mud.</p> + +<p>G-12. Crab Creek. Sec. 28, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. June 2 and July 20. Isolated +pools. Average width 18 feet, average depth one foot. Water turbid. +Bottom bedrock and rubble. <i>Myriophyllum heterophyllum</i> and <i>Justicia +americana</i> abundant.</p> + +<p>G-13. Crab Creek. Sec. 21, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. July 29. Isolated pools 300 +feet by 24 feet. Average depth 12 inches. Water turbid.</p> + +<p>G-14. Unnamed creek (hereafter called Grand Summit Creek). Sec. 26, T. +31 S, R. 7 E. August 30. Intermittent pools. Average width 15 feet, +average length 45 feet, average depth 11 inches. Water clear. Bottom +rubble. </p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 366px;"> +<span class="caption">PLATE 9</span> +<img src="images/i019.jpg" width="366" height="600" alt="PLATE 9" title="PLATE 9"> +<p>1. Station A-2. Arkansas River. (Cowley County, Section 22, T. 34 S, R. +3 E.)<br> +2. Station G-2. Grouse Creek. (Cowley County, Section 23, T. 34 S, R. 5 +E.)</p> +</div> + +<p> </p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 365px;"> +<span class="caption">PLATE 10</span> +<img src="images/i020.jpg" width="365" height="600" alt="PLATE 10" title="PLATE 10"> +<p>1. Station C-12. Cedar Creek. (Cowley County, Section 17, T. 34 S, R. 8 +E.)<br> +2. Station C-16. Spring Creek. (Elk County, Section 26, T. 31 S, R. 8 +E.) Volume of flow of this small creek is indicated by riffle in +foreground.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">[Pg 361]</a></span></p> + +<p>G-15. Unnamed creek (same as above). Sec. 17, T. 31 S, R. 8 E. July 27. +Small upland creek bordered by bluestem pastures. Pools with average +width of 10 feet, average length 30 feet, average depth 9 inches. Water +slightly turbid. Bottom rubble and mud.</p> + +<p>G-16. Crab Creek. Sec. 22, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. July 25. Small isolated +pools. Average width 17 feet, average length 58 feet, average depth 9 +inches. Water turbid.</p> + +<p>G-17. Crab Creek. Sec. 23, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. July 25. Upland brook +bordered by bluestem pastures. Unshaded intermittent pools. Average +width 7 feet, average length 40 feet, average depth 9 inches. Water +turbid.</p> + +<p>C-1. Big Caney River. Sec. 16, T. 33 S, R. 10 E. July 19. Intermittent +pools. Average width 47 feet, average length 90 feet, average depth 13 +inches. Bottom rubble and bedrock. Water clear to slightly turbid.</p> + +<p>C-2. Big Caney River. Sec. 1, T. 35 S, R. 9 E. September 5. Series of +intermittent pools. Bottom rubble and large stones.</p> + +<p>C-3. Big Caney River. Sec. 29, T. 34 S, R. 9 E. June 17. Large shallow +pool below ledge 3 feet high forming "Osro Falls." Bottom bedrock.</p> + +<p>C-4. Big Caney River. Sec. 32, T. 34 S, R. 9 E. June 3. Three large +pools (50 feet by 300 feet) with connecting riffles. Water turbid. +Bottom bedrock and rubble.</p> + +<p>C-5. Big Caney River. Sec. 11 and 12, T. 34 S, R. 8 E. May 27, May 29, +June 11, June 18, June 19, and June 27. From a low-water dam, 6 feet +high, downstream for ¼ mile. Pools alternating with rubble and bedrock +riffles. Collecting was done at different times of day and night, and +when stream was flowing and intermittent.</p> + +<p>C-6. Big Caney River. Sec. 26, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 16. Intermittent +pools with bedrock bottom. Water slightly turbid. Average width 16 feet, +average depth 10 inches.</p> + +<p>C-7. Otter Creek. Sec. 26, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 16. Pools and riffles. +Water clear. Algae abundant. Average width 10 feet, average depth 10 +inches.</p> + +<p>C-8. Big Caney River. Sec. 1, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 10. Intermittent +pools. Average width 10 feet, average depth 14 inches. Water clear. +Bottom rubble and gravel. Aquatic plants included <i>Chara</i> sp., +<i>Sagittaria latifolia</i> Willd., <i>Jussiaea diffusa</i> Forsk., and <i>Nelumbo +lutea</i> (Willd.).</p> + +<p>C-9. Big Caney River. Sec. 6 and 7, T. 32 S, R. 9 E. June 27. Clear, +flowing stream, 20 feet wide, volume estimated at 5 cfs. Bottom gravel +and rubble. Extensive gravel riffles.</p> + +<p>C-10. Big Caney River. Sec. 29 and 32, T. 31 S, R. 9 E. June 27. Water +clear and flowing rapidly, volume estimated at 5-6 cfs. Bottom rubble +with a few muddy backwater areas.</p> + +<p>C-11. Big Caney River. Sec. 7, T. 31 S, R. 9 E. July 26. Flowing, with +less than 1 cfs. Average width 20 feet, average depth 22 inches. Water +extremely clear. Bottom gravel and rubble. <i>Myriophyllum heterophyllum</i>, +<i>Potamogeton foliosus</i>, and <i>Justicia americana</i> common.</p> + +<p>C-12. Cedar Creek. Sec. 17, T. 34 S, R. 8 E. March 10, April 2, June 1, +June 6, and August 24. Pools and riffles along ¼ mile of stream were +seined in the early collections. In August only small isolated pools +remained. Bottom bedrock and rubble. Much detritus along streambanks. +(Plate 10, fig. 1.)</p> + +<p>C-13. Otter Creek. Sec. 16, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 15. Flowing, less than +1 cfs. Pools interspersed with rubble riffles. Water clear.</p> + +<p>C-14. Otter Creek. Sec. 30, T. 32 S, R. 8 E. May 31, and September 3. +Series of small pools. Average width 10 feet, average depth 15 inches. +Shallow rubble riffles. Water extremely clear. Temperature 68° at 6:30 +p.m. on May 31; 78&deg; at 2:00 p.m. on September 3.</p> + +<p>C-15. Spring Creek. Sec. 35, T. 31 S, R. 8 E. June 28. Small, clear, +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">[Pg 362]</a></span> +upland brook with rubble bottom. Pools 10 feet in average width and +11 inches in average depth. Numerous shallow rubble riffles.</p> + +<p>C-16. Spring Creek. Sec. 26, T. 31 S, R. 8 E. July 9. Small intermittent +pools. Average width 10 feet; average depth 8 inches. Bottom gravel. +(Plate 10, fig. 2.)</p> + +<p>C-17. West Fork Big Caney River. Sec. 36, T. 30 S, R. 8 E. July 27. +Small pool below low-water dam. Pool 20 feet by 30 feet with average +depth of 20 inches.</p> + +<p>C-18. East Fork Big Caney River. Sec. 31, T. 30 S, R. 9 E. July 27. +Isolated pool 25 feet by 25 feet with an average depth of 15 inches.</p> + +<p>M-1. Middle Caney Creek. Sec. 23, T. 33 S, R. 10 E. July 4. Intermittent +pools. Average width 45 feet, average depth 15 inches. Water stained +brown. Oil fields nearby but no sludge or surface film of oil noted. +Bottom rubble and bedrock.</p> + +<p>M-2. Pool Creek. Sec. 25, T. 33 S, R. 10 E. May 26. Pool 120 feet by 40 +feet below limestone ledge approximately 12 feet high forming Butcher's +Falls. Other smaller pools sampled. Water clear. Bottom bedrock and +rubble.</p> + +<p>E-1. Elk River. Sec. 12, T. 31 S, R. 11 E. July 9. Four intermittent +pools seined. Average width 32 feet, average depth 13 inches. Bottom +bedrock, rubble, and mud. Water turbid.</p> + +<p>E-2. Elk River. Sec. 3, T. 31 S, R. 11 E. June 28. Intermittent pools +below and above sandstone ledge approximately 6 feet high forming +"falls" at Elk Falls. Average width 33 feet, average depth 15 inches. +Bottom bedrock, rubble and mud. Water slightly turbid.</p> + +<p>E-3. Elk River. Sec. 21, T. 30 S, R. 11 E. June 28. Two small pools, 10 +feet by 30 feet with average depth of 6 inches. Bottom bedrock.</p> + +<p>E-4. Elk River. Sec. 12, T. 30 S, R. 10 E. June 28. One long pool 500 +feet by 50 feet with a variety of depths and bottom conditions ranging +from mud to bedrock. Average depth 18 inches. Water turbid and pools +unshaded.</p> + +<p>E-5. Elk River. Sec. 32, T. 29 S, R. 10 E. August 30. Intermittent +pools. Average width 21 feet, average depth 20 inches. Bottom rubble. +Water clear.</p> + +<p>E-6. Elk River. Sec. 23, T. 29 S, R. 9 E. August 30. Small isolated +pools. River mostly dry. Bottom bedrock. Water slightly turbid with +gray-green "bloom."</p> + +<p>E-7. Wildcat Creek. Sec. 11, T. 31 S, R. 10 E. Volume of flow less than +one cfs. Average width 20 feet, average depth 18 inches. Domestic sewage +pollution from town of Moline suspected.</p> + + + +<hr> +<h2>ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES</h2> + +<p><b><i>Lepisosteus osseus oxyurus</i></b> (Linnaeus): Stations A-1, W-2, W-3, G-2, +G-3, G-4, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-5, C-8.</p> + +<p>Of 34 longnose gar taken, 27 were young-of-the-year. The latter were +from shallow isolated pools (bedrock bottom at C-1, C-3, C-4; gravel +bottom at C-6). At station W-1 in moderate flood conditions several +young-of-the-year were found in the most sheltered water next to the +banks.</p> + +<p>The longnose gar was found only in the lower parts of the streams +surveyed (but were observed by me in smaller tributaries of these +streams in years when the streams had a greater volume of flow). A +preference for downstream habitat is suggested in several other surveys: +Cross (1950:134, 1954a:307) on the South Fork of the +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">[Pg 363]</a></span> +Cottonwood and on Stillwater Creek; Cross and Moore (1952:401) on the Poteau and +Fourche Maline rivers; Moore and Buck (1953:21) on the Chikaskia River.</p> + +<p><b><i>Lepisosteus platostomus</i></b> Rafinesque: One shortnose gar (K. U. 3157) has +been taken from the Arkansas River in Cowley County. This gar was taken +by Mr. Richard Rinker on a bank line on April 10, 1955, at station A-3.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Dorosoma cepedianum</i></b> (Le Sueur): Stations W-3, G-4, C-4, C-5, M-1, E-1, +E-4.</p> + +<p>In smaller streams such as the Elk and Caney rivers adult gizzard shad +seemed scarce. They were more common in collections made in larger +rivers (Walnut, Verdigris, and Neosho). In impoundments of this region +shad often become extremely abundant. Schoonover (1954:173) found that +shad comprised 97 per cent by number and 83 per cent by weight of fishes +taken in a survey of Fall River Reservoir.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Carpiodes carpio carpio</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, W-3, +G-1, C-3.</p> + +<p>Hubbs and Lagler (1947:50) stated that the river carpsucker was "Mostly +confined to large silty rivers." Of the stations listed above C-3 least +fits this description being a large shallow pool about ⅓ acre in area +having bedrock bottom and slightly turbid water. The other stations +conform to conditions described by Hubbs and Lagler (<i>loc. cit.</i>).</p> + + +<p><b><i>Carpiodes velifer</i></b> (Rafinesque): SBS. Three specimens of the highfin +carpsucker (K. U. 177-179) were collected on July 11, 1912, from an +unspecified location on Elk River in Elk County.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Ictiobus bubalus</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, G-1, G-2, C-1, C-3, C-4, +C-6, E-1, E-2, E-3.</p> + +<p>The smallmouth buffalo shared the downstream proclivities of the river +carpsucker. In half of the collections (G-2, C-1, E-1, E-2, E-3) only +large juveniles were taken; in the other half only young-of-the-year +were found. In one pool at station C-1 hundreds of young buffalo and gar +were observed. This large shallow pool was 100 &times; 150 feet, with an +average depth of 8 inches. The bottom consisted of bedrock. Station C-6 +was a small pool with bedrock bottom, eight feet in diameter, with an +average depth of only 4 inches. Station E-3 was also a small isolated +pool with bedrock bottom and an average depth of 6 inches.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Ictiobus niger</i></b> (Rafinesque): Station C-5.</p> + +<p>Only two specimens of the black buffalo were taken. An adult +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">[Pg 364]</a></span> +was caught on spinning tackle, with doughballs for bait. The second specimen was a +juvenile taken by seining one mile below Station C-5 on September 22.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Ictiobus cyprinella</i></b> (Valenciennes): Station G-2.</p> + +<p>Two juvenal bigmouth buffalo were taken in a shallow pool, along with +several juvenal smallmouth buffalo.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum</i></b> Trautman and <b><i>Moxostoma carinatum</i></b> +(Cope): SBS.</p> + +<p>Two specimens of <i>Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum</i> (K. U. 242-243) and one +specimen of <i>Moxostoma carinatum</i> (K. U. 223) were taken from an +unspecified locality on Elk River in Elk County on July 11, 1912. There +are no other records for any of these fish in the collection area. <i>M. +aureolum pisolabrum</i> has been taken in recent years in eastern Kansas +(Trautman, 1951:3) and has been found as far west as the Chikaskia +drainage in northern Oklahoma by Moore and Buck (1953:21). That +occasional northern redhorse enter the larger rivers of the area here +reported on seems probable.</p> + +<p><i>M. carinatum</i> has been reported only a few times from Kansas. The only +recent records are from the Verdigris River (Schelske, 1957:39). Elkins +(1954:28) took four specimens of <i>M. carinatum</i> from cutoff pools on +Salt Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma, in 1954. This recent record +suggests that occurrences in southern Kansas are probable.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Moxostoma erythrurum</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations G-5, G-7, G-10, G-12, C-4, +C-5, C-6, C-8, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-15, E-1, E-2, E-4 (C-131, +C-133, C-136).</p> + +<p>The golden redhorse was common in several of the streams surveyed, and +utilized the upland parts of streams more extensively than any of the +other catostomids occurring in the area. <i>M. erythrurum</i> and <i>Ictiobus +bubalus</i> were taken together at only two stations. In no case was <i>I. +bubalus</i> taken from a tributary of Grouse Creek or of Big Caney River. +In contrast <i>M. erythrurum</i> reached its greatest concentrations in such +habitat, although it was always a minor component of the total fish +population. Stations C-5 and E-2 were the lowermost environments in +which this redhorse was taken.</p> + +<p>The largest relative number of golden redhorse was found at station G-12 +on Crab Creek where 7.5 per cent of the fishes taken were of this species. +This station consisted of intermittent pools averaging one foot in depth. +Bottoms were bedrock and rubble and the water was clear and shaded. The fish were consistently +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">[Pg 365]</a></span> +taken in the deeper, open part of the pool where aquatic vegetation, which +covered most of the pool, was absent.</p> + +<p>Another station at which <i>M. erythrurum</i> was abundant was C-12 on Cedar +Creek. Here a long, narrow, clear pool was the habitat, with average +depth of 17 inches, and bottom of bedrock.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Minytrema melanops</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations G-10, C-4, C-12, E-1.</p> + +<p>Occurrences of the spotted sucker were scattered. At stations C-4 and +G-10 single specimens were taken. At station E-1 (July 9) one specimen +was taken at the mouth of a small tributary where water was turbid and +quiet. This specimen (K. U. 3708) was the largest (9⅜ inches total +length) found, and possessed pits of lost tubercles.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Cyprinus carpio</i></b> Linnaeus: Stations A-1, W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, G-3, G-4, +G-6, G-8, C-3, C-5, E-4.</p> + +<p>Carp were taken most often in downstream habitat. No carp were taken +above station C-5 on Big Caney River.</p> + +<p>The earliest date on which young were taken was July 7, when 46 +specimens, approximately ½ inch in total length, were taken from the +Walnut River at station W-1. The small carp showed a preference for +small shallow pools; adults were found in deeper pools.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus</i></b> (Gilbert): Station A-3.</p> + +<p>Only one specimen of the speckled chub was taken. The species has been +recorded from nearby localities in the Arkansas River and its +tributaries both in Kansas and Oklahoma. Its habitat seems to be shallow +water over clean, fine sand, and it occurs in strong current in +mid-channel in the Arkansas River. Suitable habitat does not occur in +other parts of the area covered by this report.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis blennius</i></b> (Girard): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3.</p> + +<p>The river shiner was taken only in the Arkansas River and in small +numbers. In all instances <i>N. blennius</i> was found over sandy bottom in +flowing water. Females were gravid at station A-1 on June 14. To my +knowledge there are no published records of this shiner from the +Arkansas River Basin in Kansas. In Oklahoma this species prefers the +large, sandy streams such as the Arkansas River. Cross and Moore +(1952:403) found it in the Poteau River only near the mouth.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis boops</i></b> Gilbert: Stations G-5, G-7, C-3, C-5, C-8, C-9, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-15, C-16, E-4, E-5, M-1, M-2.</p> + +<p>Widespread occurrence of the bigeye shiner in this area seems +surprising. Except for this area it is known in Kansas only from +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">[Pg 366]</a></span> +the Spring River drainage in the southeastern corner of the state (Cross, +1954b:474). <i>N. boops</i> chose habitats that seemed most nearly like +Ozarkian terrain. The largest relative number of bigeye shiners was +taken at C-11 in a clear stream described in the discussion of <i>Notropis +rubellus</i>. At this station <i>N. boops</i> comprised 14.11 per cent, and <i>N. +boops</i> and <i>N. rubellus</i> together comprised 24.78 per cent of all fish +taken.</p> + +<p>At station G-7 on Grouse Creek the percentage of <i>N. boops</i> was 7.15. +Here, as at station C-11, water was clear. At both stations +<i>Myriophyllum heterophyllum</i> was abundant and at G-7 <i>Nelumbo lutea</i> was +also common. At G-7 <i>N. boops</i> seemed most abundant in the deeper water, +but at C-11 most shiners were found in the shallower part of a large +pool.</p> + +<p>Two other collections in which <i>N. boops</i> were common were from Spring +Creek. It is a small, clear Flint Hills brook running swiftly over clean +gravel and rubble. It had, however, been intermittent or completely dry +in its upper portion throughout the winter of 1955-'56 and until June +22, 1956. In collections at C-15 on June 28, <i>N. boops</i> formed 6.5 per +cent of the fish taken. Farther upstream, at C-16 on July 9, in an area +one mile from the nearest pool of water that existed prior to the rains +of June 22, <i>N. boops</i> made up 7.2 per cent of the fish taken.</p> + +<p>In streams heading in the hilly area of western Elk County, the relative +abundance of <i>Notropis boops</i> decreased progressively downstream. On +upper Elk River percentages were lower than on upper Grouse Creek and +upper Big Caney River.</p> + +<p>Hubbs and Lagler (1947:66) characterize the habitat of this species as +clear creeks of limestone uplands. There are numerous records of the +bigeye shiner from extreme eastern Oklahoma. It has been reported as far +west as Beaver Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma. Beaver Creek originates +in Cowley County, Kansas, near the origin of Cedar Creek and Crab Creek. +Drought had left a few pools of water in Beaver Creek in Kansas at the +time of my survey. The fish-fauna seemed sparse and <i>N. boops</i> was not +among the species taken. Of interest in considering the somewhat +isolated occurrence of the bigeye shiner in the Flint Hills area of +Kansas is a record of it by Ortenburger and Hubbs (1926:126) from +Panther Creek, Comanche County, Oklahoma, in the Wichita Mountain area +of that state.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis buchanani</i></b> Meek: Stations G-1, E-4 (C-131).</p> + +<p>At station G-1 the ghost shiner was taken in small numbers in the +shallow end of a long pool (150 &times; 40 feet.) The three individuals taken +at station E-4 were in an isolated pool (50 &times; 510 feet) averaging +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_367" id="Page_367">[Pg 367]</a></span> +1½ feet in depth. Water was turbid, and warm due to lack of shade.</p> + +<p>The habitat preferences of this species and of the related species <i>N. +volucellus</i> have been described as follows by Hubbs and Ortenburger +(1929b:68): "It seems probable that <i>volucellus</i> when occurring in the +range of <i>buchanani</i> occupies upland streams, whereas <i>buchanani</i> is +chiefly a form of the large rivers and adjacent creek mouths." The +results of this survey and impressions gained from other collections, +some of which are unpublished, are in agreement with this view. A +collection on the Verdigris River at Independence, Kansas, directly +downstream from the mouth of the Elk River, showed <i>N. buchanani</i> to be +common while <i>N. volucellus</i> was not taken. At station E-5 upstream from +E-4, however, <i>N. volucellus</i> was taken but <i>N. buchanani</i> was not +found.</p> + +<p>In the upper Neosho basin, Cross (1954a:310) took <i>N. volucellus</i> but +not <i>N. buchanani</i>. Other collections have shown <i>N. buchanani</i> to be +abundant in the lower Neosho River in Kansas. Moore and Paden (1950:85) +observe that <i>N. buchanani</i> was found only near the mouth of the +Illinois River in Oklahoma and was sharply segregated ecologically from +<i>N. volucellus</i> that occupied a niche in the clear main channels in +contrast to the more sluggish waters inhabited by <i>N. buchanani</i>.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis camurus</i></b> (Jordan and Meek): Stations C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, +C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, E-1, E-5 (C-131).</p> + +<p>Highest concentrations of the bluntface shiner were found close to the +mouths of two tributaries of Big Caney River: Rock Creek and Otter +Creek. On Rock Creek (Station C-4) this shiner was abundant in a shallow +pool below a riffle where water was flowing rapidly. Many large males in +breeding condition were taken (June 3). The species formed 20.2 per cent +of the fish taken.</p> + +<p>On Otter Creek (Station C-13) the species was common in shallow bedrock +pools below riffles. It formed 12.1 per cent of the fish taken.</p> + +<p>At station C-5, <i>N. camurus</i> was characteristically found in an area of +shallow pools and riffles. At station C-10 it was found in clear flowing +water over rubble bottom and in small coves over mud bottom. At C-11 +(July 26) <i>N. camurus</i> was taken only in one small pool with rapidly +flowing water below a riffle. In this pool <i>N. camurus</i> was the dominant +fish. At station C-12, on April 2, <i>N. camurus</i> was abundant in the +stream, which was then clear and flowing. On August 24, it was not taken +from the same pool, which was then turbid and drying.</p> + +<p>The frequent occurrence of this species in clear, flowing water +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_368" id="Page_368">[Pg 368]</a></span> +seems significant. Cross (1954a:309) notes that the bluntface shiner prefers +moderately fast, clear water. Hall (1952:57) found <i>N. camurus</i> only in +upland tributaries east of Grand River and not in lowland tributaries +west of the river. Moore and Buck (1953:22) took this species in the +Chikaskia River, which was at that time a clear, flowing stream. They +noted that in Oklahoma it seems to be found only in relatively clear +water.</p> + +<p><i>N. camurus</i> did not seem to ascend the smaller tributaries of Big Caney +River as did <i>N. rubellus</i> and <i>N. boops</i> even when these tributaries +were flowing.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis deliciosus missuriensis</i></b> (Cope): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, W-1, +W-2, W-3 (C-136).</p> + +<p>Sand shiners seemed to be abundant in the Arkansas River, rare in the +Walnut River and absent from other streams surveyed. This shiner was +most abundant in shallow, flowing water in the Arkansas River; in +backwaters, where <i>Gambusia affinis</i> prevailed, <i>N. deliciosus</i> formed +only a small percentage of the fish population.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis girardi</i></b> Hubbs and Ortenburger: Stations A-2 and A-3.</p> + +<p>At station A-2 the Arkansas River shiner made up 14.6 per cent of all +fish taken. At A-2, it was found only in rapidly-flowing water over +clean sand in the main channels. It was absent from the shallow, +slowly-flowing water where <i>N. deliciosus missuriensis</i> was abundant. At +A-3 <i>N. girardi</i> made up 22 per cent of the total catch, and again +preferred the deeper, faster water over clean-swept sand. Failure to +find <i>N. girardi</i> at station A-1 is not understood.</p> + +<p>Females were gravid in both collections (August 25 and 27). In neither +collection were young-of-the-year taken. Moore (1944:210) has suggested +that <i>N. girardi</i> requires periods of high water and turbidity to spawn. +Additional collecting was done at station A-3 on December 22, 1957. A +few adults were taken in flowing water but no young were found.</p> + +<p>In this area, <i>N. girardi</i> showed no tendency to ascend tributaries of +the Arkansas River. Not far to the west, however, this pattern changes +as shown by Hubbs and Ortenburger (1929a:32) who took this fish at seven +of ten stations on the Cimarron, Canadian, and Salt Fork of the +Arkansas. <i>N. girardi</i> was taken only in the lowermost stations on both +Stillwater Creek (Cross, 1950:136) and the Chikaskia River (Moore and +Buck, 1953:22). In the next major stream west of the Chikaskia, the +Medicine River, <i>N. girardi</i> seems to occur farther upstream than in the +Chikaskia. (Collection C-5-51 by Dr. A. B. Leonard and Dr. Frank B. +Cross on Elm Creek near Medicine Lodge on July 20, 1951.)</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_369" id="Page_369">[Pg 369]</a></span></p> + +<p><b><i>Notropis lutrensis</i></b> (Baird and Girard): Stations A-1, A-2, W-1, W-2, +W-3, W-4, G-1, G-2, G-4, G-5, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12, G-13, G-14, +G-15, G-16, B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-9, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, M-1, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-7 (E&F, C-131, C-133, +C-136).</p> + +<p>The red shiner was taken in every stream surveyed. The relative +abundance seemed to be greatest in two types of habitat which were +separated geographically. The first habitat was in large rivers such as +the Arkansas and Walnut. In the Arkansas River the red shiner +consistently made up 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the catch. On the +Walnut River percentages ranged from 10 per cent (station W-3) to 45 per +cent (station W-2).</p> + +<p>The second habitat in which numbers of <i>N. lutrensis</i> reached high +proportions was in the upper parts of the most intermittent tributaries. +At the uppermost station in Silver Creek this species formed 30 per cent +of the fish taken. In Crab Creek the following percentages were taken in +six collections from mouth to source: 20.6%, 26.1%, 25%, 85%, 14.6%, and +1%. In the mainstream of Grouse Creek the highest percentage taken was +19.27 near the mouth at station G-1. In middle sections of Grouse Creek +this species was either absent or made up less than 2 per cent of the +fish taken.</p> + +<p>At no station on Big Caney River was the red shiner abundant. The +smallest relative numbers were found at upstream stations, in contrast +to collections made on tributaries of Grouse Creek. This distributional +pattern possibly may be explained by the severe conditions under which +fish have been forced to live in the upper tributaries of Grouse Creek. +Water was more turbid, and pools were smaller than in Big Caney. These +factors possibly decimate numbers of the less hardy species permitting +expansion by more adaptable species, among which seems to be <i>N. +lutrensis</i>. In the upper tributaries of Big Caney River conditions have +not been so severe due to greater flow from springs and less cultivation +of the watershed in most places. Under such conditions <i>N. lutrensis</i> +seems to remain a minor faunal constituent.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis percobromus</i></b> (Cope): Stations A-1, A-2, W-1, W-2, W-3, G-1.</p> + +<p>At station W-1 the plains shiner constituted 20 per cent of the fish +taken. The river was flowing rapidly with large volume at the time of +this collection, and all specimens were taken near the bank in +comparatively quiet water over gravel bottom. At station W-3, below +Tunnel Mill Dam at Winfield, <i>N. percobromus</i> comprised 18.7 per cent of +the fish taken, second only to <i>Lepomis humilis</i> in +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_370" id="Page_370">[Pg 370]</a></span> +relative abundance. Immediately below the west end of the dam, plains shiners +were so concentrated that fifty or more were taken in one haul of a four-foot +nylon net. The amount of water overflowing the dam at this point was +slight. Water was shallow (8-12 inches) and the bottom consisted of the +pitted apron or of fine gravel. At the east end of the dam where water +was deeper (1-3 feet) and the flow over the dam greater, large numbers +of <i>Lepomis humilis</i> were taken while <i>N. percobromus</i> was rare.</p> + +<p>In the Arkansas River smaller relative numbers of this shiner were +obtained. At station A-2, it formed 4.68 per cent of the total. At this +station <i>N. percobromus</i> was taken with <i>N. lutrensis</i> in water about 18 +inches deep next to a bank where the current was sluggish and tangled +roots and detritus offered some shelter.</p> + +<p>At station G-1 on Grouse Creek the plains shiner made up 7.68 per cent +of the fish taken. The habitat consisted of intermittent pools with +rubble bottoms at this station, which was four miles upstream from the +mouth of the creek. The plains shiner seems rarely to ascend the upland +streams of the area.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis rubellus</i></b> (Agassiz): Stations C-3, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14 (J&J).</p> + +<p>No fish in these collections showed a more persistent preference than +<i>Notropis rubellus</i> for clear, cool streams. All collections of the +rosyface shiner were in the Big Caney River system, but at only four +stations in this system was it common. At station C-11 the highest +relative numbers (10.6 per cent) were obtained. This site possessed the +most limpid water of any station on the mainstream of Big Caney. Aquatic +plants (<i>Myriophyllum heterophyllum</i> and <i>Potamogeton nodosus</i>) were +common. Other fishes that flourished at this station were <i>N. boops</i>, +<i>N. camurus</i>, <i>Campostoma anomalum</i>, and <i>Etheostoma spectabile</i>. The +water temperature was 86&deg; at surface and 80&deg; at bottom whereas air +temperature was 97&deg;.</p> + +<p><i>N. rubellus</i> was common at all stations in Otter Creek, the clear, +upland character of which has been discussed. In May and June only +adults were found. On September 1, examination of several pools in upper +Otter Creek revealed numerous young-of-the-year in small spring-fed +pools.</p> + +<p>Literature is scarce concerning this shiner in Kansas. Cross (1954a:308) +stated that it was abundant in the South Fork of the Cottonwood River +and was one of those fishes primarily associated with the Ozarkian +fauna, rather than with the fauna of the plains. Elliott (1947) found +<i>N. rubellus</i> in Spring Creek, a tributary of +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_371" id="Page_371">[Pg 371]</a></span> +Fall River which seems similar to Otter Creek in physical features. Between +the Fall River and Big Caney River systems is the Elk River, from which there +is no record of the rosyface shiner. Perhaps its absence is related to the +intermittent condition of this stream at present. The Elk River is poor +in spring-fed tributaries, which seem to be favorite environs of the +rosyface shiner.</p> + +<p><i>N. rubellus</i> was taken by Minna Jewell and Frank Jobes in Silver Creek +on June 30, 1925 (UMMZ 67818). The shiner was not found in any stream +west of the Big Caney system in my collections.</p> + +<p>In Oklahoma, Hall (1952:57) found <i>N. rubellus</i> in upland tributaries on +the east side of Grand River and not in the lowland tributaries on the +west side. Martin and Campbell (1953:51) characterize <i>N. rubellus</i> as +preferring riffle channels in moderate to fast current in the Black +River, Missouri. It is the only species so characterized by them which +was taken in my collections. Moore and Paden (1950:84) state "<i>Notropis +rubellus</i> is one of the most abundant fishes of the Illinois River, +being found in all habitats but showing a distinct preference for fast +water...."</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis topeka</i></b> (Gilbert): Two specimens (formerly Indiana University +4605) of the Topeka shiner labeled "Winfield, Kansas" are now at the +University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Collector and other data are +not given. Evermann and Fordice (1886:185) noted that two specimens of +<i>N. topeka</i> were taken from Sand Creek near Newton in Harvey County, but +do not list it from Cowley County near Winfield. They deposited their +fish in the museum of Indiana University.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis umbratilis</i></b> (Girard): Stations G-1, G-3, G-4, G-7, G-8, G-9, +G-12, G-14, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, M-1, M-2 (J&J, +C-131, C-132).</p> + +<p>The redfin shiner flourished in all the streams surveyed except the +Arkansas and Walnut Rivers. <i>N. umbratilis</i> has been found in upland +tributaries of the Walnut River, some of which originate in terrain +similar to that in which Elk River, Big Caney River, and Grouse Creek +originate. (Collection C-26-51 by Cross on Durechon Creek, October 7, +1951.) This suggests downstream reduction in relative numbers of this +species, a tendency which also seemed to exist on both Big Caney River +and Grouse Creek. <i>N. umbratilis</i> was the most abundant species in Big +Caney River except at the lowermost stations where it was surpassed in +relative abundance by <i>N. lutrensis</i> and <i>Gambusia affinis</i>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_372" id="Page_372">[Pg 372]</a></span></p> + +<p><i>N. umbratilis</i> was a pool-dweller, becoming more concentrated in the +deeper pools as summer advanced. In May and early June, large +concentrations of adult <i>N. umbratilis</i> were common in the shallow ends +of pools together with <i>N. rubellus</i>, <i>N. boops</i>, <i>Pimephales notatus</i>, +and <i>Pimephales tenellus</i>. By July and August, only young of the year +were taken in shallow water, and adults were scarcely in evidence.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notropis volucellus</i></b> (Cope): Stations G-5, G-8, C-3, C-5, C-7, C-8, +C-9, C-10, M-1, E-4, E-5.</p> + +<p>The mimic shiner was a minor element in the fauna, 2.02 per cent at +station C-5 being the largest percentage taken. In the Big Caney River +system <i>N. volucellus</i> was taken only in the main stream. In the Grouse +Creek drainage it was found at two stations in the upper part of the +watershed, where water is clearer, gradient greater, and pools +well-shaded and cool.</p> + +<p>In the Elk River the mimic shiner was taken only in the upper part of +the main stream. The dominant shiner in situations where <i>N. volucellus</i> +was taken was, in all cases, <i>N. umbratilis</i>. Elliott (1947) found <i>N. +volucellus</i> in Spring Creek, a tributary of Fall River. Farther north in +the Flint Hills region, <i>N. volucellus</i> was reported by Cross +(1954a:310).</p> + + +<p><b><i>Notemigonus crysoleucas</i></b> (Mitchell): Station W-5.</p> + +<p>This isolated record for the golden shiner consisted of nine specimens +collected on June 6 in Timber Creek, a tributary of the Walnut River. +Most of the creek was dry. <i>N. crysoleucas</i> was taken in one pool with +dimensions of 8 feet by 4 feet with an average depth of 4 inches. This +creek is sluggish and silt-laden, even under conditions of favorable +precipitation. Hubbs and Ortenburger (1929b:89) observed that the golden +shiner prefers sluggish water. Hall (1952:58) took the golden shiner +only in the lowland tributaries west of Grand River and not east of the +river in upland tributaries.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Phenacobius mirabilis</i></b> Girard: Stations W-3, C-3.</p> + +<p>In no case was the suckermouth minnow common; it never comprised more +than 1 per cent of the fish population.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Pimephales notatus</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations W-4, G-5, G-7, G-9, G-12, +G-13, B-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, +C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, M-1, M-2, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, +E-7 (J&J, C-131, C-132, C-133).</p> + +<p>This was much the most abundant of the four species of <i>Pimephales</i> in +this area. It was taken at 33 stations as compared with 10 for <i>P. +tenellus</i>, 8 for <i>P. promelas</i>, and 3 for <i>P. vigilax</i>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_373" id="Page_373">[Pg 373]</a></span></p> + +<p>The bluntnose minnow was taken almost everywhere except in the main +stream of the Arkansas and Walnut rivers and in lower Grouse Creek. <i>P. +notatus</i> seemed to prefer clearer streams of the Flint Hills part of my +area. There was a marked increase in percentages taken in the upland +tributaries of both Caney River and Grouse Creek. In the Elk River, too, +higher concentrations were found upstream.</p> + +<p>The highest relative numbers of bluntnose minnows were taken at station +G-12 on Crab Creek, station C-12 on Cedar Creek and station C-16 on +Spring Creek. At G-12, this minnow was abundant in the deeper isolated +pools. Males in breeding condition were taken on June 9. In Cedar Creek +the population of bluntnose minnows was observed periodically in one +pool in which they were dominant. This pool was 100 feet by 50 feet, +shallow, and with bedrock bottom. At its upper end, however, there was a +small area of heavily-shaded deeper water. Throughout the spring +bluntnose minnows were found in large schools in the shallow area. As +the summer progressed they were no longer there, but seining revealed +their presence in the deeper, upper end.</p> + +<p>At station C-16 on Spring Creek on July 9 male <i>P. notatus</i> were taken +in extreme breeding condition, being light brick-red in color and with +large tubercles.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Pimephales tenellus</i></b> (Girard): Stations G-1, C-2, C-3, C-5, C-6, C-7, +C-8, M-1, E-2, E-4 (C-131 C-133).</p> + +<p>The mountain minnow was never taken far from the mainstream of Big +Caney, Middle Caney, or Elk River. In this respect it differed from <i>P. +notatus</i>, which reached large concentrations in the small upland +tributaries. On the other hand, <i>P. tenellus</i> was not so abundant as <i>P. +vigilax</i> in the silty larger streams. In no collection was the mountain +minnow common. The highest percentages were 2.4 per cent (Station C-5), +and 2.1 per cent (Station C-7) on Big Caney River. These stations +consisted of clear, flowing water over rubble bottoms. Males at C-7 +(June 16) were in breeding condition.</p> + +<p>Moore and Buck (1953:23) reported finding this species among rocks in +very fast water rather than in the quiet backwaters frequented by <i>P. +vigilax</i>. Other records of the mountain minnow from the Flint Hills +indicate that it seeks areas of maximum gradient and flow; in this +distributional respect it is like <i>Notropis camurus</i>. The two species +are recorded together from other streams in this region such as the +Chikaskia (Moore and Buck, 1953:23), Cottonwood (Cross, 1954a:310), +and Spring Creek, tributary of Fall River (Elliott, 1947). +It is conceivable that a preference for flowing +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_374" id="Page_374">[Pg 374]</a></span> +water might explain its restriction to the medium-sized, less +intermittent streams in this area. The only tributary which the species +seemed to ascend to any extent was Otter Creek, which is seldom +intermittent downstream.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Pimephales vigilax perspicuus</i></b> (Girard): Stations A-3, C-1, C-4.</p> + +<p>The parrot minnow was found only in downstream habitats. Collection C-4 +(June 3) on Rock Creek was made about ½ mile from the mouth of this +tributary of Big Caney and the creek here had almost the same character +as the river proper. The presence of other channel fishes such as +<i>Ictiobus bubalus</i> indicates the downstream nature of the creek. Some +males of <i>P. vigilax</i> in breeding condition were taken in this +collection.</p> + +<p>At C-1, only one specimen was found in a turbid, isolated pool with +bedrock bottom. At A-1 only one parrot minnow was taken; it was in deep, +fairly quiet water near the bank.</p> + +<p>Other collections outside the three-county area revealed the following: +In the Neosho River, several parrot minnows were found in quiet +backwaters and in shallow pools. In the Verdigris River three were taken +directly under water spilling over the dam at this station, while others +were found, together with <i>P. promelas</i>, in the mouth of a small creek +that provided a backwater habitat with mud bottom.</p> + +<p>Cross and Moore (1952:405) found this species only at stations in the +lower portion of the Poteau River. Farther west the minnow may ascend +the smaller sandy streams to greater distances. Moore and Buck (1953:23) +took parrot minnows at six of 15 stations on the Chikaskia River and +found the species as far upstream as Drury, Kansas. Elliott (1947), in +comparing the South Ninnescah and Spring Creek fish faunas, found only +<i>P. vigilax</i> and <i>P. promelas</i> on the sandy, "flatter" Ninnescah and +only <i>P. notatus</i> and <i>P. tenellus</i> on Spring Creek, an upland, Flint +Hills stream in Greenwood County.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Pimephales promelas</i></b> Rafinesque: Stations A-2, A-3, W-3, W-4, G-9, B-1, +M-1, E-4 (E&F, C-136).</p> + +<p>Occurrences of the fathead minnow were scattered, but included all +streams sampled except Big Caney.</p> + +<p>Three of the collections were in small intermittent streams where +conditions were generally unfavorable for fishes and in one instance +extremely foul. Two of these stations had turbid water and all suffered +from siltation.</p> + +<p>In Middle Caney Creek the species was rare but in the Elk River +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_375" id="Page_375">[Pg 375]</a></span> +(June 28) more than 100 specimens, predominantly young, were taken. This +station consisted of a large isolated pool with a variety of bottom +types. Water was turbid and the surface temperature was high (93&deg; F.). +In different parts of the pool the following numbers of specimens were +taken in single seine-hauls: 15 over shallow bedrock; 35 over gravel +(1½ feet deep); 50 over mud bottom (1 foot deep).</p> + +<p><i>P. promelas</i> was found also in the large, flowing rivers: Arkansas, +Walnut, Verdigris, and Neosho. The species was scarce in the Arkansas +River, and was found principally in muddy coves. In the Walnut (W-3), +this minnow comprised 7.65 per cent of the fish taken and was common in +quiet pools.</p> + + +<p><b><i>Campostoma anomalum</i></b> Rafinesque: Stations W-4, G-4, C-1, C-3, C-5, C-6, +C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, B-3 +(E&F, C-131, C-136).</p> + +<p>Although the stoneroller was found in most streams surveyed, it was +taken most often in the Big Caney system, where it occurred at 16 of the +18 stations. In contrast, it was represented at only one of 17 stations +on Grouse Creek. High percentages were found in three creeks—Cedar, +Otter, and Spring. As noted above, these streams are normally clear, +swift and have steep gradients and many rubble and gravel riffles. On +these riffles young stonerollers abounded. Station C-16 on Spring Creek +typifies the habitat in which this species was most abundant. The stream +has an average width of 10 feet and depth of a few inches. The volume of +flow was less than 1 cubic foot per second but turbulence was great. +Water was clear and the bottom was gravel and rubble. Following rains in +June, stonerollers quickly occupied parts of Spring Creek (upstream from +C-16) that had been dry throughout the previous winter.</p> + +<p>On April 2 many <i>C. anomalum</i> and <i>Etheostoma spectabile</i> were taken in +shallow pools and riffles in an extensive bedrock-riffle area on Cedar +Creek near station C-12. Most of the females were gravid and the males +were in breeding condition. On June 6 these pools were revisited. Flow +had ceased and the pools were drying up. Young-of-the-year of the two +species were abundant, but only a few mature stonerollers were taken. On +August 24, prolonged drought had drastically altered the stream and all +areas from which stonerollers and darters had been taken were dry. +Seining of other pools which were almost dry revealed no stonerollers.</p> + +<p>Collections on May 31, June 15, and June 16 in Otter Creek +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_376" id="Page_376">[Pg 376]</a></span> +revealed large numbers of stonerollers. They were found in riffle areas, in +aquatic vegetation, and especially in detritus alongside banks. Most of +the specimens were young-of-the-year.</p> + +<p><b><i>Anguilla bostoniensis</i></b> (Le Sueur): An American eel was caught by me in +Grouse Creek in 1949.</p> + +<p><b><i>Gambusia affinis</i></b> (Baird and Girard): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, W-1, W-2, +W-3, W-4, W-5, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-9, C-1, C-2, C-3, +C-4, C-6, C-15, E-1.</p> + +<p>Mosquitofish occurred widely but in varied abundance. Huge populations +were in the shallow sandy backwaters and cut-off pools of the Arkansas +River. In the shallow pools of several intermittent streams such as +station G-8 on Silver Creek this fish also flourished.</p> + +<p><i>G. affinis</i> was taken at every station in the Arkansas, Walnut and +Grouse systems except those stations on two upland tributaries of Grouse +Creek (Crab Creek and Grand Summit Creek). The mosquitofish was not +observed in the clear upland tributaries of Big Caney, nor on upper Big +Caney River itself in May, June, and July. On September 3, however, +<i>Gambusia</i> were taken at station C-15 on Otter Creek and others were +seen at station C-14 on the same date.</p> + +<p>Hubbs and Ortenburger (1929b:99) and Cross and Moore (1952:407) observed +that <i>G. affinis</i> usually was absent from small upland tributaries, even +though it was abundant in lower parts of the same river systems.</p> + +<p><b><i>Fundulus kansae</i></b> (Garman): Stations A-2, A-3, Evermann and Fordice as +<i>Fundulus zebrinus</i>.</p> + +<p>At station A-2, seven plains killifish were taken together with a great +many <i>Notropis deliciosus</i> and <i>Gambusia affinis</i> in a shallow, +algae-covered channel with slight flow and sand bottom. At station A-3 +many young killifish were taken in small shallow pools on December 22. +<i>Fundulus kansae</i> has been found in the lower part of the Walnut River +Basin, especially where petroleum pollution was evident. Eastward from +the Walnut River plains killifish have not been taken.</p> + +<p><b><i>Fundulus notatus</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations B-1, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, +G-7, G-8, G-10, G-11, G-14, C-1, M-1, E-1, Evermann and Fordice as +<i>Zygonectes notatus</i>.</p> + +<p>The black-banded topminnow was not taken in the Arkansas River but was +common in the Walnut and Grouse systems. It was common also in Middle +Caney, but in Big Caney and Elk River it was taken only at the lowermost +stations.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_377" id="Page_377">[Pg 377]</a></span></p> + +<p>This species did not seem to ascend far into smaller tributaries of +Grouse Creek. In Crab Creek it was taken at the lower two of six +stations and in Grand Summit Creek at the lower of two stations.</p> + +<p>The highest relative numbers were taken at stations G-3 (17.5 per cent), +G-4 (24 per cent), G-10 (25.75 per cent) and G-11 (41.52 per +cent), on Crab Creek and Grouse Creek. Both upstream and downstream from +these stations, which were within five miles of each other, the relative +abundance dropped off sharply. The bottoms at these stations were mostly +rubble and mud, and water was turbid at three of the stations. At G-10 +(June 24) and G-11 (July 16) young-of-the-year were abundant.</p> + +<p><b><i>Ictalurus melas</i></b> (Girard): Stations W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, +G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-8, G-9, G-11, G-12, G-13, G-14, G-17, C-1, +C-9, C-11, C-12, C-14, C-15, C-17, C-18, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, E-6, N-1, +Evermann and Fordice as <i>Ameiurus melas</i> (C-133).</p> + +<p>The black bullhead was taken at slightly more than half of the stations, +and probably was present at others. Larger numbers were taken in Grouse +Creek than in any other stream system. In many small, shallow pools in +the Grouse Creek system young black bullheads shared dominance with +<i>Gambusia affinis</i> in the late summer. <i>I. melas</i> was also abundant in +isolated pools at the extreme upper ends of Crab Creek, Beaver Creek and +Grand Summit Creek. <i>I. melas</i> was most common in areas with silty +bottoms. The species seemed scarce in the main stream of Big Caney River +but was common in some of its tributaries.</p> + +<p><b><i>Pylodictis olivaris</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations A-3, G-1, C-5.</p> + +<p>Flathead catfish were taken by angling at stations A-3 and C-5. At +station G-1 (September 5) a flathead catfish five inches long was taken +in the four-foot nylon net.</p> + +<p><b><i>Ictalurus punctatus</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations A-3, W-2, W-3, G-2, C-5, +E-4.</p> + +<p>Channel catfish from stations W-3, A-3, and C-5 were taken on hook and +line. At station G-2 (August 29) twenty young-of-the-year were seined +from the shallow narrow end of a large pool. All collections of both <i>I. +punctatus</i> and <i>P. olivaris</i> were in the larger streams surveyed.</p> + +<p><b><i>Ictalurus natalis</i></b> (LeSueur): Stations G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-8, G-11, +C-12, C-14, C-15.</p> + +<p>The yellow bullhead was taken at only 9 stations, compared with 33 +stations for the black bullhead. <i>I. natalis</i> was represented +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_378" id="Page_378">[Pg 378]</a></span> +in 7 of 17 stations in the Grouse Creek system but in only 3 of 18 stations in +the Big Caney system. Of the seven records from Grouse Creek four were +from the main stream. At every station where yellow bullheads were +taken, black bullheads were found also and were abundant, usually +several times more abundant than <i>I. natalis</i>.</p> + +<p>At G-11 on Crab Creek (July 16), <i>I. natalis</i> made up 3.8 per cent of +the fish taken. All were young-of-the-year, existing in a tiny, gravelly +pool containing not more than five gallons of water, and were the only +fish present. Young yellow bullheads were also found in small pools with +gravel bottoms at station G-4 on September 7.</p> + +<p><b><i>Labidesthes sicculus</i></b> (Cope): Stations G-1, G-2, G-3, G-7, G-10, B-2, +C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-12, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-7, M-1 (E&F, C-131).</p> + +<p>The brook silversides was taken, sometimes abundantly, in all stream +systems except the Walnut and Arkansas. At station G-7 on July 8, 41.8 +per cent of the fish taken were of this species. <i>L. sicculus</i> was most +abundant in large pools where the bottom was predominantly bedrock and +gravel. The highest concentrations were in the mainstreams of Big Caney, +Grouse, and Elk Rivers. Brook silversides were taken rarely in the +smaller tributaries of these streams.</p> + +<p><b><i>Percina phoxocephala</i></b> (Nelson): Stations C-2, C-3, C-5, G-1 (C-133).</p> + +<p>Slenderhead darters were scarce, and were found only over gravel +bottoms. Specimens were taken from flowing and quiet water, and from +both shallow and deep water.</p> + +<p>Larger numbers of <i>P. phoxocephala</i> were taken by the writer in other +collections made during 1956 on the Neosho and Verdigris Rivers over +bottoms of rubble or gravel. Restriction of this darter to the larger +streams follows a pattern observed by Cross (1954a:313) who noted it was +absent from smaller riffles in minor tributaries. Elliott (1947), +however, took one specimen of <i>P. phoxocephala</i> in Spring Creek, a +tributary of Fall River.</p> + +<p><b><i>Percina caprodes carbonaria</i></b> (Baird and Girard): Stations G-3, G-4, +G-7, G-12, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-9, C-12, C-13, C-14 (J&J, C-131, C-133).</p> + +<p>The logperch was generally distributed in the Caney, Elk, and Grouse +systems. This species usually comprised less than 1 per cent of the fish +taken; however, at station G-12 it formed 3.76 per cent of the total.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_379" id="Page_379">[Pg 379]</a></span></p> + +<p>In many instances the logperch was taken over submerged gravel bars, +often along the edges of the larger pools. At 8 of 13 stations where the +logperch was taken, the golden redhorse was also found. At every station +where logperch were found, <i>Notropis umbratilis</i> was taken and +<i>Pimephales notatus</i> also occurred at all but three of these stations.</p> + +<p><b><i>Percina copelandi</i></b> (Jordan): Stations C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8, G-1 (C-131, +C-133, J&J).</p> + +<p>Channel darters were collected over bottoms of rubble or gravel, both in +flowing streams and in isolated pools. Although <i>P. copelandi</i> was found +only in Big Caney River and at the lowermost station on Grouse Creek +(G-1) in this survey, this species has been taken previously from Elk +River (K. U. 3463 and K. U. 3197) and from Silver Creek. <i>Notropis +camurus</i> occurred everywhere that <i>H. copelandi</i> was found. In several +instances the two species were taken in the same seine-haul.</p> + +<p><b><i>Etheostoma spectabile pulchellum</i></b> (Girard): Stations W-4, G-1, G-4, +G-5, C-6, C-9, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, E-1, E-5. +Evermann and Fordice as <i>Etheostoma coeruleum</i> (C-131, C-132).</p> + +<p>The habitat preferences of the orangethroat darter seemed similar to +those of <i>Campostoma anomalum</i>. There were sixteen stations at which +both species were taken, seven where only <i>E. spectabile pulchellum</i> was +taken and six where only <i>C. anomalum</i> was taken. The largest relative +numbers of both species were found in the same small, clear upland +tributaries of Big Caney River. On May 31, collections from riffles at +station C-15 (upper Otter Creek) consisted almost entirely of these two +species. On September 1 at this station the stream was intermittent, but +even the tiniest pools abounded with young darters and stonerollers.</p> + +<p>Gravid females and males in breeding condition were taken in riffles in +Cedar Creek on April 2. During June numerous young and adult +orangethroat darters were taken in Cedar Creek, in partly decayed leaves +which lined the banks. On June 15 in Otter Creek young darters were +abundant in streamside detritus and in clear, shallow, rubble riffles. +At station C-11 a few darters were taken on rubble riffles; however, +large numbers were found inhabiting thick mats of <i>Potamogeton foliosus</i> +Raf., which grew in shallow water. Many darters (<i>Etheostoma spectabile +pulchellum</i> and <i>Percina phoxocephala</i>) were taken in September along +gravelly banks at stations C-2 and C-3 by disturbing small rocks and +leaf-litter along the shores. Young orangethroat darters seemed to seek +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_380" id="Page_380">[Pg 380]</a></span> +out sheltered areas and in some cases were found in sluggish, even +foul, water (Stations W-4, B-1 and G-12). Moore and Buck (1953:26) note +that the orangethroat darter is able to thrive in Oklahoma in rather +sluggish and even intermittent waters which reach quite high summer +temperatures.</p> + +<p>Unlike other darters taken in this survey, the orangethroat darter was +common to abundant at several stations and was found at a great many +more stations than any other darter. The comparatively great tolerance +of this species to varying habitats, suggested by this survey, is also +reflected by its widespread distribution in Kansas.</p> + +<p><b><i>Micropterus salmoides salmoides</i></b> (Lacepede): Stations B-1, G-4, G-5, +G-7, G-12, C-1, C-3, E-1, E-2, E-3.</p> + +<p>Most of the largemouth bass taken were young-of-the-year. In Big Caney +River this species seemed rare, being found at only two downstream +stations compared with eight stations at which <i>M. punctulatus</i> was +taken.</p> + +<p>Many ponds in the Flint Hills have been stocked with largemouth bass. At +present largemouth bass are frequently caught by hook and line in Crab +Creek (Station G-12); however, Mr. A. C. Metcalf, who has fished this +stream for approximately 45 years, states that he took no bass in the +creek prior to the building and stocking of large ponds on nearby +ranches.</p> + +<p><b><i>Micropterus punctulatus</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, +C-8, C-10, C-14, C-15, E-2, E-5 (C-133).</p> + +<p>The spotted bass was taken only in tributaries of the Verdigris River, +where it seemed more numerous than the preceding species. It has been +reported from other Verdigris tributaries such as Fall River (Elliott, +1947) and is common eastward from the Verdigris Basin. A spotted bass +(K. U. 3467) was taken by Cross on the Little Walnut River in Butler +County on April 5, 1955. This seems to be the only record of this +species from the Walnut River Basin at the present time.</p> + +<p><b><i>Pomoxis annularis</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, W-5, G-1, G-2, G-5, +G-10, G-11, G-12, C-1, C-2, C-4, C-5, C-6, M-1, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5 +(C-136).</p> + +<p>White crappie were found in almost all habitats and were taken in all +rivers except the Arkansas. The relative abundance of this species was +greater at downstream than at upstream stations on Grouse Creek, Big +Caney, and Elk River. Schools of young crappie were frequently found and +the factor of chance in taking or failing to take a school of crappie +prevented confident appraisal of abundance. White crappie usually sought +quiet waters. Often they +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_381" id="Page_381">[Pg 381]</a></span> +were found in backwaters and many times +schools were taken over bottoms where mud and detritus had been +deposited. It was not uncommon to take <i>Pomoxis annularis</i> and +<i>Ictalurus melas</i> in the same seine-haul in such areas.</p> + +<p><b><i>Pomoxis nigromaculatus</i></b> (LeSueur): Station C-1.</p> + +<p>Black crappie were taken in Otter Creek on May 29 and September 3. +Several ponds in eastern Cowley County are stocked with black crappie, +but none was taken from streams into which these ponds drain.</p> + +<p><b><i>Lepomis cyanellus</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, W-4, W-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, +G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-12, G-13, G-14, G-15, G-16, +G-17, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, +C-13, C-14, C-16, C-17, C-18, E-1, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, M-2 (C-131, +C-132, C-133, C-136, E&F).</p> + +<p>The green sunfish was taken at 45 of 60 stations, which is the greatest +number recorded for one species. The only stream from which it was not +obtained was the Arkansas River. Green sunfish constituted a minor but +consistent part of the fauna in Big Caney River except for some +intermittent pools on small tributaries, where it was high in relative +abundance. It usually comprised approximately 4 per cent of the fish +taken at stations on Grouse Creek. In some intermittent tributaries of +Grouse Creek and Elk River percentages also were high.</p> + +<p>Funk and Campbell (1953:74) observed that <i>L. cyanellus</i> held a definite +but minor place in all collections made on the Black River in Missouri. +This pattern was also observed by the writer in collections made on the +Neosho and Spring Rivers in southeastern Kansas. This seems to indicate +that the Big Caney River populations (exclusive of the upstream stations +in intermittent streams) follow a pattern commonly found in southeastern +Kansas and probably in the Ozark region.</p> + +<p><b><i>Lepomis humilis</i></b> (Girard): Stations A-3, W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, G-1, G-2, +G-3, G-4, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12, G-14, G-15, C-1, C-2, +C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-16, C-17, +B-2, B-3, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, M-1. (C-131, C-132, C-133, +C-136, J&J, E&F.)</p> + +<p>The orangespotted sunfish was found in every stream surveyed, although +only one specimen was taken from the Arkansas River.</p> + +<p>The largest relative number of this species (44.6) was taken at station +G-1. Percentages at other stations on Grouse Creek and its tributaries +progressively declined in an upstream direction.</p> + +<p>In Big Caney River representation of <i>L. humilis</i> in collections +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_382" id="Page_382">[Pg 382]</a></span> +varied from 1.56 per cent at station C-1 to 23.47 per cent at station +C-7. This sunfish was usually the dominant species in collections made +from the Elk River, where the relative abundance ranged from 10 to 30 +per cent.</p> + +<p>The orangespotted sunfish is widespread in Kansas and seems to be a +diagnostic constituent of the Plains Fauna. Moore and Buck (1953:26) +found it "very common" in the Chikaskia River in Kansas and Oklahoma. +Cross (1950:140) noted that in Stillwater Creek it seemed to be the most +tolerant and consequently the most abundant of the stream's cent +rarchids. Moore and Paden (1950:91) note that <i>L. humilis</i> is most +common in muddy waters and found in overflow pools, backwaters, and +oxbow lakes. This species is frequently found in farm ponds in the area +surveyed, which further suggests a wide range of habitat tolerance.</p> + +<p><b><i>Lepomis megalotis breviceps</i></b> (Baird and Girard): Stations W-3, W-4, +W-5, B-1, B-2, G-1, G-4, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12, G-13 (all +Big Caney River stations except C-18), E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6, +M-1, M-2 (C-131, C-132, C-133, J&J, E&F).</p> + +<p>In Big Caney River the longear sunfish shared dominance with the redfin +shiner (<i>Notropis umbratilis</i>) at almost every station. The average of +its relative abundance at all stations in the Big Caney system was 16.5 +per cent. It was also abundant at several stations on Grouse Creek and +made up 43.25 per cent of all fish taken at station G-4.</p> + +<p>Cross (1950:140) observed that <i>L. megalotis breviceps</i> increased in +Stillwater Creek probably as a result of clearer water and stabilized +water level.</p> + +<p>In collections made west of the area treated here (Moore and Buck, +1953:26; Elliott, 1947) the longear sunfish is less abundant than in Big +Caney River and Grouse Creek.</p> + +<p><b><i>Lepomis macrochirus</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, G-3, G-4, G-5, C-3, +C-5, E-1, E-2 (C-131, C-132, C-133).</p> + +<p>The bluegill was, in all cases, a minor constituent in the fish fauna. +No clear pattern of habitat preference can be deduced. In the Verdigris +River at Independence (collection AM-53, August 22, 1956) bluegills were +common in quiet pools and coves below a low-water dam. Moore and Paden +(1950:91) note that <i>L. macrochirus</i> prefers quiet waters and Hubbs and +Lagler (1947:94) state that it is "generally restricted to the quieter +pools."</p> + +<p>The bluegill is widely-stocked in impoundments of the area treated +here.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_383" id="Page_383">[Pg 383]</a></span></p> + + +<p><b><i>Aplodinotus grunniens</i></b> (Rafinesque): Stations C-4, E-2.</p> + +<p>The dearth of stations from which the freshwater drum is reported may +indicate difficulty in taking this species with seines, rather than +scarcity. Both collections were at downstream stations. At station C-4 +three half-grown drum were taken. Fishermen take "drum" at least as far +upstream as station C-5 on Big Caney River. In the Elk River one +specimen was taken in a 20-foot seine below a dam at Elk Falls.</p> + +<hr> +<h2>FISHES OF DOUBTFUL OR POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE</h2> + +<p>In addition to the species listed above, the following species have been +reported nearby and may occur within the area surveyed.</p> + +<p><i>Lepisosteus productus</i> (Cope)—This gar has not been reported from +Kansas. It has been taken at several points in the northern half of +Oklahoma and as far west as Canton Reservoir by Buck and Cross (1951). A +specimen of the spotted gar was taken by Elkin (1954:28) in Salt Creek +in Osage County, Oklahoma.</p> + +<p><i>Polyodon spathula</i> (Walbaum)—The paddlefish has never been reported +from the Arkansas River system in Kansas. Several reports by fishermen +were traced by the writer, but authentication was not achieved. One +mounted specimen was examined in a sporting goods store in Arkansas +City. This fish was said to have been taken on the Arkansas River south +of Arkansas City but information on the date and method of capture were +vague. Mr. Darrell Wheat of Arkansas City reported taking four +paddlefish below a dam at Oxford, Kansas, in 1948 and 1949.</p> + +<p><i>Hiodon alosoides</i> (Rafinesque)—One specimen (K. U. 3095) of the +goldeye was taken in 1953 on the Arkansas River near Oxford in Sumner +County. Fishermen also report taking this fish occasionally in the +Walnut River in Cowley County.</p> + +<p><i>Noturus flavus</i> (Rafinesque)—The stonecat was taken in the Verdigris +system by R. D. Lindsay in 1911 (K. U. 2058) and more recently by Cross +in Montgomery County (C-120) and Schelske (1957:46) in Wilson and +Montgomery Counties. The close proximity of these collection areas to +lower portions of the Elk River indicate probable occurrence in Elk +River and other Verdigris tributaries.</p> + +<p><i>Noturus nocturnus</i> (Jordan and Gilbert)—The freckled madtom has been +taken on all sides of the area studied making its occurrence therein +highly probable. This madtom has been taken in Beaver +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_384" id="Page_384">[Pg 384]</a></span> +Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma (OAM 4771); from a tributary of the Walnut River in +Sedgwick County by Cross (1954); from the Chikaskia River (Moore and +Buck, 1953:24); and from several localities on the Verdigris River +(Schelske, 1957:47).</p> + +<p><i>Etheostoma cragini</i> (Gilbert)—One Cragin's darter (K. U. 3470) was +taken by Cross in the Arkansas River near the Sumner-Cowley county line +(Sec. 25, T31S, R2E). Records of this darter are few and widely +scattered geographically. Several collections from north-eastern +Oklahoma are noted by Moore and Cross (1950:144).</p> + +<p><i>Etheostoma whipplii</i> (Girard)—Schelske (1957:38) reports the redfin +darter from the Verdigris River three miles southeast of Benedict, +Kansas. Dr. George Moore of Oklahoma A. & M. College states that it has +been taken in the Verdigris drainage in Oklahoma at several locations.</p> + +<p><i>Etheostoma zonale arcansanum</i> (Jordan and Gilbert)—Two banded darters +(K. U. 3213) have been reported by Schelske (1957:49) from Fall River +near Neodesha, Kansas. Because a tributary of Fall River enters Elk +County its presence in this and other Verdigris tributaries in the area +seems possible. This darter has been reported from only one other stream +in Kansas, Shoal Creek in Cherokee County, where it has been collected +often.</p> + +<p><i>Roccus chrysops</i> (Rafinesque)—The white bass has been stocked in Hulah +Reservoir on Big Caney River in Oklahoma. To date it has not been +reported from the Big Caney in Kansas. White bass are common in many +reservoirs of Kansas and Oklahoma and have been taken in rivers in both +states. Mr. Clement Gillespie of Arkansas City, Kansas Forestry, Fish +and Game Commission wildlife protector for the area, states that two +hundred young of <i>R. chrysops</i> were released in Grouse Creek several +years ago under auspices of the Commission. The fish has not been +reported by fishermen since that time to the knowledge of Mr. Gillespie +or of the writer.</p> + +<p><i>Lepomis microlophus</i> (Gunther)—One redear sunfish was taken on Salt +Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma, by Elkin (1954:28). Because this +species has been stocked widely in Oklahoma its eventual occurrence in +Kansas seems probable.</p> + +<p><i>Chaenobryttus gulosus</i> (Cuvier)—The warmouth has been taken south of +the collection area in Osage County on Salt Creek by Elkin (1954:28).</p> + + +<hr> +<h2>FAUNAL COMPARISONS OF DIFFERENT STREAMS</h2> + +<p>The faunas of Elk River, Big Caney River, and Grouse Creek were +generally similar. These streams and most of their tributaries originate +in the same hilly area of eastern Cowley County and western +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_385" id="Page_385">[Pg 385]</a></span> +Elk and Chautauqua counties; their similarities and differences have been +pointed out.</p> + +<p>The following species were taken in all of these streams:<br> +<br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Lepisosteus osseus</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Dorosoma cepedianum</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Ictiobus bubalus</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Moxostoma erythrurum</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Minytrema melanops</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Cyprinus carpio</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Campostoma anomalum</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Notropis boops</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Notropis lutrensis</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Notropis umbratilis</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Notropis volucellus</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Pimephales notatus</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Pimephales tenellus</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Fundulus notatus</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Gambusia affinis</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Ictalurus melas</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Ictalurus punctatus</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Etheostoma spectabile</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Percina caprodes</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Micropterus salmoides</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Pomoxis annularis</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Lepomis cyanellus</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Lepomis humilis</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Lepomis megalotis</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Lepomis macrochirus</i></span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Labidesthes sicculus</i></span><br> +</p> + +<p>No species was found in Elk River to the exclusion of Big Caney and +Grouse Creek. Fish taken exclusively in Grouse Creek were <i>Ictiobus +cyprinella</i> at station G-2 and <i>Notropis percobromus</i> at station G-1. +The following species were taken only in Big Caney River: <i>Ictiobus +niger</i>, <i>Notropis rubellus</i>, <i>Phenacobius mirabilis</i>, <i>Pimephales +vigilax</i>, and <i>Pomoxis nigromaculatus</i>.</p> + +<p><i>Notropis buchanani</i> and <i>Pimephales promelas</i> were taken in Grouse +Creek and Elk River, but not in Big Caney River, although the watershed +of Big Caney lies largely between these two streams. Three species, +<i>Notropis camurus</i>, <i>Micropterus punctulatus</i>, and <i>Aplodinotus +grunniens</i>, were found in Elk River and Big Caney but not in Grouse +Creek. <i>Ictalurus natalis</i>, <i>Pylodictis olivaris</i>, and <i>Percina +phoxocephala</i> were taken in Big Caney River and Grouse Creek but not in +Elk River. <i>Percina copelandi</i> was taken by Cross on Elk River in 1954 +and 1955 (K. U. 3464 and K. U. 3197).</p> + +<p>Forty species were taken in Big Caney River, 35 in Grouse Creek and 31 +in Elk River. Collections were made from only six stations on Elk River +as compared with 18 from Big Caney and 17 from Grouse Creek.</p> + +<p>Twenty-four species were taken in the Walnut River system, only one of +which (<i>Notemigonus crysoleucas</i>) was taken exclusively there.</p> + +<p>In the Arkansas River 18 species were found, four of which did not occur +elsewhere. These were <i>Hybopsis aestivalis</i>, <i>Notropis blennius</i>, <i>N. +girardi</i>, and <i>Fundulus kansae</i>.</p> + + +<p>Table 5 lists the number of stations in each of the streams surveyed +from which each species was taken.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_386" id="Page_386">[Pg 386]</a></span></p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 5.—Species of Fishes Collected and Number of Stations in Each +Stream System at Which Each Species Was Found.</span></h4> + + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Table 5"> +<tr><th>Total number of stations</th><th>Arkansas River<br>3 stations</th><th>Walnut River<br>5 stations</th><th>Grouse Creek<br>17 stations</th><th>Big Caney River<br>18 stations</th><th>Elk River<br>6 stations</th><th>Middle Caney<br>2 stations</th><th>Beaver Creek<br>3 stations</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>L. osseus</i></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'> Seen</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>D. cepedianum</i></td><td align='center'> Seen</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Carpiodes carpio</i></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>I. bubalus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>I. cyprinella</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>I. niger</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>M. erythrurum</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'>10</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>M. melanops</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Cyprinus carpio</i></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>C. anomalum</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'>14</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>H. aestivalis</i></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. blennius</i></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. boops</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'>14</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. buchanani</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. camurus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>13</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. deliciosus</i></td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. girardi</i></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. lutrensis</i></td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 13</td><td align='center'>14</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. rubellus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>11</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. percobromus</i></td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. umbratilis</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'>18</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. volucellus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>N. crysoleucas</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>H. placita</i></td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. mirabilis</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. notatus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'>18</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. promelas</i></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. vigilax</i></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. tenellus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>F. notatus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 10</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>F. kansae</i></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>G. affinis</i></td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>I. melas</i></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 12</td><td align='center'> 9</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>I. natalis</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>I. punctatus</i></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. olivaris</i></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>E. spectabile</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'>17</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. copelandi</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. phoxocephala</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. caprodes</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>M. salmoides</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>M. punctulatus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. annularis</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>P. nigromaculatus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>L. cyanellus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 14</td><td align='center'>17</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>L. humilis</i></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 13</td><td align='center'>17</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>L. megalotis</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 9</td><td align='center'>18</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>L. macrochirus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>A. grunniens</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>L. sicculus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<hr> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_387" id="Page_387">[Pg 387]</a></span></p> +<h2>DISTRIBUTIONAL VARIATIONS WITHIN THE SAME STREAM</h2> + + +<p>An analysis of faunal variations in different parts of the same stream +system was made for Big Caney River and Grouse Creek. Collecting was +more extensive in these streams, and sampling was done over a wider +range of habitat, than in the Arkansas and Walnut rivers.</p> + +<p>The fish taken in the first five seine hauls at each station were +counted and the number of each species was recorded as a percentage of +the total number of fish taken. These percentages were calculated for +the main stream and for each tributary in an attempt to discern possible +intra-stream faunal patterns. In Table 6 lower, middle, and upper +segments of each stream have been segregated and the average of all +stations within each segment is shown.</p> + +<p>The results are subject to several sources of error, some of which are +discussed below:</p> + +<p>(1) Seining techniques could not be entirely standardized. One station +might present a series of long narrow riffles and narrow, shallow pools +in which only a small seine could be used effectively; another station +might consist of a large, deep, isolated pool in which a larger seine +was needed for effective sampling. In practice, the five seine hauls +were made with any of several seines ranging from ten to twenty feet in +length.</p> + +<p>(2) Seines are species-selective, due partly to the preference of +certain fishes for special habitat niches. Fishes that are often found +under stones or in weedy pools require special collecting techniques and +frequently were not represented in the initial five hauls. If work +subsequent to the first five hauls indicated that such fish were a +prominent part of the fauna at a particular station, these results were +considered before percentages were calculated.</p> + +<p>(3) Temporal variations occur in populations at the same station. There +were both seasonal and diurnal differences in relative numbers of +species taken in these collections. This was noted especially at station +C-5 where collecting was done both at night and by day. Spawning by +certain species during the course of the study complicated estimates of +their relative abundance.</p> + +<p>(4) In tabulating percentages of fishes obtained an arbitrary element is +often unavoidable in deciding whether a station, especially a station on +a tributary, should be considered as part of the lower, middle, or upper +segment of a river system.</p> + +<p>Despite these disadvantages it is felt that table 6 has factual basis +permitting some reliable interpretation.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_388" id="Page_388">[Pg 388]</a></span></p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 6.—Relative Abundance in Per Cent of Fishes in Collections +From Three Stream Segments.</span></h4> + + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Table 6"> +<tr><th></th><th colspan='3'>Big Caney River</th><th colspan='3'>Grouse Creek</th></tr> +<tr><th></th><th>Lower</th><th>Middle</th><th>Upper</th><th>Lower</th><th>Middle</th><th>Upper</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>L. osseus</i></td><td align='center'> .7</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> .02</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>D. cepedianum</i></td><td align='center'> .3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .02</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>Carpiodes carpio</i></td><td align='center'> .06</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>I. bubalus</i></td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> .45</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1.4</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>I. cyprinella</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>I. niger</i></td><td align='center'> .01</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>M. erythrurum</i></td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> 1.1</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'> .03</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> 1.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>M. melanops</i></td><td align='center'> .1</td><td align='center'> .01</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .1</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>Cyprinus carpio</i></td><td align='center'> .7</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1.3</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>C. anomalum</i></td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> 5.9</td><td align='center'> 18.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .1</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>N. boops</i></td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> 5.1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1.3</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>N. buchanani</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .01</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>N. camurus</i></td><td align='center'> 6.4</td><td align='center'> 5.5</td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>N. lutrensis</i></td><td align='center'> 8.8</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> 6.4</td><td align='center'> 11.4</td><td align='center'> 15.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>N. percobromus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1.1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>N. rubellus</i></td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'> 1.4</td><td align='center'> 3.9</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>N. umbratilis</i></td><td align='center'> 17.6</td><td align='center'> 28.3</td><td align='center'> 15.4</td><td align='center'> 2.5</td><td align='center'> 3.9</td><td align='center'> 5.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>N. volucellus</i></td><td align='center'> .3</td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .3</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>P. mirabilis</i></td><td align='center'> .3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>P. notatus</i></td><td align='center'> 3.5</td><td align='center'> 5.7</td><td align='center'> 13.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .9</td><td align='center'> 6.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>P. vigilax</i></td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>P. promelas</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 2.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>P. tenellus</i></td><td align='center'> .7</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .01</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>G. affinis</i></td><td align='center'> 14.6</td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'> 20.8</td><td align='center'> 10.2</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>F. notatus</i></td><td align='center'> .1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 6.6</td><td align='center'> 17.2</td><td align='center'> 1.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>I. melas</i></td><td align='center'> .9</td><td align='center'> 2.2</td><td align='center'> 2.4</td><td align='center'> 5.6</td><td align='center'> 2.3</td><td align='center'> 18.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>I. natalis</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>P. olivaris</i></td><td align='center'> .01</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .01</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>I. punctatus</i></td><td align='center'> .3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>E. spectabile</i></td><td align='center'> 1.9</td><td align='center'> 4.9</td><td align='center'> 18.0</td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'> .3</td><td align='center'> .3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>P. copelandi</i></td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> .1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .01</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>P. phoxocephala</i></td><td align='center'> .1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>P. caprodes</i></td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> .4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>M. salmoides</i></td><td align='center'> .06</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1.1</td><td align='center'> .3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>M. punctulatus</i></td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> 1.7</td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>P. annularis</i></td><td align='center'> 3.9</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 2.9</td><td align='center'> 4.2</td><td align='center'> .3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>L. cyanellus</i></td><td align='center'> 3.4</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> 6.6</td><td align='center'> 5.2</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td><td align='center'> 30.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>L. humilis</i></td><td align='center'> 10.6</td><td align='center'> 13.1</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td><td align='center'> 31.4</td><td align='center'> 17.7</td><td align='center'> 14.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>L. megalotis</i></td><td align='center'> 12.4</td><td align='center'> 22.3</td><td align='center'> 12.0</td><td align='center'> 3.6</td><td align='center'> 14.0</td><td align='center'> 1.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>L. macrochirus</i></td><td align='center'> .3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> 1.3</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>A. grunniens</i></td><td align='center'> .1</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>L. sicculus</i></td><td align='center'> 7.1</td><td align='center'> 1.6</td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'> 7.7</td><td align='center'> 10.2</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +</table></div> + + + + + + +<h4><i>Big Caney River</i></h4> + +<p>The "lower segment" of Big Caney River is immediately upstream from +Hulah Reservoir, and is not the lowermost portion of the entire river +basin, but merely the lower part of the river in the area studied. A +conspicuous characteristic of the lower segment was the general +restriction of the deep-bodied suckers and the carp to +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_389" id="Page_389">[Pg 389]</a></span> +this part of the +stream. Other fishes that were most common in the lower section were +<i>Pimephales vigilax</i>, <i>Percina phoxocephala</i>, <i>Gambusia affinis</i>, and +<i>Aplodinotus grunniens</i>. <i>Labidesthes sicculus</i> and <i>Lepisosteus osseus</i> +ranged into the middle section of the stream, but were present in larger +numbers downstream. <i>Ictalurus punctatus</i>, <i>Pomoxis annularis</i>, and +<i>Lepomis macrochirus</i> were taken chiefly in downstream habitats; +however, stocking has confused the distributional pattern of these +species. <i>Notropis lutrensis</i>, although found throughout the system, +progressively declined in numbers taken in the middle and upper +sections. Approximately 18 species were usually taken in downstream +collections.</p> + +<p>No species were found exclusively in the middle section of the Big Caney +system. <i>Micropterus punctulatus</i>, <i>Notropis umbratilis</i>, and <i>Lepomis +megalotis</i> tended to be most common in the middle section of the main +stream. These three species were taken together at stations C-5, C-6, +C-8, and C-10.</p> + +<p>The upper section yielded no species that did not occur also in another +section. Fishes most abundant in the upper section included: <i>Campostoma +anomalum</i>, <i>Etheostoma spectabile</i>, <i>Notropis boops</i>, <i>Notropis +rubellus</i>, <i>Pimephales notatus</i>, and <i>Lepomis cyanellus</i>. <i>Ictalurus +natalis</i> also seemed more common upstream than in lower parts of the +basin.</p> + +<p><i>Campostoma anomalum</i> was one of the most common fishes taken at many of +the stations on small upland tributaries. In downstream collections its +relative abundance was less, although it was often concentrated on +riffles.</p> + +<p>In the Big Caney system as a whole <i>Notropis umbratilis</i> was the most +abundant species. Several species were present throughout the system in +proportions varying, sometimes greatly, from station to station. +<i>Lepomis megalotis</i> and <i>Lepomis humilis</i> were erratic in occurrence, +and the numbers of <i>Notropis camurus</i> and <i>Ictalurus melas</i> varied +without pattern.</p> + + +<h4><i>Grouse Creek</i></h4> + +<p>The fauna of the main stream of Grouse Creek fluctuated more in number +and kinds of fish from station to station than did the fauna of Big +Caney River. Again, the deep-bodied suckers showed downstream +proclivities. In addition, <i>Notropis buchanani</i>, <i>Pimephales tenellus</i>, +<i>Percina copelandi</i>, <i>Percina phoxocephala</i>, <i>Notropis percobromus</i> and +<i>Pylodictis olivaris</i> were taken only at the lowermost station (G-1). At +stations G-2 and G-3 the creek is sluggish and often turbid, meandering +between high mud banks in a flood plain. At these stations <i>Fundulus +notatus</i>, <i>Gambusia affinis,</i> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_390" id="Page_390">[Pg 390]</a></span> +<i>Labidesthes sicculus</i>, <i>Ictalurus +melas,</i> and <i>Lepomis humilis</i> were the most common fishes. Shiners +(<i>Notropis</i> spp.) and <i>Lepomis megalotis</i> were rarely taken. Hall +(1953:36) states that <i>Gambusia affinis</i>, <i>Fundulus notatus</i>, and +<i>Labidesthes sicculus</i> are usually associated with overflow pools, +oxbows, and vegetated backwaters.</p> + +<p>Those fishes mentioned in the preceding paragraph remained common in the +middle section of the stream. In addition <i>Notropis lutrensis</i>, +<i>Notropis umbratilis</i>, and <i>Lepomis megalotis</i> were important members of +the fauna.</p> + +<p>In the uppermost section shiners (<i>Notropis</i> spp.) were common. In the +few upstream stations that were still in good condition with clear +flowing water, the fauna resembled that of the upstream stations on Big +Caney River. Most upstream stations on Grouse Creek were located on +highly intermittent streams that are treated below.</p> + +<hr> +<h2>FAUNAS OF INTERMITTENT STREAMS</h2> + +<p>Because of severe, protracted drought, most of the streams studied had +ceased to flow by the close of the survey period. However, the duration +of intermittency varied greatly in different streams, as did its effect +in terms of the number and sizes of residual pools, water temperatures, +pollution, and turbidity. Crab Creek, Beaver Creek, and a small unnamed +tributary of Grouse Creek were severely affected by intermittency. Their +faunas are discussed below.</p> + +<p>In Crab Creek six collections were made from points near the mouth to +the uppermost pool in which water was found. Pools near the mouth were +as large as thirty feet in width and ninety feet in length, while those +that were uppermost were shallow puddles averaging ten feet in length +and five feet in width. The uppermost station was situated in bluestem +pasture without benefit of shade from trees.</p> + +<p>The species taken and their relative abundances based on five seine +hauls at each station are shown in Table 7. At the uppermost pool (G-17) +only small green sunfish were found. At G-16, next downstream, this +species was joined by large numbers of black bullheads and a few redfin +shiners and red shiners. G-13 was similar to G-16, but two additional +species occurred there. G-12 was a clear, deep pool much larger than any +at the stations upstream. Here, seven species were added to the fauna, +and the percentages of <i>Ictalurus melas</i> and <i>Lepomis cyanellus</i> were +much less. At G-10 <i>Fundulus notatus</i>, <i>Labidesthes sicculus</i>, and +<i>Minytrema</i> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_391" id="Page_391">[Pg 391]</a></span> +<i>melanops</i> appeared. Nevertheless, fewer species (10) were captured here +than at station G-12 upstream.</p> + + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 7.—Percentages of Fishes Taken on Crab Creek.</span></h4> + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Table 7"> +<tr><th>Stations</th><th>G-10</th><th>G-11</th><th>G-12</th><th>G-13</th><th>G-16</th><th>G-17</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Minytrema melanops</i></td><td align='center'> 8.7</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Labidesthes sicculus</i></td><td align='center'> 20.0</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Fundulus notatus</i></td><td align='center'> 25.7</td><td align='center'> 41.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Ictalurus natalis</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 3.8</td><td align='center'> .43</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Pomoxis annularis</i></td><td align='center'> 8.8</td><td align='center'> 11.8</td><td align='center'> 1.9</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Lepomis humilis</i></td><td align='center'> 15.45</td><td align='center'> 9.9</td><td align='center'> 8.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Micropterus salmoides</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1.9</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Etheostoma spectabile</i></td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1.9</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Percina caprodes</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 3.8</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Moxostoma erythrurum</i></td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 7.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Lepomis megalotis</i></td><td align='center'> 5.7</td><td align='center'> 2.3</td><td align='center'> 7.0</td><td align='center'> 2.0</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Pimephales notatus</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 34.0</td><td align='center'> 9.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Ictalurus melas</i></td><td align='center'> 5.3</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> 29.0</td><td align='center'> 49.0</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Notropis umbratilis</i></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 4.7</td><td align='center'> 9.0</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Notropis lutrensis</i></td><td align='center'> 20.6</td><td align='center'> 26.0</td><td align='center'> 25.0</td><td align='center'> 14.0</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> <i>Lepomis cyanellus</i></td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1.9</td><td align='center'> 34.0</td><td align='center'> 49.0</td><td align='center'><b>100.0</b></td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 8.—Fish Taken in Nine Pools on Upper Beaver Creek (Progressing +From Downstream to Upstream).</span></h4> + + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Table 8"> +<tr><th></th><th><i>Notropis umbratilis</i></th><th><i>Notropis lutrensis</i></th><th><i>Lepomis humilis</i></th><th><i>Lepomis cyanellus</i></th><th><i>Ictalurus melas</i></th></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>Pools:<br>1</td><td align='center'>5 adults</td><td align='center'>4 adults<br>7 young</td><td align='center'>adults abundant</td><td align='center'>young abundant</td><td align='center'>1 juvenile</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>2</td><td align='center'>2 adults</td><td align='center'>4 adults</td><td align='center'>6 adults</td><td align='center'>young abundant</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>3</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1 adult</td><td align='center'> 7 adults</td><td align='center'> 3 juveniles</td><td align='center'> 2 juveniles</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>4</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 4 adults</td><td align='center'>young abundant</td><td align='center'>young abundant</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 2 adults</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>6</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 28 young</td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>7</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>8</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1 adult</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>9</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'> 1 adult</td></tr> +</table></div> + + + + +<p>A series of collections similar to that on Crab Creek was carried out +along 1½ miles of Beaver Creek on July 22, 1956. Nine pools were +sampled (Table 8) of which number nine was the uppermost +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_392" id="Page_392">[Pg 392]</a></span> +point where water was found (except for farm ponds). Mainly young of <i>Lepomis +cyanellus</i> and <i>Ictalurus melas</i> were found in the uppermost stations, +as on Crab Creek. Only adults of <i>Notropis lutrensis</i> and <i>Notropis +umbratilis</i> were taken.</p> + +<p>In another small intermittent tributary of Grouse Creek two collections +(G-14 and G-15) were made. One was from several isolated pools near the +source of the creek and the other was 1½ miles upstream from the +mouth. The two stations were approximately four miles apart. Table 9 +indicates approximate percentages of fish taken in five seine hauls at +these stations.</p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 9.—Fishes Taken in a Tributary of Grouse Creek.</span></h4> + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Table 9"> +<tr><th>Species</th><th>Upstream station</th><th>Downstream station</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>Ictalurus melas</i></td><td align='center'>45%</td><td align='center'> </td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>Lepomis humilis</i></td><td align='center'>48%</td><td align='center'>40%</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>Notropis lutrensis</i></td><td align='center'>5%</td><td align='center'>30%</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>Lepomis cyanellus</i></td><td align='center'>2%</td><td align='center'>20%</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><i>Fundulus notatus</i></td><td align='center'> </td><td align='center'>10%</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>At two other stations, only <i>Lepomis cyanellus</i> was found. One of these +stations consisted of several small spring-fed pools in a dry arroyo +tributary to Little Beaver Creek. Around these small "oases" rushes and +smartweeds grew and blackbirds were nesting in the rushes. Although +green sunfish up to eight inches in length were common in the shallow +pools, no other species was found. The second station (C-17) on the East +Fork Big Caney River is of special interest. The pool was isolated, had +dimensions of about 25×25 feet, and had an average depth of 15 inches. +The water was foul; cows had been fed fodder in a sheltered area above +the pool during the preceding winter and the entire bottom was covered +to a depth of 6 inches to 1 foot with a detritus of decomposing fodder, +cattle feces, and leaves. The water became almost inky in consistency +when the bottom was stirred and its odor was offensive. A thick +gray-green bloom lay on the surface. This bloom was full of bubbles +indicating gases rising from the bottom muds. One hundred fifty-three +green sunfish, all less than 5 inches in length, were taken in one +seine-haul at this station.</p> + +<hr> +<h2>EAST-WEST DISTRIBUTION</h2> + +<p>In the Arkansas River system in Kansas there are marked differences +between fish faunas of the western and eastern parts of the +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_393" id="Page_393">[Pg 393]</a></span> +state. This can be illustrated by comparison of Spring River in Cherokee County with +the Cimarron River in southwestern Kansas. Single collections from +Spring River or its tributaries usually contain 25 or more species of +fish. Collections from the Cimarron rarely contain more than five or six +species. Many of those fishes found in Spring River are characteristic +of an Ozarkian fauna, and some are endemic to the Ozark uplands. Fish +found in the Cimarron or Arkansas in western Kansas are members of a +plains fauna of wide distribution. There is mingling of these two faunal +groups across the state, with the number of Ozarkian species diminishing +westward, and certain plains species diminishing eastward. A number of +species such as <i>Moxostoma duquesnii</i> and <i>Notropis spilopterus</i> are +limited, on the basis of present records, to Spring River and its +tributaries in Kansas. Others have not been taken west of the Neosho +drainage. The Verdigris River provides the next major avenue of westward +dispersal followed by Caney River, Grouse Creek, and the Walnut River. +West of the Walnut River system Ozarkian species have been almost always +absent from collections. The Chikaskia River is somewhat exceptional. +Moore and Buck (1953) reported from this river several species that seem +more typical of eastern faunal associations. Table 10 indicates the +stream system in which the present westernmost records are located for a +number of fishes found in the Arkansas River system in Kansas.</p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 10.—Present Westernmost Records of Some Fishes in the Arkansas +River Basin in Kansas.</span></h4> + + + +<p>Spring River</p> +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p><i>Cottus carolinae</i><br> + <i>Dionda nubila</i><br> + <i>Etheostoma blennioides</i><br> + <i>Etheostoma gracile</i><br> + <i>Etheostoma nigrum nigrum</i><br> + <i>Etheostoma punctulatum</i><br> + <i>Etheostoma saxatile</i><br> + <i>Hypentelium nigricans</i><br> + <i>Moxostoma duquesnii</i><br> + <i>Notropis spilopterus</i><br> + <i>Noturus exilis</i><br> +</p></div> + + +<p>Neosho River</p> +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p><i>Cycleptus elongatus</i><br> + <i>Etheostoma chlorosomum</i><br> + <i>Etheostoma flabellare lineolatum</i><br> + <i>Hybopsis amblops</i><br> + <i>Hybopsis biguttata</i><br> + <i>Hybopsis x-punctata</i><br> + <i>Notropis zonatus pilsbryi</i></p> +</div> + +<p>Verdigris River</p> +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p><i>Etheostoma whipplii</i><br> + <i>Etheostoma zonale arcansanum</i><br> + <i>Percina copelandi</i><br> + <i>Moxostoma carinatum</i><br> + <i>Notropis boops</i><br> + <i>Notropis volucellus</i><br> + <i>Noturus miurus</i><br> +</p></div> + +<p>Chikaskia River</p> +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p><i>Ictalurus natalis</i><br> + <i>Percina phoxocephala</i><br> + <i>Labidesthes sicculus</i><br> + <i>Lepomis megalotis breviceps</i><br> + <i>Micropterus punctulatus</i><br> + <i>Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum</i><br> + <i>Moxostoma erythrurum</i><br> + <i>Notropis camurus</i><br> + <i>Pimephales notatus</i><br> + <i>Pimephales tenellus</i><br> + <i>Noturus nocturnus</i><br> +</p></div> + + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_394" id="Page_394">[Pg 394]</a></span>The +westernmost records for seven species are in the area studied.</p> + +<p>1. <i>Lepisosteus platostomus.</i></p> + +<p>2. <i>Carpiodes velifer.</i></p> + +<p>3. <i>Moxostoma carinatum.</i></p> + +<p>4. <i>Minytrema melanops.</i> One specimen taken at station G-10 near the +mouth of Crab Creek constitutes the present westernmost record. A +specimen has been taken by Cross (C-24-51) in the headwaters of the +Walnut River.</p> + +<p>5. <i>Notropis boops.</i> The westernmost record is station G-5 on Grouse +Creek. This fish has been reported slightly west of this in Oklahoma on +Big Beaver Creek in Kay County (number 4776, Oklahoma A & M College +Museum of Zoology).</p> + +<p>6. <i>Notropis volucellus.</i> Two specimens were taken at station G-8 on +Silver Creek.</p> + +<p>7. <i>Percina copelandi.</i> The westernmost record is from station G-1, two +miles above the mouth of Grouse Creek.</p> + +<p>The easternmost occurrences of four species are in the area studied. +These species are <i>Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus</i> (Station A-2), +<i>Notropis blennius</i> (Station A-1), <i>Notropis girardi</i> (Station A-2), and +<i>Fundulus kansae</i> (Station A-2 and Walnut River). These fish are +associated with the Arkansas River proper and its sandy western +tributaries. In Oklahoma, these fish are found in the Arkansas River as +it proceeds eastward and in the downstream portions of some of its +tributaries. These fish show little tendency to ascend the streams of +the Flint Hills.</p> + + +<hr> +<h2>SUMMARY</h2> + +<p>The fish fauna of the area studied is transitional between the Ozarkian +and Great Plains faunas.</p> + +<p>Fluctuation in water level seemed especially important in determining +distribution of fishes in the area studied. Variable climate +characteristic of the region studied causes recurrent floods and +intermittency in streams. Both of these conditions have probably been +accentuated by man's modifications of the habitat. The effects of +intermittency were most strikingly demonstrated in small creeks of the +uplands. The number of species of fish in the highly intermittent +streams was small—especially in the uppermost pools sampled—but the +actual number of fish was often high even though the number of species was low. +In several instances the only fishes found in these isolated pools were <i>Lepomis +cyanellus</i> and <i>Ictalurus melas</i>. This phenomenon of concentrated +numbers of individuals of a few species would indicate the presence of limiting +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_395" id="Page_395">[Pg 395]</a></span> +factors that allow only those species most tolerant of the particular factor +to flourish.</p> + +<p>Soon after rains restored flow in these intermittent creeks <i>L. +cyanellus</i> and <i>I. melas</i> appeared in parts of the channels that had +previously been several miles from the nearest water. Rapid upstream +movements of other species after rains was also noted.</p> + +<p>It was impossible to ascertain the precise effects of gradient and +bottom-type on distribution, but certain species such as <i>Notropis +blennius</i>, <i>Notropis girardi</i>, and <i>Fundulus kansae</i> were taken only in +streams with sandy bottoms. <i>Notropis deliciosus</i> and <i>Hybognathus +placita</i> were most abundant over sandy bottoms.</p> + +<p>The high gradient of upland tributaries in the Flint Hills area produced +turbulence and bottoms predominantly of rubble. A fauna of which +<i>Etheostoma spectabile</i> and <i>Campostoma anomalum</i> were characteristic +existed in these waters while they were flowing. As flow decreased and +intermittency commenced, qualitative and quantitative changes in the +fish faunas were observed. Gradient did not change during drought, but +turbulence did. Because turbulence varies with water level as well as +gradient, the effect of gradient on fish distribution ultimately is +linked to climate.</p> + +<p>Probably the small number of fish taken on the Walnut River in +comparison with other eastern Kansas rivers (Verdigris, Neosho) results, +in part, from the long-term pollution of the stream noted by Clapp +(1920:33) and Doze (1924). No percid fishes, black bass, or madtom +catfish were taken on the Walnut in Cowley County and the species of +<i>Notropis</i> numbered only three.</p> + +<p>Four faunal associations seem to be recognizable in the area.</p> + + +<h4><i>Arkansas River Fauna</i></h4> + +<p>This fauna contained <i>Notropis girardi</i>, <i>Notropis blennius</i>, <i>Hybopsis +aestivalis tetranemus</i>, and <i>Fundulus kansae</i> which, in this area, did +not seem to wander far from the sandy main stream of the Arkansas. +Minnows abounded; <i>Notropis lutrensis</i> and <i>N. deliciosus missuriensis</i> +predominated; and <i>Notropis girardi</i>, <i>N. percobromus</i>, and <i>Hybognathus +placita</i> were common. In quiet backwaters, coves, and shallow pools +<i>Gambusia affinis</i> occurred in great numbers. <i>Lepisosteus osseus</i> +seemed to be the most important predator.</p> + + +<h4><i>Lower Walnut River Fauna</i></h4> + +<p>The Walnut River in Cowley County supported large populations of +deep-bodied suckers, carp, and gar. <i>Notropis lutrensis</i> and <i>N. +percobromus</i> were characteristic minnows. <i>Lepomis</i> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_396" id="Page_396">[Pg 396]</a></span> +<i>humilis</i> abounded at some stations. The fauna of the main stream of the +Walnut River was somewhat intermediate between that of the Arkansas River and +that of the three streams considered below. Fifteen of the species common to the +Big Caney, Elk, and Grouse systems were also taken in the Walnut River main +stream. Thirteen species were common to the Walnut and Arkansas rivers. +Seven species were common to all these streams.</p> + + +<h4><i>Caney-Elk-Grouse Main Stream Fauna</i></h4> + +<p>This fauna includes fishes living not only in the main streams but also +in the lower parts of the larger tributaries of these streams. The fauna +was comparatively rich: in the main stream of Big Caney River 39 species +were taken, in Grouse Creek 35 species, in the Walnut River main stream +21 species, and in the Arkansas River 19 species. It has been pointed +out that large rivers such as the Walnut and Arkansas have been +subjected to greater direct and indirect modification by man, possibly +resulting in a less diverse fauna than would otherwise occur in these +streams. At present, there is a paucity of ecological niches in the +upland tributaries and large rivers, as compared with streams of +intermediate size. Fishes typical of the Caney-Elk-Grouse association +were <i>Notropis umbratilis</i>, <i>Lepomis megalotis</i>, <i>Lepomis humilis</i>, +<i>Labidesthes sicculus</i>, <i>Fundulus notatus</i>, and the two species of +<i>Micropterus (Micropterus punctulatus</i> was not taken in Grouse Creek).</p> + + +<h4><i>Upland Tributary Fauna</i></h4> + +<p>Tributary faunas were divisible into two categories: (1) Those of the +Walnut River and Grouse Creek (intermittency was severe, species were +few, with <i>Ictalurus melas</i> and <i>Lepomis cyanellus</i> predominating); (2) +those of Big Caney River (stream-flow was more stable, and eastern +fishes, some of which have Ozarkian affinities, occurred in greater +abundance than in any other part of the area surveyed). In the latter +streams <i>Campostoma anomalum</i> and <i>Etheostoma spectabile</i> usually were +dominant. <i>Pimephales notatus</i>, <i>Notropis volucellus</i>, <i>N. camurus</i>, <i>N. +boops</i>, and <i>N. rubellus</i> characteristically occurred. <i>Notropis +lutrensis</i> was sparsely represented in flowing tributaries. <i>Notropis +umbratilis</i>, which seems to prefer habitats intermediate between those +of <i>Notropis lutrensis</i> and Ozarkian shiners, was usually represented. +Deep-bodied suckers and carp were not taken in upland tributaries but +<i>Moxostoma erythrurum</i> was common and <i>Minytrema melanops</i> was taken.</p> + +<p>The kinds and numbers of shiners (<i>Notropis</i>) taken at different +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_397" id="Page_397">[Pg 397]</a></span> +points along Grouse Creek seem significant. <i>N. lutrensis</i> and <i>N. umbratilis</i> +occurred throughout the stream but were rare in sluggish areas where +populations of <i>Gambusia affinis</i>, <i>Fundulus notatus</i>, and <i>Labidesthes +sicculus</i> flourished. At the lowermost station <i>Notropis percobromus</i> +and <i>N. buchanani</i> were taken; these were not present in other +collections. In the uppermost stations where water remained plentiful, +<i>N. boops</i> and <i>N. volucellus</i> were taken, and <i>N. rubellus</i> has been +recorded.</p> + +<p>In the broader distributional sense those fishes that seemed most +tolerant of intermittency (<i>Lepomis cyanellus</i>, <i>Lepomis humilis</i>, +<i>Ictalurus melas</i>, <i>Notropis lutrensis</i>) are widely distributed in the +Arkansas River Basin, and are common in the western part of the Arkansas +River Basin. Species less tolerant of intermittency are <i>Notropis +boops</i>, <i>Notropis camurus</i>, <i>Notropis rubellus</i>, <i>Notropis volucellus</i>, +and <i>Pimephales tenellus</i>; they have not been taken far west of the area +studied, and become more common east of it.</p> + + +<hr> +<h2>LITERATURE CITED</h2> + + + + +<p><span class="smcap">Bass, N. W.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1929. The geology of Cowley County, Kansas. Kansas Geol. Survey Bull., +12:1-203, 23 figs., 12 pls. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bieber, R. P.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1932. Frontier life in the army, 1854-1861. Southwest Historical Series, +2:1-330. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Breukelman, J.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1940. A collection of fishes in the State University Museum. Trans. +Kansas Acad. Sci., 43:377-384. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Buck, H.,</span> and <span class="smcap">Cross, F. B.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1951. Early limnological and fish population conditions of Canton Reservoir, +Oklahoma, and fishery management recommendations. A +Report to the Oklahoma Game and Fish Council reprinted by the +Research Foundation, Oklahoma A&M College. 110 pp., 17 figs. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Caldwell, M. B.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1937. The southern Kansas boundary survey. Kansas Hist. Quart., 6:339-377. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Clapp, A.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1920. Stream pollution. Kansas Fish and Game Department Bull., 6:33. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Cross, F. B.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1950. Effects of sewage and of a headwaters impoundment on the fishes +of Stillwater Creek in Payne County, Oklahoma. Amer. Midl. Nat., +43 (1):128-145, 1 fig.</p> + +<p>1954a. Fishes of Cedar Creek and the south fork of the Cottonwood +River, Chase County, Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 57:303-314.</p> + +<p>1954b. Records of fishes little-known from Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. +Sci. 57:473-479. +</p></div> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_398" id="Page_398">[Pg 398]</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Cross, F. B.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Moore, G. A.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1952. The fishes of the Poteau River, Oklahoma and Arkansas. American +Midl. Nat., 47 (2):396-412. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Doze, J. B.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1924. Stream pollution. Bien. Report. Kansas Fish and Game Dept. +5:1-42. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Elkin, R. E.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1954. The fish population of two cut-off pools in Salt Creek, Osage +County, Oklahoma. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 35:25-29. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Elliott, A.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1947. A preliminary survey and ecological study of the fishes of the South +Ninnescah and Spring Creek. Unpublished thesis, Kansas State +College. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Evermann, B. W.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Fordice, M. W.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1886. List of fishes collected in Harvey and Cowley counties, Kansas. +Bull. Washburn Lab. Nat. Hist., 1:184-186. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Flora, S. D.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1948. Climate of Kansas. Rept. Kansas State Board Agric. 67:xii-320, +Illus. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Foley, F. C.</span>, <span class="smcap">Smrha, R. V.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Metzler, D. F.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1955. Water in Kansas. A report to the Kansas State Legislature as +directed by the Kansas State Finance Council. University of Kansas, +pp. 1-216—A1-J6. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Frye, J. C.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Leonard, A. B.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1952. Pleistocene geology of Kansas. Bull. Kansas Geol. Surv., 99:1-230. +17 figs., 19 pls. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Funk, J. L.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Campbell, R. S.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1953. The population of larger fishes in Black River, Missouri. Univ. +Missouri Studies, 26:69-82. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Gates, F. C.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1936. Grasses in Kansas. Rept. Kansas State Board Agric., 55 (220-A):1-349, +frontispiece, 270 figs., 224 maps. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Graham, I. D.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1885. Preliminary list of Kansas fishes. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 9:69-78. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Hale, M. E.</span>, Jr.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1955. A survey of upland forests in the Chautauqua Hills, Kansas. Trans. +Kansas Acad. Sci., 58:165-168. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Hall, G. E.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1952. Observations on the fishes of the Fort Gibson and Tenkiller reservoir +areas, 1952. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 33:55-63.</p> + +<p>1953. Preliminary observations on the presence of stream-inhabiting +fishes in Tenkiller Reservoir, a new Oklahoma impoundment. +Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 34:34-40. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Hoyle, W. L.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1936. Notes on faunal collecting in Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., +39:283-293. +</p></div> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_399" id="Page_399">[Pg 399]</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Hubbs, C. L.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Ortenburger, A. I.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1929a. Further notes on the fishes of Oklahoma with descriptions of new +species of cyprinidae. Publ. Univ. Oklahoma Biol. Surv., 1 +(2):17-43.</p> + +<p>1929b. Fishes collected in Oklahoma and Arkansas in 1927. Publ. Univ. +Oklahoma Biol. Surv., 1 (3):47-112, 13 pls. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Hubbs, C. L.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Lagler, K. F.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1947. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. Cranbrook Inst. Sci. Bull., +26 (Revised Edition):i-xi-1-186, illus. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Jewett, J. M.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Abernathy, G. E.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1945. Oil and gas in eastern Kansas. Bull. Kansas Geol. Survey, 57:1-244, +21 figs., 4 pls. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Metzler, D. F.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1952. Water Pollution Report, Walnut River Basin. Department of Sanitation, +Kansas State Board of Health (Unpublished), 64 pp. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Miller, N. H.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1932. Surveying the southern boundary line of Kansas. Kansas Hist. +Quarterly, 1:104-139. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Moore, G. A.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1944. Notes on the early life history of <i>Notropis girardi</i>. Copeia, 1944 +(4):209-214, 4 Figs. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Moore, G. A.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Cross, F. B.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1950. Additional Oklahoma fishes with validation of <i>Poecilichthys +parvipinnis</i> (Gilbert and Swain). Copeia, 1950 (2):139-148. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Moore, G. A.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Paden, J. M.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1950. The fishes of the Illinois River in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Amer. +Midl. Nat, 44:76-95, 1 Fig. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Moore, G. A.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Buck, D. H.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1953. The fishes of the Chikaskia River in Oklahoma and Kansas. Proc. +Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 34:19-27. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Moore, R. C.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1949. Divisions of the Pennsylvanian system in Kansas. Bull. Kansas +Geol. Survey, 83:1-203, 37 Figs. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Moore, R. C.</span>, <span class="smcap">Frye, J. C.</span>, <span class="smcap">Jewett, J. M.</span>, <span class="smcap">Lee, W.</span>, and <span class="smcap">O'Conner, H. G.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1951. The Kansas rock column. Bull. Kansas Geol. Survey, 89:1-132, +52 Figs. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Mooso, J.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1888. The life and travels of Josiah Mooso. Telegram Post, Winfield, +Kansas, pp. 1-400. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Ortenburger, A. I.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Hubbs, C. L.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1926. A report on the fishes of Oklahoma, with descriptions of new +genera and species. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 6:132-141. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Schelske, C. L.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1957. An ecological study of the fishes of the Fall and Verdigris rivers +in Wilson and Montgomery counties, Kansas, March 1954, to +February 1955. Emporia State Research Studies, 5 (3):31-56. +</p></div> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_400" id="Page_400">[Pg 400]</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Schoonover, R.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Thompson, W. H.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1954. A post-impoundment study of the fisheries resources of Fall River +Reservoir, Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 57:172-179. +</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Trautman, M. B.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +1951. <i>Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum</i>, a new subspecies of sucker from +the ozarkian streams of the Mississippi River System. Occ. Papers +Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 534:1-10, 1 pl. +</p></div> + + + +<p><br> + <i>Transmitted December 19, 1958.</i></p> + +<h4>27-7079</h4> + + + +<hr> + + +<h2>UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS<br> +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY</h2> + +<p>Institutional libraries interested in publications exchange may obtain +this series by addressing the Exchange Librarian, University of Kansas +Library, Lawrence, Kansas. Copies for individuals, persons working in a +particular field of study, may be obtained by addressing instead the +Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. There +is no provision for sale of this series by the University Library which +meets institutional requests, or by the Museum of Natural History which +meets the requests of individuals. However, when individuals request +copies from the Museum, 25 cents should be included, for each separate +number that is 100 pages or more in length, for the purpose of defraying +the costs of wrapping and mailing.</p> + +<p>* An asterisk designates those numbers of which the Museum's supply (not +the Library's supply) is exhausted. Numbers published to date, in this +series, are as follows:</p> + + + <p>Vol. 1.</p> +<div class="pblockquot"> +<p>Nos. 1-26 and index. Pp. 1-638, 1946-1950.</p> +</div> + + <p>*Vol. 2.</p> +<div class="pblockquot"> +<p>(Complete) Mammals of Washington. By Walter W. Dalquest. + Pp. 1-444, 140 figures in text. April 9, 1948.</p> +</div> + + <p>Vol. 3.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p>*1. The avifauna of Micronesia, its origin, evolution, and + distribution. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 1-359, 16 figures in text. + June 12, 1951.</p> + + <p>*2. A quantitative study of the nocturnal migration of birds. By + George H. Lowery, Jr. Pp. 361-472, 47 figures in text. June 29, + 1951.</p> + + <p>3. Phylogeny of the waxwings and allied birds. By M. Dale Arvey. + Pp. 473-530, 49 figures in text, 13 tables. October 10, 1951.</p> + + <p>4. Birds from the state of Veracruz, Mexico. By George H. Lowery, + Jr., and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. 531-649, 7 figures in text, 2 + tables. October 10, 1951.</p> + + <p>Index. Pp. 651-681.</p> +</div> + + <p>*Vol. 4.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"> +<p>(Complete) American weasels. By E. Raymond Hall. Pp. + 1-466, 41 plates, 31 figures in text. December 27, 1951.</p> +</div> + + <p>Vol. 5.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p>Nos. 1-37 and index. Pp. 1-676, 1951-1953.</p> +</div> + + <p>*Vol. 6.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p>(Complete) Mammals of Utah, <i>taxonomy and distribution</i>. + By Stephen D. Durrant. Pp. 1-549, 91 figures in text, 30 tables. + August 10, 1952.</p> +</div> + + <p>Vol. 7.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p>*1. Mammals of Kansas. By E. Lendell Cockrum. Pp. 1-303, 73 + figures in text, 37 tables. August 25, 1952.</p> + + <p>2. Ecology of the opossum on a natural area in northeastern Kansas. + By Henry S. Fitch and Lewis L. Sandidge. Pp. 305-338, 5 figures in + text. August 24, 1953.</p> + + <p>3. The silky pocket mice (Perognathus flavus) of Mexico. By Rollin + H. Baker. Pp. 339-347, 1 figure in text. February 15, 1954.</p> + + <p>4. North American jumping mice (Genus Zapus). By Philip H. + Krutzsch. Pp. 349-472, 47 figures in text, 4 tables. April 21, + 1954.</p> + + <p>5. Mammals from Southeastern Alaska. By Rollin H. Baker and James + S. Findley. Pp. 473-477. April 21, 1954.</p> + + <p>6. Distribution of Some Nebraskan Mammals. By J. Knox Jones, Jr. + Pp. 479-487. April 21, 1954.</p> + + <p>7. Subspeciation in the montane meadow mouse. Microtus montanus, in + Wyoming and Colorado. By Sydney Anderson. Pp. 489-506, 2 figures in + text. July 23, 1954.</p> + + <p>8. A new subspecies of bat (Myotis velifer) from southeastern + California and Arizona. By Terry A. Vaughan. Pp. 507-512. July 23, + 1954.</p> + + <p>9. Mammals of the San Gabriel mountains of California. By Terry A. + Vaughan. Pp. 513-582, 1 figure in text, 12 tables. November 15, + 1954.</p> + + <p>10. A new bat (Genus Pipistrellus) from northeastern Mexico. By + Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 583-586. November 15, 1954.</p> + + <p>11. A new subspecies of pocket mouse from Kansas. By E. Raymond + Hall. Pp. 587-590. November 15, 1954.</p> + + <p>12. Geographic variation in the pocket gopher, Cratogeomys + castanops, in Coahuila, Mexico. By Robert J. Russell and Rollin H. + Baker. Pp. 591-608. March 15, 1955.</p> + + <p>13. A new cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) from northeastern + Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 609-612. April 8, 1955.</p> + + <p>14. Taxonomy and distribution of some American shrews. By James S. + Findley. Pp. 613-618. June 10, 1955.</p> + + <p>15. The pigmy woodrat, Neotoma goldmani, its distribution and + systematic position. By Dennis G. Rainey and Rollin H. Baker. Pp. + 619-624, 2 figures in text. June 10, 1955.</p> + + <p>Index. Pp. 625-651.</p> +</div> + + <p>Vol. 8.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p>1. Life history and ecology of the five-lined skink, + Eumeces fasciatus. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 1-156, 26 figs, in text. + September 1, 1954.</p> + + <p>2. Myology and serology of the Avian Family Fringillidae, a + taxonomic study. By William B. Stallcup. Pp. 157-211, 23 figures in + text, 4 tables. November 15, 1954.</p> + + <p>3. An ecological study of the collared lizard (Crotaphytus + collaris). By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 213-274, 10 figures in text. + February 10, 1956.</p> + + <p>4. A field study of the Kansas ant-eating frog, Gastrophryne + olivacea. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 275-306, 9 figures in text. + February 10, 1956.</p> + + <p>5. Check-list of the birds of Kansas. By Harrison B. Tordoff. Pp. + 307-359, 1 figure in text. March 10, 1956.</p> + + <p>6. A population study of the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster) in + northeastern Kansas. By Edwin P. Martin. Pp. 361-416, 19 figures in + text. April 2, 1956.</p> + + <p>7. Temperature responses in free-living amphibians and reptiles of + northeastern Kansas. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 417-476, 10 figures in + text, 6 tables. June 1, 1956.</p> + + <p> 8. Food of the crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos Brehm, in south-central + Kansas. By Dwight Platt. Pp. 477-498, 4 tables. June 8, 1956.</p> + + <p>9. Ecological observations on the woodrat, Neotoma floridana. By + Henry S. Fitch and Dennis G. Rainey. Pp. 499-533, 3 figures in + text. June 12, 1956.</p> + + <p>10. Eastern woodrat, Neotoma floridana: Life history and ecology. + By Dennis G. Rainey. Pp. 535-646, 12 plates, 13 figures in text. + August 15, 1956.</p> + + <p>Index. Pp. 647-675.</p> +</div> + + <p>Vol. 9.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p>1. Speciation of the wandering shrew. By James S. Findley. Pp. + 1-68, 18 figures in text. December 10, 1955.</p> + + <p>2. Additional records and extensions of ranges of mammals from + Utah. By Stephen D, Durrant, M. Raymond Lee, and Richard M. Hansen. + Pp. 69-80. December 10, 1955.</p> + + <p>3. A new long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) from northeastern + Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker and Howard J. Stains. Pp. 81-84. + December 10, 1955.</p> + + <p>4. Subspeciation in the meadow mouse, Microtus pennsylvanicus, in + Wyoming. By Sydney Anderson. Pp. 85-104, 2 figures in text. May 10, + 1956.</p> + + <p>5. The condylarth genus Ellipsodon. By Robert W. Wilson. Pp. + 105-116, 6 figures in text. May 19, 1956.</p> + + <p>6. Additional remains of the multituberculate genus Eucosmodon. By + Robert W. Wilson. Pp. 117-123, 10 figures in text. May 19, 1956.</p> + + <p>7. Mammals of Coahuila, Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 125-335, 75 + figures in text. June 15, 1956.</p> + + <p>8. Comments on the taxonomic status of Apodemus peninsulae, with + description of a new subspecies from North China. By J. Knox Jones, + Jr. Pp. 337-346, 1 figure in text, 1 table. August 15, 1956.</p> + + <p>9. Extensions of known ranges of Mexican bats. By Sydney Anderson. + Pp. 347-351. August 15, 1956.</p> + + <p>10. A new bat (Genus Leptonycteris) from Coahuila. By Howard J. + Stains. Pp. 353-356. January 21, 1957.</p> + + <p>11. A new species of pocket gopher (Genus Pappogeomys) from + Jalisco, Mexico. By Robert J. Russell. Pp. 357-361. January 21, + 1957.</p> + + <p>12. Geographic variation in the pocket gopher, Thomomys bottae, in + Colorado. By Phillip M. Youngman. Pp. 363-387, 7 figures in text. + February 21, 1958.</p> + + <p>13. New bog lemming (genus Synaptomys) from Nebraska. By J. Knox + Jones, Jr. Pp. 385-388. May 12, 1958.</p> + + <p>14. Pleistocene bats from San Josecito Cave, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. By + J. Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 389-396. December 19, 1958.</p> + + <p>15. New Subspecies of the rodent Baiomys from Central America. By + Robert L. Packard. Pp. 397-404. December 19, 1958.</p> + + <p>More numbers will appear in volume 9.</p> +</div> + + <p>Vol. 10.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p>1. Studies of birds killed in nocturnal migration. By Harrison + B. Tordoff and Robert M. Mengel. Pp. 1-44, 6 figures in text, 2 tables. + September 12, 1956.</p> + + <p>2. Comparative breeding behavior of Ammospiza caudacuta and A. + maritima. By Glen E. Woolfenden. Pp. 45-75, 6 plates, 1 figure. + December 20, 1956.</p> + + <p>3. The forest habitat of the University of Kansas Natural History + Reservation. By Henry S. Fitch and Ronald R. McGregor. Pp. 77-127, + 2 plates, 7 figures in text, 4 tables. December 31, 1956.</p> + + <p>4. Aspects of reproduction and development in the prairie vole + (Microtus ochrogaster). By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 129-161, 8 figures + in text, 4 tables. December 19, 1957.</p> + + <p>5. Birds found on the Arctic slope of northern Alaska. By James W. + Bee. Pp. 163-211, pls. 9-10, 1 figure in text. March 12, 1958.</p> + + <p>6. The wood rats of Colorado: distribution and ecology. By Robert + B. Finley, Jr. Pp. 213-552, 34 plates, 8 figures in text, 35 + tables. November 7, 1958.</p> + + <p>More number will appear in volume 10.</p> +</div> + + <p>Vol. 11.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"> + <p>1. The systematic status of the colubrid snake, Leptodeira + discolor Günther. By William E. Duellman. Pp. 1-9, 4 figs. July 14, + 1958.</p> + + <p>2. Natural history of the six-lined racerunner, Cnemidophorus + sexlineatus. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 11-62, 9 figs., 9 tables. + September 19, 1958.</p> + + <p>3. Home ranges, territories, and seasonal movements of vertebrates + of the Natural History Reservation. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 63-326, + 6 plates, 24 figures in text, 3 tables. December 12, 1958.</p> + + <p>4. A new snake of the genus Geophis from Chihuahua, Mexico. By John + M. Legler. Pp. 327-334, 2 figures in text. January 28, 1959.</p> + + <p>5. A new tortoise, genus Gopherus, from north-central Mexico. By + John M. Legler. Pp. 335-343, 2 plates. April 24, 1959.</p> + + <p>6. Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk counties, Kansas. By Artie + L. Metcalf. Pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 figures in text, 10 tables. + May 6, 1959.</p> + + <p>More numbers will appear in Volume 11.</p> +</div> + + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk +Counties, Kansas, by Artie L. Metcalf + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FISHES *** + +***** This file should be named 34523-h.htm or 34523-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/4/5/2/34523/ + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/34523-h/images/bar_double.png b/34523-h/images/bar_double.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f2422e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/34523-h/images/bar_double.png diff --git a/34523-h/images/bar_single.png b/34523-h/images/bar_single.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1496c61 --- /dev/null +++ b/34523-h/images/bar_single.png diff --git a/34523-h/images/i007.jpg b/34523-h/images/i007.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8ed6a78 --- /dev/null +++ b/34523-h/images/i007.jpg diff --git a/34523-h/images/i014.jpg b/34523-h/images/i014.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..19b4d2f --- /dev/null +++ b/34523-h/images/i014.jpg diff --git a/34523-h/images/i019.jpg b/34523-h/images/i019.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..dffc039 --- /dev/null +++ b/34523-h/images/i019.jpg diff --git a/34523-h/images/i020.jpg b/34523-h/images/i020.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..adb0d04 --- /dev/null +++ b/34523-h/images/i020.jpg diff --git a/34523.txt b/34523.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4529d24 --- /dev/null +++ b/34523.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3688 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk +Counties, Kansas, by Artie L. Metcalf + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk Counties, Kansas + +Author: Artie L. Metcalf + +Release Date: November 30, 2010 [EBook #34523] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FISHES *** + + + + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + + + + ==================================================================== + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS + MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + + Volume 11, No. 6, pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 figs. in text, 10 tables + ---------------------- May 6, 1959 ------------------------- + + + Fishes of + Chautauqua, Cowley and + Elk Counties, Kansas + + + BY + + ARTIE L. METCALF + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS + LAWRENCE + 1959 + + + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + + Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, Henry S. Fitch, + Robert W. Wilson + + Volume 11, No. 6, pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 figs. in text, 10 tables + Published May 6, 1959 + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS + Lawrence, Kansas + + + A CONTRIBUTION FROM + THE STATE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF KANSAS + + + PRINTED IN + THE STATE PRINTING PLANT + TOPEKA, KANSAS + 1959 + + 27-7079 + + + + + Fishes of + Chautauqua, Cowley and + Elk Counties, Kansas + + BY + ARTIE L. METCALF + + +CONTENTS + + + PAGE + Introduction 347 + Physical characteristics of the streams 351 + Climate 351 + Present flora 353 + History 354 + Conservation 357 + Previous ichthyological collections 357 + Acknowledgments 358 + Materials and methods 358 + Collecting stations 359 + Annotated list of species 362 + Fishes of doubtful or possible occurrence 383 + Faunal comparisons of different streams 384 + Distributional variations within the same stream 387 + Faunas of intermittent streams 390 + East-west distribution 392 + Summary 394 + Literature cited 397 + + + + +INTRODUCTION + + +Aims of the distributional study here reported on concerning the fishes +of a part of the Arkansas River Basin of south-central Kansas were as +follows: + +(1) Ascertain what species occur in streams of the three counties. + +(2) Ascertain habitat preferences for the species found. + +(3) Distinguish faunal associations existing in different parts of the +same stream. + +(4) Describe differences and similarities among the fish faunas of the +several streams in the area. + +(5) Relate the findings to the over-all picture of east-west +distribution of fishes in Kansas. + +(6) List any demonstrable effects of intermittency of streams on fish +distribution within the area. + +Cowley and Chautauqua counties form part of the southern border of +Kansas, and Elk County lies directly north of Chautauqua. The following +report concerns data only from those three counties unless otherwise +noted. They make up an area of 2,430 square miles having a population of +50,960 persons in 1950 (55,552 in 1940, and 60,375 in 1930). The most +populous portion of the area is western Cowley County where Arkansas +City with 12,903 inhabitants and Winfield with 10,264 inhabitants are +located. Each of the other towns has less than 2,000 inhabitants. In the +Flint Hills, which cross the central portion of the area surveyed, +population is sparse and chiefly in the valleys. + +Topographically, the area is divisible into three general sections: the +extensive Wellington formation and the floodplain of the Arkansas River +in western Cowley County; the Flint Hills in the central part of the +area; and the "Chautauqua Hills" in the eastern part. The drainage +pattern is shown in Figure 1. + +The Wellington formation, which is devoid of sharp relief, borders the +floodplain of the Arkansas River through most of its course in Cowley +County. A short distance south of Arkansas City, however, the Arkansas +is joined by the Walnut River and enters a narrow valley walled by +steep, wooded slopes. Frye and Leonard (1952:198) suggest that this +valley was originally carved by the Walnut River, when the Arkansas +River flowed southward west of its present course. They further suggest +that during Nebraskan glacial time the Arkansas probably was diverted to +the rapidly downcutting Walnut. The Arkansas River has a gradient of 3.0 +ft. per mile in Cowley County. This gradient and others cited were +computed, by use of a cartometer, from maps made by the State Geological +Survey of Kansas and the United States Geological Survey. + +Northward along the Walnut, steep bluffs and eroded gulleys characterize +both sides of the river, especially in southern Cowley County. Two +massive limestones, the Fort Riley and the Winfield, form the bluffs in +most places. The well-defined Winfield limestone is persistent on the +west bank of the river across the entire county. The Walnut has only a +few small tributaries in the southern half of Cowley County (Fig. 1). In +the northern half, however, it is joined from the east by Timber Creek +and Rock Creek. Timber Creek drains a large level area, formed by the +eroded upper portion of the Fort Riley limestone, in the north-central +portion of the county. The gradient of Timber Creek is 12.9 feet per +mile. The gradient of the Walnut River is only 2.3 ft. per mile from its +point of entrance into the county to its mouth. + + [Illustration: FIG. 1. + Map of Cowley, Chautauqua and Elk counties, Kansas, + showing the streams mentioned in the text.] + +Grouse Creek, like the Walnut, has formed a valley of one to three miles +in width, rimmed by prominent wooded bluffs. Those on the west side are +capped by the Fort Riley limestone with the resistant Wreford and Crouse +limestones forming lower escarpments. On the east side the Wreford and +Crouse limestones provide the only escarpments along the stream above +the Vinton community, except for occasional lower outcrops of Morrill +limestone. Below Vinton the Fort Riley limestone again appears, capping +the hills above the Wreford limestone. The headwaters of the western +tributaries of Grouse Creek are generally in the Doyle shale formation; +the eastern tributaries are in the Wreford limestone, Matfield shale, +and Barnestone limestone formations. The gradient of Grouse Creek is 9 +ft. per mile, of Silver Creek 14.6 ft. per mile, and of Crab Creek 14.4 +ft. per mile. + +The Big Caney River (Fig. 1), having a gradient of 15.4 ft. per mile in +the area studied, drains an area with considerable geological and +topographic variation. The main stream and its western tributaries +originate in Permian formations, whereas the eastern tributaries +originate in Pennsylvanian formations. Cedar Creek is exemplary of +western tributaries of Big Caney. This creek arises in the Wreford +limestone, as do several nearby tributaries of Grouse Creek. Although +the Grouse tributaries descend through only part of the Council Grove +group, Cedar Creek flows downward through the entire Grove, Admire, and +Wabaunsee groups and part of the Shawnee Group (Moore, 1951). In only 15 +miles, Cedar Creek traverses formations comprising more than 60 per cent +of the entire exposed stratigraphic section in Cowley County. Bass +(1929:16) states that reliefs of 350 feet within a mile are present in +parts of this area. + +Large terraces of limestone characterize the eastern flank of the Flint +Hills, which the western tributaries of Big Caney drain. Most striking +is the Foraker limestone. It characteristically consists of three +massive members in Cowley County, the uppermost of which forms the +prominent first crest of the Flint Hills. As the rapid-flowing western +tributaries of Big Caney descend over these successive limestone +members, large quantities of chert and limestone rubble are transported +and deposited in stream beds of the system. In many places the streams +of the Big Caney system flow over resistant limestone members, which +form a bedrock bottom. The eastern tributaries of Big Caney drain, for +the most part, formations of the Wabaunsee group of the Pennsylvanian. +Most of these streams have lower gradients than those entering Big Caney +from the west. The tributaries of Big Caney, along with length in miles +and gradient in feet per mile, are as follows: Spring Creek, 7.1, 54.5; +Union Creek, 6.3, 42.9; Otter Creek, 14.6, 27.4; Cedar Creek, 11.6, +31.0; Rock Creek, 15.9, 26.5; Wolf Creek, 9.3, 17.2; Turkey Creek, 8.5, +26.4; Grant Creek, 13.9, 23.4; and Sycamore Creek, 8.9, 27.0. + +Spring Creek and Union Creek are short and have formed no extensive +floodplain. The high gradients of these creeks are characteristic also +of the upper portions of several other tributaries such as Cedar Creek +and Otter Creek. + +Middle Caney Creek (Fig. 1) has its source in the Wabaunsee and Shawnee +groups of the Pennsylvanian but its watershed is dominated by the +"Chautauqua Hills" of the Douglas Group. This area is described by Moore +(1949:127) as "an upland formed by hard sandstone layers." The rough +rounded hills supporting thick growths of oaks differ in appearance from +both the Big Caney watershed on the west and the Verdigris River +watershed on the east. The gradient of Middle Caney in Chautauqua County +is 10.8 feet per mile. Its largest tributary, North Caney Creek, has a +gradient of 15.5 feet per mile. + +The Elk River Basin resembles the Big Caney River Basin topographically. +Elk River has a gradient of 14.4 feet per mile. + + + + +PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS + + +The stream channels derive their physical characteristics from the +geological make-up of the area and from land-use. The Arkansas River +typically has low banks; however, in a few places, as in the NE 1/4 of +Section 21, T. 33 S, R. 3 E, it cuts into limestone members to form +steep rocky banks. The bottom is predominantly sand. In years of heavy +rainfall the river is turbid, but during 1956, when it occupied only a +small portion of its channel, it was clear each time observed. All +streams surveyed were clear except after short periods of flooding in +June, and except in some isolated pools where cattle had access to the +water. + +In the Walnut River, sand bottoms occur in the lower part of the stream +but the sand is coarser than that of the Arkansas River. Upstream, +gravel and rubble bottoms become more common. Steep rocky banks border +most of the course of the Walnut. During 1956, stream-flow was confined +to the center of the channel, remote from these rocky banks. + +The rubble and bedrock bottoms found in most streams of the Flint Hills +have been described. In the alluvial valleys of their lower courses mud +bottoms are found. Gravel is present in some places but sand is absent. +Banks are variable but often steep and wooded. Along east- or +west-flowing streams the north bank characteristically is low and +sloping whereas the south bank is high, rises abruptly, and in many +places is continuous with wooded hills. The lower sections of Otter +Creek, Cedar Creek, and Rock Creek fit this description (Bass, 1929:19) +especially well, as does Elk River near Howard. + +Streams in the Chautauqua Hills resemble those of the Flint Hills in +physical characteristics, except that a larger admixture of sandstone +occurs in the rubble. + + + + +CLIMATE + + +The climate of the area is characterized by those fluctuations of +temperature, wind, and rainfall typical of the Great Plains. The mean +annual temperature is 58 degrees; the mean July temperature is 81 +degrees; the mean January temperature is approximately 34 degrees. The +mean annual precipitation is 32.9 in Cowley County, 38.5 in Chautauqua +County, and 35.1 in Elk County. Wind movement is great; Flora (1948:6) +states that south-central Kansas ranks close to some of the windiest +inland areas in the United States. + +The area has been periodically subjected to droughts and floods. Such +phenomena are of special interest to ichthyological workers in the area. +At the time of this study drought conditions, which began in 1952, +prevailed. Even in this period of drought, however, flooding occurred on +Grouse Creek and water was high in Big Caney River after heavy local +rains on the headwaters of these streams on June 22, 1956. Some of the +lower tributaries of these same streams (such as Crab Creek and Cedar +Creek) did not flow while the mainstreams were flooding. This +illustrates the local nature of many of the summer rains in the area. + +Table 1 indicates maximum, minimum, and average discharges in cubic feet +per second at several stations in the area and on nearby streams. These +figures were provided by the U. S. Geological Survey. + + TABLE 1.--CUBIC FEET PER SECOND OF WATER DISCHARGED AT GAUGING + STATIONS IN CHAUTAUQUA, ELK, MONTGOMERY, AND COWLEY + COUNTIES FOR YEARS PRIOR TO 1951. + + ======================================================================= + Gauging |Drainage |Avg |Maximum| |Minimum| + station |area |dis- |dis- | |dis- | + |(sq. mi.)|charge|charge | Date |charge | Date + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|----------- + Arkansas River | 43,713 |1,630 |103,000| June 10, | 1 |October 9, + at Arkansas | | | | 1923 | | 1921 + City | | | | | | + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|---------- + Walnut River | 1,840 | 738 |105,000| April 23,| 0 |1928, 1936 + at Winfield | | | | 1944 | | + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|---------- + Big Caney River| 445 | 264 | 35,500| April 10,| 0 |1939, 1940, + at Elgin | | | | 1944 | |1946, 1947 + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|---------- + Elk River near | 575 | 393 | 39,200| April 16,| 0 |1939, 1940, + Elk City | | | | 1945 | |1946 + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|---------- + Fall River near| 591 | 359 | 45,600| April 16,| 0 |1939, 1940, + Fall River | | | | 1945 | |1946 + ---------------|---------|------|-------|----------|-------|---------- + Verdigris River| 2,892 |1,649 |117,000| April 17,| 0 |1932, 1934, + at Independence| | | | 1945 | |1936, 1939, + | | | | | |1940 + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- + +Something of the effect that drought and flash-flood have had on Big +Caney River is shown by the monthly means of daily discharge from +October, 1954, to September, 1956, at the stream-gauging station near +Elgin, Kansas (Table 2). Within these monthly variations there are also +pronounced daily fluctuations; on Big Caney River approximately 1/4 mile +south of Elgin, Kansas, discharge in cubic feet per second for May, +1944, ranged from .7 to 9,270.0 and for May, 1956, from .03 to 20.0. + + TABLE 2.--MONTHLY MEANS OF DAILY DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER + SECOND FOR BIG CANEY RIVER AT ELGIN, KANSAS + + _Month_ _1954-55_ _1955-56_ + + October 103.00 69.60 + November .31 .78 + December .18 1.92 + January .78 1.65 + February 4.76 2.08 + March 3.37 1.27 + April 4.91 .47 + May 624.00 7.37 + June 51.30 35.20 + July 1.20 1.85 + August 0.00 0.00 + September .04 0.00 + + + + +PRESENT FLORA + + +The flora of the region varies greatly at the present time. Land-use has +altered the original floral communities, especially in the intensively +cultivated area of western Cowley County and in the river valleys. + +The sandy Arkansas River floodplain exhibits several stages ranging from +sparsely vegetated sandy mounds near the river through stages of Johnson +grass, willow, and cottonwood, to an elm-hackberry fringe-forest. The +Wellington formation bordering the floodplain supports a prairie flora +where not disturbed by cultivation; Gates (1936:15) designates this as a +part of the mixed bluestem and short-grass region. _Andropogon gerardi_ +Vitman., _Andropogon scoparius_ Michx., _Sorghastrum nutans_ (L.), and +_Panicum virgatum_ L. are important grasses in the hilly pasture-lands. +Although much of this land is virgin prairie, the tall, lush condition +of the grasses described by early writers such as Mooso (1888:304), and +by local residents, is not seen today. These residents speak of slough +grasses (probably _Tripsacum dactyloides_ L. and _Spartina pectinata_ +Link.) that originally formed rank growths. These no doubt helped +conserve water and stabilize flow in small headwater creeks. Remnants of +some of these sloughs can still be found. The streams in the Flint Hills +have fringe-forests of elm, hackberry, walnut, ash, and willow. + +Eastward from the Flint Hills these fringe-forests become thicker with a +greater admixture of hickories and oaks. The north slopes of hills also +become more wooded. However, grassland remains predominant over woodland +in western Chautauqua and Elk counties, whereas in the eastern one-half +of Chautauqua County and the eastern one-third of Elk County the wooded +Chautauqua Hills prevail. This is one of the most extensive wooded +upland areas in Kansas. Hale (1955:167) describes this woodland as part +of an ecotonal scrub-oak forest bordering the Great Plains south through +Texas. He found stand dominants in these wooded areas to be _Quercus +marilandica_ Muenchh., _Quercus stellata_ Wang., and _Quercus velutina_ +Lam. + +Few true aquatic plants were observed in the Arkansas River although +mats of duckweed were found in shallow backwater pools at station A-3 +(Fig. 2) on December 22, 1956. In the Walnut River _Najas guadalupensis_ +Spreng. was common at station W-2. Stones were usually covered with +algae in both the Arkansas and Walnut rivers. A red bloom, possibly +attributable to _Euglena rubra_ (Johnson), was observed on a tributary +of the Walnut River on July 9, 1956, at station W-4. + +Green algae were abundant at all stations in the Caney, Elk, and Grouse +systems during May and June, 1956, and reappeared late in September. +_Chara_ sp. was common in these streams in April and May. + +The most characteristic rooted aquatic of streams in the Flint Hills was +_Justicia americana_ L. At station G-7 on Grouse Creek and Station C-8 +on Big Caney River (Fig. 3), _Nelumbo lutea_ (Willd.) was found. +_Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ Michx. formed dense floating mats at a +number of stations. Other aquatic plants observed in the Caney, Elk, and +Grouse systems included _Potamogeton gramineus_ L., _Potamogeton +nodosus_ Poir., _Potamogeton foliosus_ Raf., _Sagittaria latifolia_ +Willd., _Typha latifolia_ L., and _Jussiaea diffusa_ Forsk. + + + + +HISTORY + + +In 1857, a survey was made of the southern boundary of Kansas. Several +diaries (Miller, 1932; Caldwell, 1937; Bieber, 1932) were kept by +members of the surveying party, which traveled from east to west. These +accounts contain complaints of difficulty in traversing a country of +broken ridges and gulleys as the party approached the area now +comprising Chautauqua County. One account by Hugh Campbell, astronomical +computer for the party (Caldwell, 1937) mentions rocky ridges covered +with dense growth of "black jack," while another by Col. Joseph Johnson, +Commander (Miller, 1932) speaks of "a good deal of oakes in the +heights"--indicating that the upland oak forest of the Chautauqua Hills +was in existence at that time. On reaching Big Caney River near Elgin, +Campbell wrote of a stream with very high banks and of a valley timbered +with oak and black walnut. While the party was encamped on Big Caney +River some fishing was done. Campbell (Caldwell, 1937:353) described the +fish taken as "Cat, Trout or Bass, Buffalo and Garr." Eugene Bandel +(Bieber, 1932:152) wrote, "This forenoon we did not expect to leave +camp, and therefore we went fishing. In about two hours we caught more +fish than the whole company could eat. There were some forty fish +caught, some of them weighing over ten pounds." It was noted that the +waters of Big Caney and its tributaries were "very clear." Progressing +up Rock Creek, Johnson wrote of entering a high rolling plain covered +with fine grass, and crossed occasionally by clear wooded streams +(probably Big and Little Beaver Creeks and Grouse Creek). The diary of +Hugh Campbell (Caldwell, 1937:354) contains a description of the +Arkansas River Valley near the Oklahoma border. "The Arkansas River at +this point is about 300 yards wide, its waters are muddy, not quite so +much so, as those of the Mississippi or Rio Bravo. Its valley is wooded +and about two miles in width, the main bottom here, being on the east +side. On the west it is a rolling prairie as far as the eye can see, +affording excellent grass." Some seining was done while encamped on the +Arkansas River and "buffalo, catfish, sturgeons, and gars" were taken +(Bieber, 1932:156). + +An editorial in the Winfield Courier of November 16, 1899, vigorously +registers concern about a direct effect of settlement on fish +populations in rivers of the area: + +"The fish in the streams of Cowley County are being slaughtered by the +thousands, by the unlawful use of the seine and the deadly hoop net. +Fish are sold on the market every day, sometimes a tubful at a time, +which never swallowed a hook. + +"The fish law says it is unlawful to seine, snare, or trap fish but some +of the smaller streams in the county, it is said are so full of hoop and +trammel nets that a minnow cannot get up or down stream. These nets not +only destroy what fish there are in the streams but they keep other fish +from coming in, they are not operated as a rule by farmers to supply +their own tables but by fellows who catch the fish to sell with no +thought or care for the welfare of others who like to catch and eat +fish. + +"If there is a fishwarden in Cowley County so far as his utility goes +the county would be as well off without him and his inactivity has +caused many of those interested to get together for the purpose of +seeing that the law is enforced. + +"Depredations like this work injury in more ways than one. They not only +deplete the streams of fish large enough to eat and destroy the source +of supply but if the U. S. Fish Commission discovers that the law is not +enforced and the fish not protected, there will be no free government +fish placed in Cowley County streams. It is useless for the Government +to spend thousands of dollars to keep the streams well supplied if a few +outlaws are allowed to ruthlessly destroy them. The new organization has +its eye on certain parties now and something is liable to drop +unexpectedly soon." + +Graham (1885:78) listed 13 species of fish that had already been +introduced into Kansas waters prior to 1885 by the State Fish +Commission. + +These early references indicate that direct effects of settlement on the +native flora and fauna were recognized early. Concern such as that +expressed in the editorial above persists today; however, it is not +clear whether the fish fauna of the streams of the area has been +essentially changed by man's predation. The indirect effects through +human modifications of the environment seem to be of much importance. +Three modifications which have especially affected streams have been +agricultural use, urbanization, and industrialization. + +The effect of land-use on streams is closely related to its effect on +the flora of the watershed. Turbidity, sedimentation, and the rate, +periodicity, and manner of flow all bear some relationship to the +land-use of the watershed. Stream-flow in the area has been discussed in +the section on climate. + +The effects of urbanization are more tangible and better recognized than +those of agricultural land-use. Streams that flow through cities and +other populous areas undergo some modification, especially of the +streamside flora. Another effect of urbanization has been increased +loads of sewage discharged into the streams. The combined populations of +Arkansas City and Winfield rose from 3,986 in 1880 to 23,167 in 1950. +Arkansas City found it necessary to construct a sewage system in 1889; +Winfield in 1907. + +There are, at the present time, nine towns within the area that have +municipal sewage systems. The State Training Home at Winfield also has a +sewage system. The Kansas State Board of Health, Division of Sanitation, +has provided information concerning adequacy of these systems and +certain others in nearby counties as of February 5, 1957. This +information is shown in Table 3. + +Representatives of the Division of Sanitation, Kansas State Board of +Health, expressed the belief that pollution by both domestic sewage and +industrial wastes would be largely eliminated in the "lower Arkansas" +and in the Walnut watershed by 1959. + +Important oil and gas resources have been discovered in each of the +three counties. The first producing wells were drilled between 1900 and +1902 (Jewett and Abernathy, 1945:24). The Arkansas River flows through +several oilfields in its course across Cowley County (Jewett and +Abernathy, 1945:97). A number of producing wells have been drilled in +the Grouse Creek watershed since 1939 and many of these wells are near +the banks of the creek. In the Big Caney watershed of Cowley and +Chautauqua counties there has been little oil production in recent +years; however, a few small pools are presently producing in +southwestern Elk County. + +Clapp (1920:33) stated that "Many of the finest streams of our state are +now destitute of fish on account of oil and salt pollution. The Walnut +River, once as fine a bass stream as could be found anywhere, and a +beautiful stream, too, is now a murky oil run, and does not contain a +single fish so far as I know. The Fall and Verdigris rivers are +practically ruined. Both the Caney rivers are affected, and may soon be +ruined for fishing." Doze (1924:31) noted "Some of the finest streams in +the state have been ruined as habitat for wild life, the Walnut River is +probably the most flagrant example." + + TABLE 3.--SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN SOME SOUTH-CENTRAL KANSAS + COMMUNITIES. + + ======================================================================= + Community | Status on February 5, | Remarks + | 1957 | + -----------------------+------------------------+---------------------- + Cowley County: | | + Arkansas City | Discharging raw sewage | Adequate plant in + | | design stage. + Geuda Springs | Discharging raw sewage | + Winfield | Inadequate | + State training school| Adequate | + Udall | Adequate | + -----------------------+------------------------+---------------------- + Chautauqua County: | | + Cedar Vale | Inadequate | + Sedan | Adequate | In operation 30 + | | days. + Elgin | Adequate | + -----------------------+------------------------+---------------------- + Elk County: | | + Moline | Inadequate | + Howard | Adequate | + -----------------------+------------------------+---------------------- + Sumner County: | | + Belle Plaine | Discharging raw sewage | Adequate plant under + | | construction. + Mulvane | Discharging raw sewage | Adequate plant under + | | construction. + Oxford | Discharging raw sewage | Construction on + | | adequate plant to + | | start soon. + -----------------------+------------------------+---------------------- + Butler County: | | + Augusta | Adequate | + El Dorado | Discharging raw sewage | Adequate plant under + | | construction. + Douglass | Discharging raw sewage | Adequate plant to + | | go into operation + | | within 30 days. + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- + +Pollution by petroleum wastes from refineries has also affected the +streams studied. The only refinery within the area is at Arkansas City. +In Butler County there are four refineries on the Walnut watershed +upstream from the area surveyed. Metzler (1952) noted that "fish-kills" +occurred from the mid-1940's until 1952 in connection with wastes +periodically discharged from these refineries. However, the largest +kill, in 1944, was attributed to excessive brine pollution. + +In Arkansas City a meat-packing plant, a large railroad workshop, two +flour mills, two milk plants, and several small manufacturing plants +contribute wastes which may figure in industrial pollution. There are +milk plants and small poultry processing plants at Winfield. In +Chautauqua and Elk Counties there is little industrial activity. + + + + +CONSERVATION + + +In recent years several measures have been implemented or proposed to +conserve the water and land resources of the Arkansas River Basin. +Droughts and floods have focused public attention on such conservation. +Less spectacular, but nevertheless important, problems confronting +conservationists include streambank erosion, channel deterioration, +silting, recreational demands for water, and irrigation needs. + +Congress has authorized the U. S. Corps of Engineers (by the Flood +Control Act of 1941) to construct six dam and reservoir projects in the +Verdigris watershed. Two of these--Hulah Reservoir in Osage County, +Oklahoma, on Big Caney River, and Fall River Reservoir in Greenwood +County, Kansas--have been completed. Other reservoirs authorized in the +Verdigris watershed include Toronto, Neodesha, and Elk City (Table +Mound) in Kansas and Oologah in Oklahoma. Construction is underway on +the Toronto Reservoir and some planning has been accomplished on the +Neodesha and Elk City projects. + +The possibilities of irrigation projects in the Verdigris and Walnut +River basins are under investigation by the United States Bureau of +Reclamation (Foley, _et al._, 1955:F18). + +An area of 11 square miles in Chautauqua and Montgomery Counties is +included in the Aiken Creek "Pilot Watershed Project," a co-operative +effort by federal, state, and local agencies to obtain information as to +the effects of an integrated watershed protection program (Foley, _et +al._, 1955:131). + + + + +PREVIOUS ICHTHYOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS + + +Few accounts of fishes in the area here reported on have been published. +Evermann and Fordice (1886:184) made a collection from Timber Creek at +Winfield in 1884. + +The State Biological Survey collected actively from 1910 to 1912, but +localities visited in the Arkansas River System were limited to the +Neosho and Verdigris River basins (Breukelman, 1940:377). The only +collection made in the area considered here was on the Elk River in Elk +County on July 11, 1912. The total species list of this collection is +not known. + +In the years 1924-1929 Minna E. Jewell collected at various places in +central Kansas. On June 30, 1925, Jewell and Frank Jobes made +collections on Timber Creek and Silver Creek in Cowley County. + +Hoyle (1936:285) mentions collections made by himself and Dr. Charles E. +Burt, who was then Professor of Biology at Southwestern College, +Winfield, Kansas. Records in the Department of Biology, Kansas State +Teachers College at Emporia, indicate that Dr. Burt and others made +collections in the area which have not been published on. + + TABLE 4.--COLLECTIONS MADE BY DR. FRANK B. CROSS OF THE STATE + BIOLOGICAL SURVEY IN 1955. + + ==================================================================== + Collection number | Date | River | Location + ------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------------- + C-131 | April 5, 1955 | Elk | Sec. 3, T31S, R11E + ------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------------- + C-132 | April 5, 1955 | Sycamore | Sec. 5, T34S, R10E + ------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------------- + C-133 | April 5, 1955 | Big Caney | Sec. 12, T34S, R8E + ------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------------- + C-136 | April 6, 1955 | Walnut | Sec. 29 or 32, T32S, + | | | R4E + -------------------------------------------------------------------- + +Claire Schelske (1957) studied fishes of the Fall and Verdigris Rivers +in Wilson and Montgomery counties from March, 1954, to February, 1955. + +In the annotated list of species that follows, records other than mine +are designated by the following symbols: + + E&F--Evermann and Fordice + SBS--State Biological Survey (1910-1912) + J&J--Jewell and Jobes (collection on Silver Creek) + C--Collection number--Cross (State Biological Survey, 1955) + UMMZ--University of Michigan Museum of Zoology + OAM--Oklahoma A&M College Museum of Zoology + + + + +ACKNOWLEDGMENTS + + +I am grateful to Professor Frank B. Cross for his interest in my +investigation, for his counsel, and for his penetrating criticism of +this paper. This study would have been impossible without the assistance +of several persons who helped in the field. Mr. Artie C. Metcalf and Mr. +Delbert Metcalf deserve special thanks for their enthusiastic and +untiring co-operation in collecting and preserving of specimens. Mrs. +Artie C. Metcalf, Miss Patricia Metcalf, Mr. Chester Metcalf, and Mr. +Forrest W. Metcalf gave help which is much appreciated. I am indebted to +the following persons for numerous valuable suggestions: Dr. John +Breukelman, Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, Kansas; Dr. George +Moore, Oklahoma A&M College, and Mr. W. L. Minckley, Lawrence, Kansas. + + + + +MATERIALS AND METHODS + + +Collections were made by means of: (1) a four-foot net of nylon screen; +(2) a 10x4-foot "common-sense" woven seine with 1/4-inch mesh; (3) a +15x4-foot knotted mesh seine; (4) a 20x5-foot 1/4-inch mesh seine; (5) +pole and line (natural and artificial baits). At most stations the +four-foot, ten-foot, and twenty-foot seines were used; however, the +equipment that was used varied according to the size of pool, number of +obstructions, nature of bottom, amount of flow, and type of streambank. +Usually several hours were spent at each station and several stations +were revisited from time to time. Percentages noted in the List of +Species represent the relative number taken in the first five +seine-hauls at each station. + + + + +COLLECTING STATIONS + + +Collecting was done at stations listed below and shown in Fig. 2. Each +station was assigned a letter, designating the stream system on which +the station was located, and a number which indicates the position of +the station on the stream. This number increases progressively upstream +from mouth to source. Code letters used are as follows: A--Arkansas +River; W--Walnut River System; B--Beaver Creek System; C--Big Caney +River System; G--Grouse Creek System; M--Middle Caney Creek System; +E--Elk River System. All dates are in the year 1956. + + [Illustration: FIG. 2. + Map of Cowley, Chautauqua and Elk counties, Kansas, + showing stations at which collecting was done.] + +A-1. Arkansas River. Sec. 2 and 3, T. 35 S, R. 4 E. June 14 and August +20. Braided channel with sand bottom. Water slightly turbid, with layer +of oil sludge on bottom. + +A-2. Arkansas River. Sec. 22, T. 34 S, R. 3 E. August 25. Flowing +through diverse channels. Average depth 12 inches. Bottom sand. (Plate +9, fig. 1.) + +A-3. Arkansas River. Sec. 21, T. 33 S, R. 3 E. August 27 and December +22. Flowing over fine sand. Average depth 11 inches. Some areas of +backwater with oil sludge on bottom. + +W-1. Walnut River. Sec. 20, T. 34 S, R. 4 E. July 7. Flowing rapidly, +with large volume, because of recent rains. Average width 300 feet. +Bottom gravel. Water turbid. + +W-2. Walnut River. Sec. 11, T. 34 S, R. 4 E. July 20. Rubble riffles and +large shallow pools with gravel bottoms. Average width, 100 feet. Water +clear. + +W-3. Walnut River. Sec. 29, T. 32 S, R. 4 E. July 17. Pools and riffles +below Tunnel Mill Dam at Winfield. Water clear. + +W-4. Badger Creek. Sec. 6, T. 33 S, R. 5 E. July 17. Small pools. +Average width 7 feet, average length 40 feet, average depth 8 inches. +Water turbid and malodorous. Bottoms and banks mud. Much detritus +present. + +W-5. Timber Creek. Sec. 35, T. 31 S, R. 4 E. June 6. Intermittent pools, +widely separated. Average width 9 feet, average depth 8 inches. Bottom +mud and gravel. + +B-1. Big Beaver Creek. Sec. 8, T. 35 S, R. 7 E. May 28. Isolated pools. +Average width 10 feet, average depth one foot. Water turbid. Bottom +rubble. + +B-2. Little Beaver Creek. Sec. 18, T. 35 S, R. 6 E. July 21. +Intermittent pools. Average width 10 feet, average length 35 feet, +average depth 10 inches. Bottoms rubble, mud, and bedrock. + +B-3. Big Beaver Creek. Sec. 28, T. 34 S, R. 7 E. July 22. Series of +small turbid pools. + +G-1. Grouse Creek. Sec. 5, T. 35 S, R. 5 E. May 30, September 5, and +September 24. Intermittent pools in close succession. Average width 22 +feet, average depth 16 inches. Water turbid on May 30 but clear in +September. Bottom rubble. Steep banks. Little shade for pools. + +G-2. Grouse Creek. Sec. 23, T. 34 S, R. 5 E. August 29. Series of +shallow intermittent pools. Average width 42 feet, average length 120 +feet, average depth 15 inches. Bottom bedrock and mud. (Plate 9, fig. +2.) + +G-3. Grouse Creek. Sec. 6, T. 34 S, R. 6 E. July 12. Intermittent pools. +Average width 20 feet, average length 65 feet, average depth 14 inches. +Bottom bedrock and gravel. _Justicia americana_ L. abundant. + +G-4. Grouse Creek. Sec. 12, T. 33 S, R. 6 E. June 1 and September 7. +Intermittent pools. Average width 15 feet, average length 100 feet, +average depth 18 inches. Water turbid in June, clear in September. +_Najas guadalupensis_ Spreng., and _Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ Michx. +common. + +G-5. Grouse Creek. Sec. 19, T. 32 S, R. 7 E. July 2. Succession of +riffles and pools. Water clear. Volume of flow approximately one cubic +foot per second, but creek bankful after heavy rains on June 22. Average +width 20 feet, average depth 18 inches. + +G-6. Grouse Creek. Sec. 32, T. 31 S, R. 7 E. July 8. Small intermittent +pools to which cattle had access. Water turbid, bottom mud and rubble. +Average width 10 feet, average depth 8 inches. Stream-bed covered with +tangled growths of _Sorghum halepense_ (L.). + +G-7. Grouse Creek. Sec. 34, T. 30 S, R. 7 E. July 8. Stream flowing +slightly. Water clear. Average width of pools 30 feet; average depth 20 +inches. Bottom bedrock and gravel. _Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ Michx., +_Nelumbo lutea_ (Willd.), and _Justicia americana_ L. common in shallow +water. + +G-8. Silver Creek. Sec. 1, T. 33 S, R. 5 E. July 17. Intermittent pools. +Average width 30 feet, average length 120 feet, average depth 12 inches. +Water clear. + +G-9. Silver Creek. Sec. 4, T. 32 S, R. 6 E. July 17. Small upland brook +with volume less than one-half cfs. Average width 12 feet, average depth +10 inches. Water clear, bottom mostly rubble. + +G-10. Crab Creek. Sec. 33, T. 33 S, R. 6 E. June 24. Intermittent pools, +showing evidence of having flowed after rains on June 22. Average width +15 feet, average depth 16 inches. + +G-11. Crab Creek. Sec. 35, T. 33 S, R. 6 E. July 16. Small intermittent +pools. Average width 13 feet, average length 55 feet, average depth 11 +inches. Water clear. Bottom rubble and mud. + +G-12. Crab Creek. Sec. 28, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. June 2 and July 20. Isolated +pools. Average width 18 feet, average depth one foot. Water turbid. +Bottom bedrock and rubble. _Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ and _Justicia +americana_ abundant. + +G-13. Crab Creek. Sec. 21, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. July 29. Isolated pools 300 +feet by 24 feet. Average depth 12 inches. Water turbid. + +G-14. Unnamed creek (hereafter called Grand Summit Creek). Sec. 26, T. +31 S, R. 7 E. August 30. Intermittent pools. Average width 15 feet, +average length 45 feet, average depth 11 inches. Water clear. Bottom +rubble. + + [Illustration: PLATE 9 + + 1. Station A-2. Arkansas River. (Cowley County, Section 22, + T. 34 S, R. 3 E.) + + 2. Station G-2. Grouse Creek. (Cowley County, Section 23, + T. 34 S, R. 5 E.)] + + [Illustration: PLATE 10 + + 1. Station C-12. Cedar Creek. (Cowley County, Section 17, + T. 34 S, R. 8 E.) + + 2. Station C-16. Spring Creek. (Elk County, Section 26, + T. 31 S, R. 8 E.) Volume of flow of this small creek + is indicated by riffle in foreground.] + +G-15. Unnamed creek (same as above). Sec. 17, T. 31 S, R. 8 E. July 27. +Small upland creek bordered by bluestem pastures. Pools with average +width of 10 feet, average length 30 feet, average depth 9 inches. Water +slightly turbid. Bottom rubble and mud. + +G-16. Crab Creek. Sec. 22, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. July 25. Small isolated +pools. Average width 17 feet, average length 58 feet, average depth 9 +inches. Water turbid. + +G-17. Crab Creek. Sec. 23, T. 33 S, R. 7 E. July 25. Upland brook +bordered by bluestem pastures. Unshaded intermittent pools. Average +width 7 feet, average length 40 feet, average depth 9 inches. Water +turbid. + +C-1. Big Caney River. Sec. 16, T. 33 S, R. 10 E. July 19. Intermittent +pools. Average width 47 feet, average length 90 feet, average depth 13 +inches. Bottom rubble and bedrock. Water clear to slightly turbid. + +C-2. Big Caney River. Sec. 1, T. 35 S, R. 9 E. September 5. Series of +intermittent pools. Bottom rubble and large stones. + +C-3. Big Caney River. Sec. 29, T. 34 S, R. 9 E. June 17. Large shallow +pool below ledge 3 feet high forming "Osro Falls." Bottom bedrock. + +C-4. Big Caney River. Sec. 32, T. 34 S, R. 9 E. June 3. Three large +pools (50 feet by 300 feet) with connecting riffles. Water turbid. +Bottom bedrock and rubble. + +C-5. Big Caney River. Sec. 11 and 12, T. 34 S, R. 8 E. May 27, May 29, +June 11, June 18, June 19, and June 27. From a low-water dam, 6 feet +high, downstream for 1/4 mile. Pools alternating with rubble and bedrock +riffles. Collecting was done at different times of day and night, and +when stream was flowing and intermittent. + +C-6. Big Caney River. Sec. 26, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 16. Intermittent +pools with bedrock bottom. Water slightly turbid. Average width 16 feet, +average depth 10 inches. + +C-7. Otter Creek. Sec. 26, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 16. Pools and riffles. +Water clear. Algae abundant. Average width 10 feet, average depth 10 +inches. + +C-8. Big Caney River. Sec. 1, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 10. Intermittent +pools. Average width 10 feet, average depth 14 inches. Water clear. +Bottom rubble and gravel. Aquatic plants included _Chara_ sp., +_Sagittaria latifolia_ Willd., _Jussiaea diffusa_ Forsk., and _Nelumbo +lutea_ (Willd.). + +C-9. Big Caney River. Sec. 6 and 7, T. 32 S, R. 9 E. June 27. Clear, +flowing stream, 20 feet wide, volume estimated at 5 cfs. Bottom gravel +and rubble. Extensive gravel riffles. + +C-10. Big Caney River. Sec. 29 and 32, T. 31 S, R. 9 E. June 27. Water +clear and flowing rapidly, volume estimated at 5-6 cfs. Bottom rubble +with a few muddy backwater areas. + +C-11. Big Caney River. Sec. 7, T. 31 S, R. 9 E. July 26. Flowing, with +less than 1 cfs. Average width 20 feet, average depth 22 inches. Water +extremely clear. Bottom gravel and rubble. _Myriophyllum heterophyllum_, +_Potamogeton foliosus_, and _Justicia americana_ common. + +C-12. Cedar Creek. Sec. 17, T. 34 S, R. 8 E. March 10, April 2, June 1, +June 6, and August 24. Pools and riffles along 1/4 mile of stream were +seined in the early collections. In August only small isolated pools +remained. Bottom bedrock and rubble. Much detritus along streambanks. +(Plate 10, fig. 1.) + +C-13. Otter Creek. Sec. 16, T. 33 S, R. 8 E. June 15. Flowing, less than +1 cfs. Pools interspersed with rubble riffles. Water clear. + +C-14. Otter Creek. Sec. 30, T. 32 S, R. 8 E. May 31, and September 3. +Series of small pools. Average width 10 feet, average depth 15 inches. +Shallow rubble riffles. Water extremely clear. Temperature 68 deg. at 6:30 +p.m. on May 31; 78 deg. at 2:00 p.m. on September 3. + +C-15. Spring Creek. Sec. 35, T. 31 S, R. 8 E. June 28. Small, clear, +upland brook with rubble bottom. Pools 10 feet in average width and +11 inches in average depth. Numerous shallow rubble riffles. + +C-16. Spring Creek. Sec. 26, T. 31 S, R. 8 E. July 9. Small intermittent +pools. Average width 10 feet; average depth 8 inches. Bottom gravel. +(Plate 10, fig. 2.) + +C-17. West Fork Big Caney River. Sec. 36, T. 30 S, R. 8 E. July 27. +Small pool below low-water dam. Pool 20 feet by 30 feet with average +depth of 20 inches. + +C-18. East Fork Big Caney River. Sec. 31, T. 30 S, R. 9 E. July 27. +Isolated pool 25 feet by 25 feet with an average depth of 15 inches. + +M-1. Middle Caney Creek. Sec. 23, T. 33 S, R. 10 E. July 4. Intermittent +pools. Average width 45 feet, average depth 15 inches. Water stained +brown. Oil fields nearby but no sludge or surface film of oil noted. +Bottom rubble and bedrock. + +M-2. Pool Creek. Sec. 25, T. 33 S, R. 10 E. May 26. Pool 120 feet by 40 +feet below limestone ledge approximately 12 feet high forming Butcher's +Falls. Other smaller pools sampled. Water clear. Bottom bedrock and +rubble. + +E-1. Elk River. Sec. 12, T. 31 S, R. 11 E. July 9. Four intermittent +pools seined. Average width 32 feet, average depth 13 inches. Bottom +bedrock, rubble, and mud. Water turbid. + +E-2. Elk River. Sec. 3, T. 31 S, R. 11 E. June 28. Intermittent pools +below and above sandstone ledge approximately 6 feet high forming +"falls" at Elk Falls. Average width 33 feet, average depth 15 inches. +Bottom bedrock, rubble and mud. Water slightly turbid. + +E-3. Elk River. Sec. 21, T. 30 S, R. 11 E. June 28. Two small pools, 10 +feet by 30 feet with average depth of 6 inches. Bottom bedrock. + +E-4. Elk River. Sec. 12, T. 30 S, R. 10 E. June 28. One long pool 500 +feet by 50 feet with a variety of depths and bottom conditions ranging +from mud to bedrock. Average depth 18 inches. Water turbid and pools +unshaded. + +E-5. Elk River. Sec. 32, T. 29 S, R. 10 E. August 30. Intermittent +pools. Average width 21 feet, average depth 20 inches. Bottom rubble. +Water clear. + +E-6. Elk River. Sec. 23, T. 29 S, R. 9 E. August 30. Small isolated +pools. River mostly dry. Bottom bedrock. Water slightly turbid with +gray-green "bloom." + +E-7. Wildcat Creek. Sec. 11, T. 31 S, R. 10 E. Volume of flow less than +one cfs. Average width 20 feet, average depth 18 inches. Domestic sewage +pollution from town of Moline suspected. + + + + +ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES + + +#Lepisosteus osseus oxyurus# (Linnaeus): Stations A-1, W-2, W-3, G-2, +G-3, G-4, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-5, C-8. + +Of 34 longnose gar taken, 27 were young-of-the-year. The latter were +from shallow isolated pools (bedrock bottom at C-1, C-3, C-4; gravel +bottom at C-6). At station W-1 in moderate flood conditions several +young-of-the-year were found in the most sheltered water next to the +banks. + +The longnose gar was found only in the lower parts of the streams +surveyed (but were observed by me in smaller tributaries of these +streams in years when the streams had a greater volume of flow). A +preference for downstream habitat is suggested in several other surveys: +Cross (1950:134, 1954a:307) on the South Fork of the Cottonwood and on +Stillwater Creek; Cross and Moore (1952:401) on the Poteau and Fourche +Maline rivers; Moore and Buck (1953:21) on the Chikaskia River. + + +#Lepisosteus platostomus# Rafinesque: One shortnose gar (K. U. 3157) has +been taken from the Arkansas River in Cowley County. This gar was taken +by Mr. Richard Rinker on a bank line on April 10, 1955, at station A-3. + + +#Dorosoma cepedianum# (Le Sueur): Stations W-3, G-4, C-4, C-5, M-1, E-1, +E-4. + +In smaller streams such as the Elk and Caney rivers adult gizzard shad +seemed scarce. They were more common in collections made in larger +rivers (Walnut, Verdigris, and Neosho). In impoundments of this region +shad often become extremely abundant. Schoonover (1954:173) found that +shad comprised 97 per cent by number and 83 per cent by weight of fishes +taken in a survey of Fall River Reservoir. + + +#Carpiodes carpio carpio# (Rafinesque): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, W-3, +G-1, C-3. + +Hubbs and Lagler (1947:50) stated that the river carpsucker was "Mostly +confined to large silty rivers." Of the stations listed above C-3 least +fits this description being a large shallow pool about 1/3 acre in area +having bedrock bottom and slightly turbid water. The other stations +conform to conditions described by Hubbs and Lagler (_loc. cit._). + + +#Carpiodes velifer# (Rafinesque): SBS. Three specimens of the highfin +carpsucker (K. U. 177-179) were collected on July 11, 1912, from an +unspecified location on Elk River in Elk County. + + +#Ictiobus bubalus# (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, G-1, G-2, C-1, C-3, C-4, +C-6, E-1, E-2, E-3. + +The smallmouth buffalo shared the downstream proclivities of the river +carpsucker. In half of the collections (G-2, C-1, E-1, E-2, E-3) only +large juveniles were taken; in the other half only young-of-the-year +were found. In one pool at station C-1 hundreds of young buffalo and gar +were observed. This large shallow pool was 100 x 150 feet, with an +average depth of 8 inches. The bottom consisted of bedrock. Station C-6 +was a small pool with bedrock bottom, eight feet in diameter, with an +average depth of only 4 inches. Station E-3 was also a small isolated +pool with bedrock bottom and an average depth of 6 inches. + + +#Ictiobus niger# (Rafinesque): Station C-5. + +Only two specimens of the black buffalo were taken. An adult was caught +on spinning tackle, with doughballs for bait. The second specimen was a +juvenile taken by seining one mile below Station C-5 on September 22. + + +#Ictiobus cyprinella# (Valenciennes): Station G-2. + +Two juvenal bigmouth buffalo were taken in a shallow pool, along with +several juvenal smallmouth buffalo. + + +#Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum# Trautman and #Moxostoma carinatum# +(Cope): SBS. + +Two specimens of _Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum_ (K. U. 242-243) and one +specimen of _Moxostoma carinatum_ (K. U. 223) were taken from an +unspecified locality on Elk River in Elk County on July 11, 1912. There +are no other records for any of these fish in the collection area. _M. +aureolum pisolabrum_ has been taken in recent years in eastern Kansas +(Trautman, 1951:3) and has been found as far west as the Chikaskia +drainage in northern Oklahoma by Moore and Buck (1953:21). That +occasional northern redhorse enter the larger rivers of the area here +reported on seems probable. + +_M. carinatum_ has been reported only a few times from Kansas. The only +recent records are from the Verdigris River (Schelske, 1957:39). Elkins +(1954:28) took four specimens of _M. carinatum_ from cutoff pools on +Salt Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma, in 1954. This recent record +suggests that occurrences in southern Kansas are probable. + + +#Moxostoma erythrurum# (Rafinesque): Stations G-5, G-7, G-10, G-12, C-4, +C-5, C-6, C-8, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-15, E-1, E-2, E-4 (C-131, +C-133, C-136). + +The golden redhorse was common in several of the streams surveyed, and +utilized the upland parts of streams more extensively than any of the +other catostomids occurring in the area. _M. erythrurum_ and _Ictiobus +bubalus_ were taken together at only two stations. In no case was _I. +bubalus_ taken from a tributary of Grouse Creek or of Big Caney River. +In contrast _M. erythrurum_ reached its greatest concentrations in such +habitat, although it was always a minor component of the total fish +population. Stations C-5 and E-2 were the lowermost environments in +which this redhorse was taken. + +The largest relative number of golden redhorse was found at station G-12 +on Crab Creek where 7.5 per cent of the fishes taken were of this +species. This station consisted of intermittent pools averaging one foot +in depth. Bottoms were bedrock and rubble and the water was clear and +shaded. The fish were consistently taken in the deeper, open part of +the pool where aquatic vegetation, which covered most of the pool, was +absent. + +Another station at which _M. erythrurum_ was abundant was C-12 on Cedar +Creek. Here a long, narrow, clear pool was the habitat, with average +depth of 17 inches, and bottom of bedrock. + + +#Minytrema melanops# (Rafinesque): Stations G-10, C-4, C-12, E-1. + +Occurrences of the spotted sucker were scattered. At stations C-4 and +G-10 single specimens were taken. At station E-1 (July 9) one specimen +was taken at the mouth of a small tributary where water was turbid and +quiet. This specimen (K. U. 3708) was the largest (9-3/8 inches total +length) found, and possessed pits of lost tubercles. + + +#Cyprinus carpio# Linnaeus: Stations A-1, W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, G-3, G-4, +G-6, G-8, C-3, C-5, E-4. + +Carp were taken most often in downstream habitat. No carp were taken +above station C-5 on Big Caney River. + +The earliest date on which young were taken was July 7, when 46 +specimens, approximately 1/2 inch in total length, were taken from the +Walnut River at station W-1. The small carp showed a preference for +small shallow pools; adults were found in deeper pools. + + +#Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus# (Gilbert): Station A-3. + +Only one specimen of the speckled chub was taken. The species has been +recorded from nearby localities in the Arkansas River and its +tributaries both in Kansas and Oklahoma. Its habitat seems to be shallow +water over clean, fine sand, and it occurs in strong current in +mid-channel in the Arkansas River. Suitable habitat does not occur in +other parts of the area covered by this report. + + +#Notropis blennius# (Girard): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3. + +The river shiner was taken only in the Arkansas River and in small +numbers. In all instances _N. blennius_ was found over sandy bottom in +flowing water. Females were gravid at station A-1 on June 14. To my +knowledge there are no published records of this shiner from the +Arkansas River Basin in Kansas. In Oklahoma this species prefers the +large, sandy streams such as the Arkansas River. Cross and Moore +(1952:403) found it in the Poteau River only near the mouth. + + +#Notropis boops# Gilbert: Stations G-5, G-7, C-3, C-5, C-8, C-9, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-15, C-16, E-4, E-5, M-1, M-2. + +Widespread occurrence of the bigeye shiner in this area seems +surprising. Except for this area it is known in Kansas only from the +Spring River drainage in the southeastern corner of the state (Cross, +1954b:474). _N. boops_ chose habitats that seemed most nearly like +Ozarkian terrain. The largest relative number of bigeye shiners was +taken at C-11 in a clear stream described in the discussion of _Notropis +rubellus_. At this station _N. boops_ comprised 14.11 per cent, and _N. +boops_ and _N. rubellus_ together comprised 24.78 per cent of all fish +taken. + +At station G-7 on Grouse Creek the percentage of _N. boops_ was 7.15. +Here, as at station C-11, water was clear. At both stations +_Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ was abundant and at G-7 _Nelumbo lutea_ was +also common. At G-7 _N. boops_ seemed most abundant in the deeper water, +but at C-11 most shiners were found in the shallower part of a large +pool. + +Two other collections in which _N. boops_ were common were from Spring +Creek. It is a small, clear Flint Hills brook running swiftly over clean +gravel and rubble. It had, however, been intermittent or completely dry +in its upper portion throughout the winter of 1955-'56 and until June +22, 1956. In collections at C-15 on June 28, _N. boops_ formed 6.5 per +cent of the fish taken. Farther upstream, at C-16 on July 9, in an area +one mile from the nearest pool of water that existed prior to the rains +of June 22, _N. boops_ made up 7.2 per cent of the fish taken. + +In streams heading in the hilly area of western Elk County, the relative +abundance of _Notropis boops_ decreased progressively downstream. On +upper Elk River percentages were lower than on upper Grouse Creek and +upper Big Caney River. + +Hubbs and Lagler (1947:66) characterize the habitat of this species as +clear creeks of limestone uplands. There are numerous records of the +bigeye shiner from extreme eastern Oklahoma. It has been reported as far +west as Beaver Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma. Beaver Creek originates +in Cowley County, Kansas, near the origin of Cedar Creek and Crab Creek. +Drought had left a few pools of water in Beaver Creek in Kansas at the +time of my survey. The fish-fauna seemed sparse and _N. boops_ was not +among the species taken. Of interest in considering the somewhat +isolated occurrence of the bigeye shiner in the Flint Hills area of +Kansas is a record of it by Ortenburger and Hubbs (1926:126) from +Panther Creek, Comanche County, Oklahoma, in the Wichita Mountain area +of that state. + + +#Notropis buchanani# Meek: Stations G-1, E-4 (C-131). + +At station G-1 the ghost shiner was taken in small numbers in the +shallow end of a long pool (150 x 40 feet.) The three individuals taken +at station E-4 were in an isolated pool (50 x 510 feet) averaging 1-1/2 +feet in depth. Water was turbid, and warm due to lack of shade. + +The habitat preferences of this species and of the related species _N. +volucellus_ have been described as follows by Hubbs and Ortenburger +(1929b:68): "It seems probable that _volucellus_ when occurring in the +range of _buchanani_ occupies upland streams, whereas _buchanani_ is +chiefly a form of the large rivers and adjacent creek mouths." The +results of this survey and impressions gained from other collections, +some of which are unpublished, are in agreement with this view. A +collection on the Verdigris River at Independence, Kansas, directly +downstream from the mouth of the Elk River, showed _N. buchanani_ to be +common while _N. volucellus_ was not taken. At station E-5 upstream from +E-4, however, _N. volucellus_ was taken but _N. buchanani_ was not +found. + +In the upper Neosho basin, Cross (1954a:310) took _N. volucellus_ but +not _N. buchanani_. Other collections have shown _N. buchanani_ to be +abundant in the lower Neosho River in Kansas. Moore and Paden (1950:85) +observe that _N. buchanani_ was found only near the mouth of the +Illinois River in Oklahoma and was sharply segregated ecologically from +_N. volucellus_ that occupied a niche in the clear main channels in +contrast to the more sluggish waters inhabited by _N. buchanani_. + + +#Notropis camurus# (Jordan and Meek): Stations C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, +C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, E-1, E-5 (C-131). + +Highest concentrations of the bluntface shiner were found close to the +mouths of two tributaries of Big Caney River: Rock Creek and Otter +Creek. On Rock Creek (Station C-4) this shiner was abundant in a shallow +pool below a riffle where water was flowing rapidly. Many large males in +breeding condition were taken (June 3). The species formed 20.2 per cent +of the fish taken. + +On Otter Creek (Station C-13) the species was common in shallow bedrock +pools below riffles. It formed 12.1 per cent of the fish taken. + +At station C-5, _N. camurus_ was characteristically found in an area of +shallow pools and riffles. At station C-10 it was found in clear flowing +water over rubble bottom and in small coves over mud bottom. At C-11 +(July 26) _N. camurus_ was taken only in one small pool with rapidly +flowing water below a riffle. In this pool _N. camurus_ was the dominant +fish. At station C-12, on April 2, _N. camurus_ was abundant in the +stream, which was then clear and flowing. On August 24, it was not taken +from the same pool, which was then turbid and drying. + +The frequent occurrence of this species in clear, flowing water seems +significant. Cross (1954a:309) notes that the bluntface shiner prefers +moderately fast, clear water. Hall (1952:57) found _N. camurus_ only in +upland tributaries east of Grand River and not in lowland tributaries +west of the river. Moore and Buck (1953:22) took this species in the +Chikaskia River, which was at that time a clear, flowing stream. They +noted that in Oklahoma it seems to be found only in relatively clear +water. + +_N. camurus_ did not seem to ascend the smaller tributaries of Big Caney +River as did _N. rubellus_ and _N. boops_ even when these tributaries +were flowing. + + +#Notropis deliciosus missuriensis# (Cope): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, W-1, +W-2, W-3 (C-136). + +Sand shiners seemed to be abundant in the Arkansas River, rare in the +Walnut River and absent from other streams surveyed. This shiner was +most abundant in shallow, flowing water in the Arkansas River; in +backwaters, where _Gambusia affinis_ prevailed, _N. deliciosus_ formed +only a small percentage of the fish population. + + +#Notropis girardi# Hubbs and Ortenburger: Stations A-2 and A-3. + +At station A-2 the Arkansas River shiner made up 14.6 per cent of all +fish taken. At A-2, it was found only in rapidly-flowing water over +clean sand in the main channels. It was absent from the shallow, +slowly-flowing water where _N. deliciosus missuriensis_ was abundant. At +A-3 _N. girardi_ made up 22 per cent of the total catch, and again +preferred the deeper, faster water over clean-swept sand. Failure to +find _N. girardi_ at station A-1 is not understood. + +Females were gravid in both collections (August 25 and 27). In neither +collection were young-of-the-year taken. Moore (1944:210) has suggested +that _N. girardi_ requires periods of high water and turbidity to spawn. +Additional collecting was done at station A-3 on December 22, 1957. A +few adults were taken in flowing water but no young were found. + +In this area, _N. girardi_ showed no tendency to ascend tributaries of +the Arkansas River. Not far to the west, however, this pattern changes +as shown by Hubbs and Ortenburger (1929a:32) who took this fish at seven +of ten stations on the Cimarron, Canadian, and Salt Fork of the +Arkansas. _N. girardi_ was taken only in the lowermost stations on both +Stillwater Creek (Cross, 1950:136) and the Chikaskia River (Moore and +Buck, 1953:22). In the next major stream west of the Chikaskia, the +Medicine River, _N. girardi_ seems to occur farther upstream than in the +Chikaskia. (Collection C-5-51 by Dr. A. B. Leonard and Dr. Frank B. +Cross on Elm Creek near Medicine Lodge on July 20, 1951.) + + +#Notropis lutrensis# (Baird and Girard): Stations A-1, A-2, W-1, W-2, +W-3, W-4, G-1, G-2, G-4, G-5, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12, G-13, G-14, +G-15, G-16, B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-9, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, M-1, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-7 (E&F, C-131, C-133, +C-136). + +The red shiner was taken in every stream surveyed. The relative +abundance seemed to be greatest in two types of habitat which were +separated geographically. The first habitat was in large rivers such as +the Arkansas and Walnut. In the Arkansas River the red shiner +consistently made up 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the catch. On the +Walnut River percentages ranged from 10 per cent (station W-3) to 45 per +cent (station W-2). + +The second habitat in which numbers of _N. lutrensis_ reached high +proportions was in the upper parts of the most intermittent tributaries. +At the uppermost station in Silver Creek this species formed 30 per cent +of the fish taken. In Crab Creek the following percentages were taken in +six collections from mouth to source: 20.6%, 26.1%, 25%, 85%, 14.6%, and +1%. In the mainstream of Grouse Creek the highest percentage taken was +19.27 near the mouth at station G-1. In middle sections of Grouse Creek +this species was either absent or made up less than 2 per cent of the +fish taken. + +At no station on Big Caney River was the red shiner abundant. The +smallest relative numbers were found at upstream stations, in contrast +to collections made on tributaries of Grouse Creek. This distributional +pattern possibly may be explained by the severe conditions under which +fish have been forced to live in the upper tributaries of Grouse Creek. +Water was more turbid, and pools were smaller than in Big Caney. These +factors possibly decimate numbers of the less hardy species permitting +expansion by more adaptable species, among which seems to be _N. +lutrensis_. In the upper tributaries of Big Caney River conditions have +not been so severe due to greater flow from springs and less cultivation +of the watershed in most places. Under such conditions _N. lutrensis_ +seems to remain a minor faunal constituent. + + +#Notropis percobromus# (Cope): Stations A-1, A-2, W-1, W-2, W-3, G-1. + +At station W-1 the plains shiner constituted 20 per cent of the fish +taken. The river was flowing rapidly with large volume at the time of +this collection, and all specimens were taken near the bank in +comparatively quiet water over gravel bottom. At station W-3, below +Tunnel Mill Dam at Winfield, _N. percobromus_ comprised 18.7 per cent of +the fish taken, second only to _Lepomis humilis_ in relative abundance. +Immediately below the west end of the dam, plains shiners were so +concentrated that fifty or more were taken in one haul of a four-foot +nylon net. The amount of water overflowing the dam at this point was +slight. Water was shallow (8-12 inches) and the bottom consisted of the +pitted apron or of fine gravel. At the east end of the dam where water +was deeper (1-3 feet) and the flow over the dam greater, large numbers +of _Lepomis humilis_ were taken while _N. percobromus_ was rare. + +In the Arkansas River smaller relative numbers of this shiner were +obtained. At station A-2, it formed 4.68 per cent of the total. At this +station _N. percobromus_ was taken with _N. lutrensis_ in water about 18 +inches deep next to a bank where the current was sluggish and tangled +roots and detritus offered some shelter. + +At station G-1 on Grouse Creek the plains shiner made up 7.68 per cent +of the fish taken. The habitat consisted of intermittent pools with +rubble bottoms at this station, which was four miles upstream from the +mouth of the creek. The plains shiner seems rarely to ascend the upland +streams of the area. + + +#Notropis rubellus# (Agassiz): Stations C-3, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14 (J&J). + +No fish in these collections showed a more persistent preference than +_Notropis rubellus_ for clear, cool streams. All collections of the +rosyface shiner were in the Big Caney River system, but at only four +stations in this system was it common. At station C-11 the highest +relative numbers (10.6 per cent) were obtained. This site possessed the +most limpid water of any station on the mainstream of Big Caney. Aquatic +plants (_Myriophyllum heterophyllum_ and _Potamogeton nodosus_) were +common. Other fishes that flourished at this station were _N. boops_, +_N. camurus_, _Campostoma anomalum_, and _Etheostoma spectabile_. The +water temperature was 86 deg. at surface and 80 deg. at bottom whereas air +temperature was 97 deg.. + +_N. rubellus_ was common at all stations in Otter Creek, the clear, +upland character of which has been discussed. In May and June only +adults were found. On September 1, examination of several pools in upper +Otter Creek revealed numerous young-of-the-year in small spring-fed +pools. + +Literature is scarce concerning this shiner in Kansas. Cross (1954a:308) +stated that it was abundant in the South Fork of the Cottonwood River +and was one of those fishes primarily associated with the Ozarkian +fauna, rather than with the fauna of the plains. Elliott (1947) found +_N. rubellus_ in Spring Creek, a tributary of Fall River which seems +similar to Otter Creek in physical features. Between the Fall River and +Big Caney River systems is the Elk River, from which there is no record +of the rosyface shiner. Perhaps its absence is related to the +intermittent condition of this stream at present. The Elk River is poor +in spring-fed tributaries, which seem to be favorite environs of the +rosyface shiner. + +_N. rubellus_ was taken by Minna Jewell and Frank Jobes in Silver Creek +on June 30, 1925 (UMMZ 67818). The shiner was not found in any stream +west of the Big Caney system in my collections. + +In Oklahoma, Hall (1952:57) found _N. rubellus_ in upland tributaries on +the east side of Grand River and not in the lowland tributaries on the +west side. Martin and Campbell (1953:51) characterize _N. rubellus_ as +preferring riffle channels in moderate to fast current in the Black +River, Missouri. It is the only species so characterized by them which +was taken in my collections. Moore and Paden (1950:84) state "_Notropis +rubellus_ is one of the most abundant fishes of the Illinois River, +being found in all habitats but showing a distinct preference for fast +water...." + + +#Notropis topeka# (Gilbert): Two specimens (formerly Indiana University +4605) of the Topeka shiner labeled "Winfield, Kansas" are now at the +University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Collector and other data are +not given. Evermann and Fordice (1886:185) noted that two specimens of +_N. topeka_ were taken from Sand Creek near Newton in Harvey County, but +do not list it from Cowley County near Winfield. They deposited their +fish in the museum of Indiana University. + + +#Notropis umbratilis# (Girard): Stations G-1, G-3, G-4, G-7, G-8, G-9, +G-12, G-14, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, +C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, M-1, M-2 (J&J, +C-131, C-132). + +The redfin shiner flourished in all the streams surveyed except the +Arkansas and Walnut Rivers. _N. umbratilis_ has been found in upland +tributaries of the Walnut River, some of which originate in terrain +similar to that in which Elk River, Big Caney River, and Grouse Creek +originate. (Collection C-26-51 by Cross on Durechon Creek, October 7, +1951.) This suggests downstream reduction in relative numbers of this +species, a tendency which also seemed to exist on both Big Caney River +and Grouse Creek. _N. umbratilis_ was the most abundant species in Big +Caney River except at the lowermost stations where it was surpassed in +relative abundance by _N. lutrensis_ and _Gambusia affinis_. + +_N. umbratilis_ was a pool-dweller, becoming more concentrated in the +deeper pools as summer advanced. In May and early June, large +concentrations of adult _N. umbratilis_ were common in the shallow ends +of pools together with _N. rubellus_, _N. boops_, _Pimephales notatus_, +and _Pimephales tenellus_. By July and August, only young of the year +were taken in shallow water, and adults were scarcely in evidence. + + +#Notropis volucellus# (Cope): Stations G-5, G-8, C-3, C-5, C-7, C-8, +C-9, C-10, M-1, E-4, E-5. + +The mimic shiner was a minor element in the fauna, 2.02 per cent at +station C-5 being the largest percentage taken. In the Big Caney River +system _N. volucellus_ was taken only in the main stream. In the Grouse +Creek drainage it was found at two stations in the upper part of the +watershed, where water is clearer, gradient greater, and pools +well-shaded and cool. + +In the Elk River the mimic shiner was taken only in the upper part of +the main stream. The dominant shiner in situations where _N. volucellus_ +was taken was, in all cases, _N. umbratilis_. Elliott (1947) found _N. +volucellus_ in Spring Creek, a tributary of Fall River. Farther north in +the Flint Hills region, _N. volucellus_ was reported by Cross +(1954a:310). + + +#Notemigonus crysoleucas# (Mitchell): Station W-5. + +This isolated record for the golden shiner consisted of nine specimens +collected on June 6 in Timber Creek, a tributary of the Walnut River. +Most of the creek was dry. _N. crysoleucas_ was taken in one pool with +dimensions of 8 feet by 4 feet with an average depth of 4 inches. This +creek is sluggish and silt-laden, even under conditions of favorable +precipitation. Hubbs and Ortenburger (1929b:89) observed that the golden +shiner prefers sluggish water. Hall (1952:58) took the golden shiner +only in the lowland tributaries west of Grand River and not east of the +river in upland tributaries. + + +#Phenacobius mirabilis# Girard: Stations W-3, C-3. + +In no case was the suckermouth minnow common; it never comprised more +than 1 per cent of the fish population. + + +#Pimephales notatus# (Rafinesque): Stations W-4, G-5, G-7, G-9, G-12, +G-13, B-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, +C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, M-1, M-2, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, +E-7 (J&J, C-131, C-132, C-133). + +This was much the most abundant of the four species of _Pimephales_ in +this area. It was taken at 33 stations as compared with 10 for _P. +tenellus_, 8 for _P. promelas_, and 3 for _P. vigilax_. + +The bluntnose minnow was taken almost everywhere except in the main +stream of the Arkansas and Walnut rivers and in lower Grouse Creek. _P. +notatus_ seemed to prefer clearer streams of the Flint Hills part of my +area. There was a marked increase in percentages taken in the upland +tributaries of both Caney River and Grouse Creek. In the Elk River, too, +higher concentrations were found upstream. + +The highest relative numbers of bluntnose minnows were taken at station +G-12 on Crab Creek, station C-12 on Cedar Creek and station C-16 on +Spring Creek. At G-12, this minnow was abundant in the deeper isolated +pools. Males in breeding condition were taken on June 9. In Cedar Creek +the population of bluntnose minnows was observed periodically in one +pool in which they were dominant. This pool was 100 feet by 50 feet, +shallow, and with bedrock bottom. At its upper end, however, there was a +small area of heavily-shaded deeper water. Throughout the spring +bluntnose minnows were found in large schools in the shallow area. As +the summer progressed they were no longer there, but seining revealed +their presence in the deeper, upper end. + +At station C-16 on Spring Creek on July 9 male _P. notatus_ were taken +in extreme breeding condition, being light brick-red in color and with +large tubercles. + + +#Pimephales tenellus# (Girard): Stations G-1, C-2, C-3, C-5, C-6, C-7, +C-8, M-1, E-2, E-4 (C-131 C-133). + +The mountain minnow was never taken far from the mainstream of Big +Caney, Middle Caney, or Elk River. In this respect it differed from _P. +notatus_, which reached large concentrations in the small upland +tributaries. On the other hand, _P. tenellus_ was not so abundant as _P. +vigilax_ in the silty larger streams. In no collection was the mountain +minnow common. The highest percentages were 2.4 per cent (Station C-5), +and 2.1 per cent (Station C-7) on Big Caney River. These stations +consisted of clear, flowing water over rubble bottoms. Males at C-7 +(June 16) were in breeding condition. + +Moore and Buck (1953:23) reported finding this species among rocks in +very fast water rather than in the quiet backwaters frequented by _P. +vigilax_. Other records of the mountain minnow from the Flint Hills +indicate that it seeks areas of maximum gradient and flow; in this +distributional respect it is like _Notropis camurus_. The two species +are recorded together from other streams in this region such as the +Chikaskia (Moore and Buck, 1953:23), Cottonwood (Cross, 1954a:310), and +Spring Creek, tributary of Fall River (Elliott, 1947). It is conceivable +that a preference for flowing water might explain its restriction to +the medium-sized, less intermittent streams in this area. The only +tributary which the species seemed to ascend to any extent was Otter +Creek, which is seldom intermittent downstream. + + +#Pimephales vigilax perspicuus# (Girard): Stations A-3, C-1, C-4. + +The parrot minnow was found only in downstream habitats. Collection C-4 +(June 3) on Rock Creek was made about 1/2 mile from the mouth of this +tributary of Big Caney and the creek here had almost the same character +as the river proper. The presence of other channel fishes such as +_Ictiobus bubalus_ indicates the downstream nature of the creek. Some +males of _P. vigilax_ in breeding condition were taken in this +collection. + +At C-1, only one specimen was found in a turbid, isolated pool with +bedrock bottom. At A-1 only one parrot minnow was taken; it was in deep, +fairly quiet water near the bank. + +Other collections outside the three-county area revealed the following: +In the Neosho River, several parrot minnows were found in quiet +backwaters and in shallow pools. In the Verdigris River three were taken +directly under water spilling over the dam at this station, while others +were found, together with _P. promelas_, in the mouth of a small creek +that provided a backwater habitat with mud bottom. + +Cross and Moore (1952:405) found this species only at stations in the +lower portion of the Poteau River. Farther west the minnow may ascend +the smaller sandy streams to greater distances. Moore and Buck (1953:23) +took parrot minnows at six of 15 stations on the Chikaskia River and +found the species as far upstream as Drury, Kansas. Elliott (1947), in +comparing the South Ninnescah and Spring Creek fish faunas, found only +_P. vigilax_ and _P. promelas_ on the sandy, "flatter" Ninnescah and +only _P. notatus_ and _P. tenellus_ on Spring Creek, an upland, Flint +Hills stream in Greenwood County. + + +#Pimephales promelas# Rafinesque: Stations A-2, A-3, W-3, W-4, G-9, B-1, +M-1, E-4 (E&F, C-136). + +Occurrences of the fathead minnow were scattered, but included all +streams sampled except Big Caney. + +Three of the collections were in small intermittent streams where +conditions were generally unfavorable for fishes and in one instance +extremely foul. Two of these stations had turbid water and all suffered +from siltation. + +In Middle Caney Creek the species was rare but in the Elk River (June +28) more than 100 specimens, predominantly young, were taken. This +station consisted of a large isolated pool with a variety of bottom +types. Water was turbid and the surface temperature was high (93 deg. F.). +In different parts of the pool the following numbers of specimens were +taken in single seine-hauls: 15 over shallow bedrock; 35 over gravel +(1-1/2 feet deep); 50 over mud bottom (1 foot deep). + +_P. promelas_ was found also in the large, flowing rivers: Arkansas, +Walnut, Verdigris, and Neosho. The species was scarce in the Arkansas +River, and was found principally in muddy coves. In the Walnut (W-3), +this minnow comprised 7.65 per cent of the fish taken and was common in +quiet pools. + + +#Campostoma anomalum# Rafinesque: Stations W-4, G-4, C-1, C-3, C-5, C-6, +C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, B-3 +(E&F, C-131, C-136). + +Although the stoneroller was found in most streams surveyed, it was +taken most often in the Big Caney system, where it occurred at 16 of the +18 stations. In contrast, it was represented at only one of 17 stations +on Grouse Creek. High percentages were found in three creeks--Cedar, +Otter, and Spring. As noted above, these streams are normally clear, +swift and have steep gradients and many rubble and gravel riffles. On +these riffles young stonerollers abounded. Station C-16 on Spring Creek +typifies the habitat in which this species was most abundant. The stream +has an average width of 10 feet and depth of a few inches. The volume of +flow was less than 1 cubic foot per second but turbulence was great. +Water was clear and the bottom was gravel and rubble. Following rains in +June, stonerollers quickly occupied parts of Spring Creek (upstream from +C-16) that had been dry throughout the previous winter. + +On April 2 many _C. anomalum_ and _Etheostoma spectabile_ were taken in +shallow pools and riffles in an extensive bedrock-riffle area on Cedar +Creek near station C-12. Most of the females were gravid and the males +were in breeding condition. On June 6 these pools were revisited. Flow +had ceased and the pools were drying up. Young-of-the-year of the two +species were abundant, but only a few mature stonerollers were taken. On +August 24, prolonged drought had drastically altered the stream and all +areas from which stonerollers and darters had been taken were dry. +Seining of other pools which were almost dry revealed no stonerollers. + +Collections on May 31, June 15, and June 16 in Otter Creek revealed +large numbers of stonerollers. They were found in riffle areas, in +aquatic vegetation, and especially in detritus alongside banks. Most of +the specimens were young-of-the-year. + + +#Anguilla bostoniensis# (Le Sueur): An American eel was caught by me in +Grouse Creek in 1949. + + +#Gambusia affinis# (Baird and Girard): Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, W-1, W-2, +W-3, W-4, W-5, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-9, C-1, C-2, C-3, +C-4, C-6, C-15, E-1. + +Mosquitofish occurred widely but in varied abundance. Huge populations +were in the shallow sandy backwaters and cut-off pools of the Arkansas +River. In the shallow pools of several intermittent streams such as +station G-8 on Silver Creek this fish also flourished. + +_G. affinis_ was taken at every station in the Arkansas, Walnut and +Grouse systems except those stations on two upland tributaries of Grouse +Creek (Crab Creek and Grand Summit Creek). The mosquitofish was not +observed in the clear upland tributaries of Big Caney, nor on upper Big +Caney River itself in May, June, and July. On September 3, however, +_Gambusia_ were taken at station C-15 on Otter Creek and others were +seen at station C-14 on the same date. + +Hubbs and Ortenburger (1929b:99) and Cross and Moore (1952:407) observed +that _G. affinis_ usually was absent from small upland tributaries, even +though it was abundant in lower parts of the same river systems. + + +#Fundulus kansae# (Garman): Stations A-2, A-3, Evermann and Fordice as +_Fundulus zebrinus_. + +At station A-2, seven plains killifish were taken together with a great +many _Notropis deliciosus_ and _Gambusia affinis_ in a shallow, +algae-covered channel with slight flow and sand bottom. At station A-3 +many young killifish were taken in small shallow pools on December 22. +_Fundulus kansae_ has been found in the lower part of the Walnut River +Basin, especially where petroleum pollution was evident. Eastward from +the Walnut River plains killifish have not been taken. + + +#Fundulus notatus# (Rafinesque): Stations B-1, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, +G-7, G-8, G-10, G-11, G-14, C-1, M-1, E-1, Evermann and Fordice as +_Zygonectes notatus_. + +The black-banded topminnow was not taken in the Arkansas River but was +common in the Walnut and Grouse systems. It was common also in Middle +Caney, but in Big Caney and Elk River it was taken only at the lowermost +stations. + +This species did not seem to ascend far into smaller tributaries of +Grouse Creek. In Crab Creek it was taken at the lower two of six +stations and in Grand Summit Creek at the lower of two stations. + +The highest relative numbers were taken at stations G-3 (17.5 per cent), +G-4 (24 per cent), G-10 (25.75 per cent) and G-11 (41.52 per +cent), on Crab Creek and Grouse Creek. Both upstream and downstream from +these stations, which were within five miles of each other, the relative +abundance dropped off sharply. The bottoms at these stations were mostly +rubble and mud, and water was turbid at three of the stations. At G-10 +(June 24) and G-11 (July 16) young-of-the-year were abundant. + + +#Ictalurus melas# (Girard): Stations W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, +G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-8, G-9, G-11, G-12, G-13, G-14, G-17, C-1, +C-9, C-11, C-12, C-14, C-15, C-17, C-18, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, E-6, N-1, +Evermann and Fordice as _Ameiurus melas_ (C-133). + +The black bullhead was taken at slightly more than half of the stations, +and probably was present at others. Larger numbers were taken in Grouse +Creek than in any other stream system. In many small, shallow pools in +the Grouse Creek system young black bullheads shared dominance with +_Gambusia affinis_ in the late summer. _I. melas_ was also abundant in +isolated pools at the extreme upper ends of Crab Creek, Beaver Creek and +Grand Summit Creek. _I. melas_ was most common in areas with silty +bottoms. The species seemed scarce in the main stream of Big Caney River +but was common in some of its tributaries. + + +#Pylodictis olivaris# (Rafinesque): Stations A-3, G-1, C-5. + +Flathead catfish were taken by angling at stations A-3 and C-5. At +station G-1 (September 5) a flathead catfish five inches long was taken +in the four-foot nylon net. + + +#Ictalurus punctatus# (Rafinesque): Stations A-3, W-2, W-3, G-2, C-5, +E-4. + +Channel catfish from stations W-3, A-3, and C-5 were taken on hook and +line. At station G-2 (August 29) twenty young-of-the-year were seined +from the shallow narrow end of a large pool. All collections of both _I. +punctatus_ and _P. olivaris_ were in the larger streams surveyed. + + +#Ictalurus natalis# (LeSueur): Stations G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-8, G-11, +C-12, C-14, C-15. + +The yellow bullhead was taken at only 9 stations, compared with 33 +stations for the black bullhead. _I. natalis_ was represented in 7 of +17 stations in the Grouse Creek system but in only 3 of 18 stations in +the Big Caney system. Of the seven records from Grouse Creek four were +from the main stream. At every station where yellow bullheads were +taken, black bullheads were found also and were abundant, usually +several times more abundant than _I. natalis_. + +At G-11 on Crab Creek (July 16), _I. natalis_ made up 3.8 per cent of +the fish taken. All were young-of-the-year, existing in a tiny, gravelly +pool containing not more than five gallons of water, and were the only +fish present. Young yellow bullheads were also found in small pools with +gravel bottoms at station G-4 on September 7. + + +#Labidesthes sicculus# (Cope): Stations G-1, G-2, G-3, G-7, G-10, B-2, +C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-12, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-7, M-1 (E&F, C-131). + +The brook silversides was taken, sometimes abundantly, in all stream +systems except the Walnut and Arkansas. At station G-7 on July 8, 41.8 +per cent of the fish taken were of this species. _L. sicculus_ was most +abundant in large pools where the bottom was predominantly bedrock and +gravel. The highest concentrations were in the mainstreams of Big Caney, +Grouse, and Elk Rivers. Brook silversides were taken rarely in the +smaller tributaries of these streams. + + +#Percina phoxocephala# (Nelson): Stations C-2, C-3, C-5, G-1 (C-133). + +Slenderhead darters were scarce, and were found only over gravel +bottoms. Specimens were taken from flowing and quiet water, and from +both shallow and deep water. + +Larger numbers of _P. phoxocephala_ were taken by the writer in other +collections made during 1956 on the Neosho and Verdigris Rivers over +bottoms of rubble or gravel. Restriction of this darter to the larger +streams follows a pattern observed by Cross (1954a:313) who noted it was +absent from smaller riffles in minor tributaries. Elliott (1947), +however, took one specimen of _P. phoxocephala_ in Spring Creek, a +tributary of Fall River. + + +#Percina caprodes carbonaria# (Baird and Girard): Stations G-3, G-4, +G-7, G-12, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-9, C-12, C-13, C-14 (J&J, C-131, C-133). + +The logperch was generally distributed in the Caney, Elk, and Grouse +systems. This species usually comprised less than 1 per cent of the fish +taken; however, at station G-12 it formed 3.76 per cent of the total. + +In many instances the logperch was taken over submerged gravel bars, +often along the edges of the larger pools. At 8 of 13 stations where the +logperch was taken, the golden redhorse was also found. At every station +where logperch were found, _Notropis umbratilis_ was taken and +_Pimephales notatus_ also occurred at all but three of these stations. + + +#Percina copelandi# (Jordan): Stations C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8, G-1 (C-131, +C-133, J&J). + +Channel darters were collected over bottoms of rubble or gravel, both in +flowing streams and in isolated pools. Although _P. copelandi_ was found +only in Big Caney River and at the lowermost station on Grouse Creek +(G-1) in this survey, this species has been taken previously from Elk +River (K. U. 3463 and K. U. 3197) and from Silver Creek. _Notropis +camurus_ occurred everywhere that _H. copelandi_ was found. In several +instances the two species were taken in the same seine-haul. + + +#Etheostoma spectabile pulchellum# (Girard): Stations W-4, G-1, G-4, +G-5, C-6, C-9, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, E-1, E-5. +Evermann and Fordice as _Etheostoma coeruleum_ (C-131, C-132). + +The habitat preferences of the orangethroat darter seemed similar to +those of _Campostoma anomalum_. There were sixteen stations at which +both species were taken, seven where only _E. spectabile pulchellum_ was +taken and six where only _C. anomalum_ was taken. The largest relative +numbers of both species were found in the same small, clear upland +tributaries of Big Caney River. On May 31, collections from riffles at +station C-15 (upper Otter Creek) consisted almost entirely of these two +species. On September 1 at this station the stream was intermittent, but +even the tiniest pools abounded with young darters and stonerollers. + +Gravid females and males in breeding condition were taken in riffles in +Cedar Creek on April 2. During June numerous young and adult +orangethroat darters were taken in Cedar Creek, in partly decayed leaves +which lined the banks. On June 15 in Otter Creek young darters were +abundant in streamside detritus and in clear, shallow, rubble riffles. +At station C-11 a few darters were taken on rubble riffles; however, +large numbers were found inhabiting thick mats of _Potamogeton foliosus_ +Raf., which grew in shallow water. Many darters (_Etheostoma spectabile +pulchellum_ and _Percina phoxocephala_) were taken in September along +gravelly banks at stations C-2 and C-3 by disturbing small rocks and +leaf-litter along the shores. Young orangethroat darters seemed to +seek out sheltered areas and in some cases were found in sluggish, even +foul, water (Stations W-4, B-1 and G-12). Moore and Buck (1953:26) note +that the orangethroat darter is able to thrive in Oklahoma in rather +sluggish and even intermittent waters which reach quite high summer +temperatures. + +Unlike other darters taken in this survey, the orangethroat darter was +common to abundant at several stations and was found at a great many +more stations than any other darter. The comparatively great tolerance +of this species to varying habitats, suggested by this survey, is also +reflected by its widespread distribution in Kansas. + + +#Micropterus salmoides salmoides# (Lacepede): Stations B-1, G-4, G-5, +G-7, G-12, C-1, C-3, E-1, E-2, E-3. + +Most of the largemouth bass taken were young-of-the-year. In Big Caney +River this species seemed rare, being found at only two downstream +stations compared with eight stations at which _M. punctulatus_ was +taken. + +Many ponds in the Flint Hills have been stocked with largemouth bass. At +present largemouth bass are frequently caught by hook and line in Crab +Creek (Station G-12); however, Mr. A. C. Metcalf, who has fished this +stream for approximately 45 years, states that he took no bass in the +creek prior to the building and stocking of large ponds on nearby +ranches. + + +#Micropterus punctulatus# (Rafinesque): Stations C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, +C-8, C-10, C-14, C-15, E-2, E-5 (C-133). + +The spotted bass was taken only in tributaries of the Verdigris River, +where it seemed more numerous than the preceding species. It has been +reported from other Verdigris tributaries such as Fall River (Elliott, +1947) and is common eastward from the Verdigris Basin. A spotted bass +(K. U. 3467) was taken by Cross on the Little Walnut River in Butler +County on April 5, 1955. This seems to be the only record of this +species from the Walnut River Basin at the present time. + + +#Pomoxis annularis# (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, W-5, G-1, G-2, G-5, +G-10, G-11, G-12, C-1, C-2, C-4, C-5, C-6, M-1, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5 +(C-136). + +White crappie were found in almost all habitats and were taken in all +rivers except the Arkansas. The relative abundance of this species was +greater at downstream than at upstream stations on Grouse Creek, Big +Caney, and Elk River. Schools of young crappie were frequently found and +the factor of chance in taking or failing to take a school of crappie +prevented confident appraisal of abundance. White crappie usually sought +quiet waters. Often they were found in backwaters and many times +schools were taken over bottoms where mud and detritus had been +deposited. It was not uncommon to take _Pomoxis annularis_ and +_Ictalurus melas_ in the same seine-haul in such areas. + + +#Pomoxis nigromaculatus# (LeSueur): Station C-1. + +Black crappie were taken in Otter Creek on May 29 and September 3. +Several ponds in eastern Cowley County are stocked with black crappie, +but none was taken from streams into which these ponds drain. + + +#Lepomis cyanellus# (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, W-4, W-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, +G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-12, G-13, G-14, G-15, G-16, +G-17, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, +C-13, C-14, C-16, C-17, C-18, E-1, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, M-2 (C-131, +C-132, C-133, C-136, E&F). + +The green sunfish was taken at 45 of 60 stations, which is the greatest +number recorded for one species. The only stream from which it was not +obtained was the Arkansas River. Green sunfish constituted a minor but +consistent part of the fauna in Big Caney River except for some +intermittent pools on small tributaries, where it was high in relative +abundance. It usually comprised approximately 4 per cent of the fish +taken at stations on Grouse Creek. In some intermittent tributaries of +Grouse Creek and Elk River percentages also were high. + +Funk and Campbell (1953:74) observed that _L. cyanellus_ held a definite +but minor place in all collections made on the Black River in Missouri. +This pattern was also observed by the writer in collections made on the +Neosho and Spring Rivers in southeastern Kansas. This seems to indicate +that the Big Caney River populations (exclusive of the upstream stations +in intermittent streams) follow a pattern commonly found in southeastern +Kansas and probably in the Ozark region. + + +#Lepomis humilis# (Girard): Stations A-3, W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, G-1, G-2, +G-3, G-4, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12, G-14, G-15, C-1, C-2, +C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-16, C-17, +B-2, B-3, E-1, E-2, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, M-1. (C-131, C-132, C-133, +C-136, J&J, E&F.) + +The orangespotted sunfish was found in every stream surveyed, although +only one specimen was taken from the Arkansas River. + +The largest relative number of this species (44.6) was taken at station +G-1. Percentages at other stations on Grouse Creek and its tributaries +progressively declined in an upstream direction. + +In Big Caney River representation of _L. humilis_ in collections varied +from 1.56 per cent at station C-1 to 23.47 per cent at station +C-7. This sunfish was usually the dominant species in collections made +from the Elk River, where the relative abundance ranged from 10 to 30 +per cent. + +The orangespotted sunfish is widespread in Kansas and seems to be a +diagnostic constituent of the Plains Fauna. Moore and Buck (1953:26) +found it "very common" in the Chikaskia River in Kansas and Oklahoma. +Cross (1950:140) noted that in Stillwater Creek it seemed to be the most +tolerant and consequently the most abundant of the stream's cent +rarchids. Moore and Paden (1950:91) note that _L. humilis_ is most +common in muddy waters and found in overflow pools, backwaters, and +oxbow lakes. This species is frequently found in farm ponds in the area +surveyed, which further suggests a wide range of habitat tolerance. + + +#Lepomis megalotis breviceps# (Baird and Girard): Stations W-3, W-4, +W-5, B-1, B-2, G-1, G-4, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12, G-13 (all +Big Caney River stations except C-18), E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6, +M-1, M-2 (C-131, C-132, C-133, J&J, E&F). + +In Big Caney River the longear sunfish shared dominance with the redfin +shiner (_Notropis umbratilis_) at almost every station. The average of +its relative abundance at all stations in the Big Caney system was 16.5 +per cent. It was also abundant at several stations on Grouse Creek and +made up 43.25 per cent of all fish taken at station G-4. + +Cross (1950:140) observed that _L. megalotis breviceps_ increased in +Stillwater Creek probably as a result of clearer water and stabilized +water level. + +In collections made west of the area treated here (Moore and Buck, +1953:26; Elliott, 1947) the longear sunfish is less abundant than in Big +Caney River and Grouse Creek. + + +#Lepomis macrochirus# (Rafinesque): Stations W-3, G-3, G-4, G-5, C-3, +C-5, E-1, E-2 (C-131, C-132, C-133). + +The bluegill was, in all cases, a minor constituent in the fish fauna. +No clear pattern of habitat preference can be deduced. In the Verdigris +River at Independence (collection AM-53, August 22, 1956) bluegills were +common in quiet pools and coves below a low-water dam. Moore and Paden +(1950:91) note that _L. macrochirus_ prefers quiet waters and Hubbs and +Lagler (1947:94) state that it is "generally restricted to the quieter +pools." + +The bluegill is widely-stocked in impoundments of the area treated +here. + + +#Aplodinotus grunniens# (Rafinesque): Stations C-4, E-2. + +The dearth of stations from which the freshwater drum is reported may +indicate difficulty in taking this species with seines, rather than +scarcity. Both collections were at downstream stations. At station C-4 +three half-grown drum were taken. Fishermen take "drum" at least as far +upstream as station C-5 on Big Caney River. In the Elk River one +specimen was taken in a 20-foot seine below a dam at Elk Falls. + + + + +FISHES OF DOUBTFUL OR POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE + + +In addition to the species listed above, the following species have been +reported nearby and may occur within the area surveyed. + +_Lepisosteus productus_ (Cope)--This gar has not been reported from +Kansas. It has been taken at several points in the northern half of +Oklahoma and as far west as Canton Reservoir by Buck and Cross (1951). A +specimen of the spotted gar was taken by Elkin (1954:28) in Salt Creek +in Osage County, Oklahoma. + +_Polyodon spathula_ (Walbaum)--The paddlefish has never been reported +from the Arkansas River system in Kansas. Several reports by fishermen +were traced by the writer, but authentication was not achieved. One +mounted specimen was examined in a sporting goods store in Arkansas +City. This fish was said to have been taken on the Arkansas River south +of Arkansas City but information on the date and method of capture were +vague. Mr. Darrell Wheat of Arkansas City reported taking four +paddlefish below a dam at Oxford, Kansas, in 1948 and 1949. + +_Hiodon alosoides_ (Rafinesque)--One specimen (K. U. 3095) of the +goldeye was taken in 1953 on the Arkansas River near Oxford in Sumner +County. Fishermen also report taking this fish occasionally in the +Walnut River in Cowley County. + +_Noturus flavus_ (Rafinesque)--The stonecat was taken in the Verdigris +system by R. D. Lindsay in 1911 (K. U. 2058) and more recently by Cross +in Montgomery County (C-120) and Schelske (1957:46) in Wilson and +Montgomery Counties. The close proximity of these collection areas to +lower portions of the Elk River indicate probable occurrence in Elk +River and other Verdigris tributaries. + +_Noturus nocturnus_ (Jordan and Gilbert)--The freckled madtom has been +taken on all sides of the area studied making its occurrence therein +highly probable. This madtom has been taken in Beaver Creek in Osage +County, Oklahoma (OAM 4771); from a tributary of the Walnut River in +Sedgwick County by Cross (1954); from the Chikaskia River (Moore and +Buck, 1953:24); and from several localities on the Verdigris River +(Schelske, 1957:47). + +_Etheostoma cragini_ (Gilbert)--One Cragin's darter (K. U. 3470) was +taken by Cross in the Arkansas River near the Sumner-Cowley county line +(Sec. 25, T31S, R2E). Records of this darter are few and widely +scattered geographically. Several collections from north-eastern +Oklahoma are noted by Moore and Cross (1950:144). + +_Etheostoma whipplii_ (Girard)--Schelske (1957:38) reports the redfin +darter from the Verdigris River three miles southeast of Benedict, +Kansas. Dr. George Moore of Oklahoma A. & M. College states that it has +been taken in the Verdigris drainage in Oklahoma at several locations. + +_Etheostoma zonale arcansanum_ (Jordan and Gilbert)--Two banded darters +(K. U. 3213) have been reported by Schelske (1957:49) from Fall River +near Neodesha, Kansas. Because a tributary of Fall River enters Elk +County its presence in this and other Verdigris tributaries in the area +seems possible. This darter has been reported from only one other stream +in Kansas, Shoal Creek in Cherokee County, where it has been collected +often. + +_Roccus chrysops_ (Rafinesque)--The white bass has been stocked in Hulah +Reservoir on Big Caney River in Oklahoma. To date it has not been +reported from the Big Caney in Kansas. White bass are common in many +reservoirs of Kansas and Oklahoma and have been taken in rivers in both +states. Mr. Clement Gillespie of Arkansas City, Kansas Forestry, Fish +and Game Commission wildlife protector for the area, states that two +hundred young of _R. chrysops_ were released in Grouse Creek several +years ago under auspices of the Commission. The fish has not been +reported by fishermen since that time to the knowledge of Mr. Gillespie +or of the writer. + +_Lepomis microlophus_ (Gunther)--One redear sunfish was taken on Salt +Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma, by Elkin (1954:28). Because this +species has been stocked widely in Oklahoma its eventual occurrence in +Kansas seems probable. + +_Chaenobryttus gulosus_ (Cuvier)--The warmouth has been taken south of +the collection area in Osage County on Salt Creek by Elkin (1954:28). + + + + +FAUNAL COMPARISONS OF DIFFERENT STREAMS + + +The faunas of Elk River, Big Caney River, and Grouse Creek were +generally similar. These streams and most of their tributaries originate +in the same hilly area of eastern Cowley County and western Elk and +Chautauqua counties; their similarities and differences have been +pointed out. + +The following species were taken in all of these streams: + + _Lepisosteus osseus_ + _Dorosoma cepedianum_ + _Ictiobus bubalus_ + _Moxostoma erythrurum_ + _Minytrema melanops_ + _Cyprinus carpio_ + _Campostoma anomalum_ + _Notropis boops_ + _Notropis lutrensis_ + _Notropis umbratilis_ + _Notropis volucellus_ + _Pimephales notatus_ + _Pimephales tenellus_ + _Fundulus notatus_ + _Gambusia affinis_ + _Ictalurus melas_ + _Ictalurus punctatus_ + _Etheostoma spectabile_ + _Percina caprodes_ + _Micropterus salmoides_ + _Pomoxis annularis_ + _Lepomis cyanellus_ + _Lepomis humilis_ + _Lepomis megalotis_ + _Lepomis macrochirus_ + _Labidesthes sicculus_ + +No species was found in Elk River to the exclusion of Big Caney and +Grouse Creek. Fish taken exclusively in Grouse Creek were _Ictiobus +cyprinella_ at station G-2 and _Notropis percobromus_ at station G-1. +The following species were taken only in Big Caney River: _Ictiobus +niger_, _Notropis rubellus_, _Phenacobius mirabilis_, _Pimephales +vigilax_, and _Pomoxis nigromaculatus_. + +_Notropis buchanani_ and _Pimephales promelas_ were taken in Grouse +Creek and Elk River, but not in Big Caney River, although the watershed +of Big Caney lies largely between these two streams. Three species, +_Notropis camurus_, _Micropterus punctulatus_, and _Aplodinotus +grunniens_, were found in Elk River and Big Caney but not in Grouse +Creek. _Ictalurus natalis_, _Pylodictis olivaris_, and _Percina +phoxocephala_ were taken in Big Caney River and Grouse Creek but not in +Elk River. _Percina copelandi_ was taken by Cross on Elk River in 1954 +and 1955 (K. U. 3464 and K. U. 3197). + +Forty species were taken in Big Caney River, 35 in Grouse Creek and 31 +in Elk River. Collections were made from only six stations on Elk River +as compared with 18 from Big Caney and 17 from Grouse Creek. + +Twenty-four species were taken in the Walnut River system, only one of +which (_Notemigonus crysoleucas_) was taken exclusively there. + +In the Arkansas River 18 species were found, four of which did not occur +elsewhere. These were _Hybopsis aestivalis_, _Notropis blennius_, _N. +girardi_, and _Fundulus kansae_. + +Table 5 lists the number of stations in each of the streams surveyed +from which each species was taken. + + TABLE 5.--SPECIES OF FISHES COLLECTED AND NUMBER OF STATIONS IN + EACH STREAM SYSTEM AT WHICH EACH SPECIES WAS FOUND. + + KEY: + A: Arkansas River 3 stations + B: Walnut River 5 stations + C: Grouse Creek 17 stations + D: Big Caney River 18 stations + E: Elk River 6 stations + F: Middle Caney 2 stations + G: Beaver Creek 3 stations + + ============================================================ + Total number | | | | | | | + of stations | A | B | C | D | E | F | G + --------------------+-------+---+----+----+--------+---+---- + _L. osseus_ | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | Seen | | + _D. cepedianum_ | Seen | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | + _Carpiodes carpio_ | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | + _I. bubalus_ | | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | | + _I. cyprinella_ | | | 1 | | | | + _I. niger_ | | | | 2 | | | + _M. erythrurum_ | | | 4 | 10 | 3 | | + _M. melanops_ | | | 1 | 3 | 1 | | + _Cyprinus carpio_ | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | | + _C. anomalum_ | | 1 | 1 | 14 | 2 | | 1 + _H. aestivalis_ | 1 | | | | | | + _N. blennius_ | 2 | | | | | | + _N. boops_ | | | 2 | 14 | 2 | 2 | + _N. buchanani_ | | | 1 | | 1 | | + _N. camurus_ | | | | 13 | 2 | | + _N. deliciosus_ | 3 | 3 | | | | | + _N. girardi_ | 2 | | | | | | + _N. lutrensis_ | 3 | 4 | 13 | 14 | 5 | 1 | 3 + _N. rubellus_ | | | | 11 | | | + _N. percobromus_ | 3 | 3 | 1 | | | | + _N. umbratilis_ | | | 8 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 2 + _N. volucellus_ | | | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | + _N. crysoleucas_ | | 1 | | | | | + _H. placita_ | 3 | 2 | | | | | + _P. mirabilis_ | | 1 | | 1 | | | + _P. notatus_ | | 1 | 6 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 1 + _P. promelas_ | 2 | 2 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 1 + _P. vigilax_ | 1 | | | 3 | | 1 | + _P. tenellus_ | | | 1 | 7 | 1 | 2 | + _F. notatus_ | | 4 | 10 | 1 | 1 | | 1 + _F. kansae_ | 2 | | | | | | + _G. affinis_ | 3 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 1 | | + _I. melas_ | 1 | 4 | 12 | 9 | 5 | | 3 + _I. natalis_ | | | 6 | 3 | | | + _I. punctatus_ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | | + _P. olivaris_ | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | | + _E. spectabile_ | | 1 | 4 | 17 | 2 | | 1 + _P. copelandi_ | | | 1 | 5 | | | + _P. phoxocephala_ | | | 1 | 4 | | | + _P. caprodes_ | | | 5 | 8 | 1 | | + _M. salmoides_ | | | 4 | 2 | 3 | | 1 + _M. punctulatus_ | | | | 7 | 1 | | + _P. annularis_ | | 2 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 1 | + _P. nigromaculatus_ | | | | 1 | | | + _L. cyanellus_ | | 3 | 14 | 17 | 5 | 1 | 3 + _L. humilis_ | 1 | 4 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 1 | 2 + _L. megalotis_ | | 3 | 9 | 18 | 6 | 2 | 2 + _L. macrochirus_ | | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | | + _A. grunniens_ | | | | 1 | 1 | | + _L. sicculus_ | | | 5 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 + ------------------------------------------------------------ + + + + +DISTRIBUTIONAL VARIATIONS WITHIN THE SAME STREAM + + +An analysis of faunal variations in different parts of the same stream +system was made for Big Caney River and Grouse Creek. Collecting was +more extensive in these streams, and sampling was done over a wider +range of habitat, than in the Arkansas and Walnut rivers. + +The fish taken in the first five seine hauls at each station were +counted and the number of each species was recorded as a percentage of +the total number of fish taken. These percentages were calculated for +the main stream and for each tributary in an attempt to discern possible +intra-stream faunal patterns. In Table 6 lower, middle, and upper +segments of each stream have been segregated and the average of all +stations within each segment is shown. + +The results are subject to several sources of error, some of which are +discussed below: + +(1) Seining techniques could not be entirely standardized. One station +might present a series of long narrow riffles and narrow, shallow pools +in which only a small seine could be used effectively; another station +might consist of a large, deep, isolated pool in which a larger seine +was needed for effective sampling. In practice, the five seine hauls +were made with any of several seines ranging from ten to twenty feet in +length. + +(2) Seines are species-selective, due partly to the preference of +certain fishes for special habitat niches. Fishes that are often found +under stones or in weedy pools require special collecting techniques and +frequently were not represented in the initial five hauls. If work +subsequent to the first five hauls indicated that such fish were a +prominent part of the fauna at a particular station, these results were +considered before percentages were calculated. + +(3) Temporal variations occur in populations at the same station. There +were both seasonal and diurnal differences in relative numbers of +species taken in these collections. This was noted especially at station +C-5 where collecting was done both at night and by day. Spawning by +certain species during the course of the study complicated estimates of +their relative abundance. + +(4) In tabulating percentages of fishes obtained an arbitrary element is +often unavoidable in deciding whether a station, especially a station on +a tributary, should be considered as part of the lower, middle, or upper +segment of a river system. + +Despite these disadvantages it is felt that table 6 has factual basis +permitting some reliable interpretation. + + TABLE 6.--RELATIVE ABUNDANCE IN PER CENT OF FISHES IN + COLLECTIONS FROM THREE STREAM SEGMENTS. + + ==================================================================== + | Big Caney River Grouse Creek + |------------------------+----------------------- + | Lower | Middle | Upper | Lower | Middle | Upper + -------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+------ + _L. osseus_ | .7 | .5 | | .6 | .02 | + _D. cepedianum_ | .3 | | | | .02 | + _Carpiodes carpio_ | .06 | | | 1.0 | | + _I. bubalus_ | .6 | .45 | | 1.4 | | + _I. cyprinella_ | | | | .1 | | + _I. niger_ | .01 | | | | | + _M. erythrurum_ | .2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | .03 | .5 | 1.1 + _M. melanops_ | .1 | .01 | | | .1 | + _Cyprinus carpio_ | .7 | | | 1.3 | .2 | + _C. anomalum_ | .6 | 5.9 | 18.0 | | .1 | + _N. boops_ | .6 | .6 | 5.1 | | 1.3 | + _N. buchanani_ | | | | .01 | | + _N. camurus_ | 6.4 | 5.5 | .4 | | | + _N. lutrensis_ | 8.8 | 1.0 | .5 | 6.4 | 11.4 | 15.2 + _N. percobromus_ | | | | 1.1 | | + _N. rubellus_ | .4 | 1.4 | 3.9 | | | + _N. umbratilis_ | 17.6 | 28.3 | 15.4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 5.5 + _N. volucellus_ | .3 | .4 | | | .3 | + _P. mirabilis_ | .3 | | | | | + _P. notatus_ | 3.5 | 5.7 | 13.0 | | .9 | 6.6 + _P. vigilax_ | .8 | | | | | + _P. promelas_ | | | | | | 2.9 + _P. tenellus_ | .7 | .5 | | .01 | | + _G. affinis_ | 14.6 | .4 | .4 | 20.8 | 10.2 | 1.0 + _F. notatus_ | .1 | | | 6.6 | 17.2 | 1.4 + _I. melas_ | .9 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 2.3 | 18.0 + _I. natalis_ | | | .5 | .5 | .8 | + _P. olivaris_ | .01 | | | .01 | | + _I. punctatus_ | .3 | | | .4 | | + _E. spectabile_ | 1.9 | 4.9 | 18.0 | .4 | .3 | .3 + _P. copelandi_ | .8 | .1 | | .01 | | + _P. phoxocephala_ | .1 | | | .1 | | + _P. caprodes_ | .4 | .6 | .2 | .2 | .2 | .4 + _M. salmoides_ | .06 | | | | 1.1 | .3 + _M. punctulatus_ | .5 | 1.7 | .4 | | | + _P. annularis_ | 3.9 | .8 | | 2.9 | 4.2 | .3 + _L. cyanellus_ | 3.4 | .8 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 30.5 + _L. humilis_ | 10.6 | 13.1 | 1.8 | 31.4 | 17.7 | 14.8 + _L. megalotis_ | 12.4 | 22.3 | 12.0 | 3.6 | 14.0 | 1.7 + _L. macrochirus_ | .3 | | | .2 | 1.3 | + _A. grunniens_ | .1 | | | | | + _L. sicculus_ | 7.1 | 1.6 | .4 | 7.7 | 10.2 | + -------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +_Big Caney River_ + +The "lower segment" of Big Caney River is immediately upstream from +Hulah Reservoir, and is not the lowermost portion of the entire river +basin, but merely the lower part of the river in the area studied. A +conspicuous characteristic of the lower segment was the general +restriction of the deep-bodied suckers and the carp to this part of the +stream. Other fishes that were most common in the lower section were +_Pimephales vigilax_, _Percina phoxocephala_, _Gambusia affinis_, and +_Aplodinotus grunniens_. _Labidesthes sicculus_ and _Lepisosteus osseus_ +ranged into the middle section of the stream, but were present in larger +numbers downstream. _Ictalurus punctatus_, _Pomoxis annularis_, and +_Lepomis macrochirus_ were taken chiefly in downstream habitats; +however, stocking has confused the distributional pattern of these +species. _Notropis lutrensis_, although found throughout the system, +progressively declined in numbers taken in the middle and upper +sections. Approximately 18 species were usually taken in downstream +collections. + +No species were found exclusively in the middle section of the Big Caney +system. _Micropterus punctulatus_, _Notropis umbratilis_, and _Lepomis +megalotis_ tended to be most common in the middle section of the main +stream. These three species were taken together at stations C-5, C-6, +C-8, and C-10. + +The upper section yielded no species that did not occur also in another +section. Fishes most abundant in the upper section included: _Campostoma +anomalum_, _Etheostoma spectabile_, _Notropis boops_, _Notropis +rubellus_, _Pimephales notatus_, and _Lepomis cyanellus_. _Ictalurus +natalis_ also seemed more common upstream than in lower parts of the +basin. + +_Campostoma anomalum_ was one of the most common fishes taken at many of +the stations on small upland tributaries. In downstream collections its +relative abundance was less, although it was often concentrated on +riffles. + +In the Big Caney system as a whole _Notropis umbratilis_ was the most +abundant species. Several species were present throughout the system in +proportions varying, sometimes greatly, from station to station. +_Lepomis megalotis_ and _Lepomis humilis_ were erratic in occurrence, +and the numbers of _Notropis camurus_ and _Ictalurus melas_ varied +without pattern. + + +_Grouse Creek_ + +The fauna of the main stream of Grouse Creek fluctuated more in number +and kinds of fish from station to station than did the fauna of Big +Caney River. Again, the deep-bodied suckers showed downstream +proclivities. In addition, _Notropis buchanani_, _Pimephales tenellus_, +_Percina copelandi_, _Percina phoxocephala_, _Notropis percobromus_ and +_Pylodictis olivaris_ were taken only at the lowermost station (G-1). At +stations G-2 and G-3 the creek is sluggish and often turbid, meandering +between high mud banks in a flood plain. At these stations _Fundulus +notatus_, _Gambusia affinis, La_-_bidesthes sicculus_, _Ictalurus +melas,_ and _Lepomis humilis_ were the most common fishes. Shiners +(_Notropis_ spp.) and _Lepomis megalotis_ were rarely taken. Hall +(1953:36) states that _Gambusia affinis_, _Fundulus notatus_, and +_Labidesthes sicculus_ are usually associated with overflow pools, +oxbows, and vegetated backwaters. + +Those fishes mentioned in the preceding paragraph remained common in +the middle section of the stream. In addition _Notropis lutrensis_, +_Notropis umbratilis_, and _Lepomis megalotis_ were important members +of the fauna. + +In the uppermost section shiners (_Notropis_ spp.) were common. In the +few upstream stations that were still in good condition with clear +flowing water, the fauna resembled that of the upstream stations on Big +Caney River. Most upstream stations on Grouse Creek were located on +highly intermittent streams that are treated below. + + + + +FAUNAS OF INTERMITTENT STREAMS + + +Because of severe, protracted drought, most of the streams studied had +ceased to flow by the close of the survey period. However, the duration +of intermittency varied greatly in different streams, as did its effect +in terms of the number and sizes of residual pools, water temperatures, +pollution, and turbidity. Crab Creek, Beaver Creek, and a small unnamed +tributary of Grouse Creek were severely affected by intermittency. Their +faunas are discussed below. + +In Crab Creek six collections were made from points near the mouth to +the uppermost pool in which water was found. Pools near the mouth were +as large as thirty feet in width and ninety feet in length, while those +that were uppermost were shallow puddles averaging ten feet in length +and five feet in width. The uppermost station was situated in bluestem +pasture without benefit of shade from trees. + +The species taken and their relative abundances based on five seine +hauls at each station are shown in Table 7. At the uppermost pool (G-17) +only small green sunfish were found. At G-16, next downstream, this +species was joined by large numbers of black bullheads and a few redfin +shiners and red shiners. G-13 was similar to G-16, but two additional +species occurred there. G-12 was a clear, deep pool much larger than any +at the stations upstream. Here, seven species were added to the fauna, +and the percentages of _Ictalurus melas_ and _Lepomis cyanellus_ were +much less. At G-10 _Fundulus notatus_, _Labidesthes sicculus_, and +_Minytrema melanops_ appeared. Nevertheless, fewer species (10) were +captured here than at station G-12 upstream. + + TABLE 7.--PERCENTAGES OF FISHES TAKEN ON CRAB CREEK. + + ==================================================================== + Stations | G-10 | G-11 | G-12 | G-13 | G-16 | G-17 + --------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------ + _Minytrema melanops_ | 8.7 | | | | | + _Labidesthes sicculus_ | 20.0 | 1.0 | | | | + _Fundulus notatus_ | 25.7 | 41.0 | | | | + _Ictalurus natalis_ | | 3.8 | .43| | | + _Pomoxis annularis_ | 8.8 | 11.8 | 1.9 | | | + _Lepomis humilis_ | 15.45| 9.9 | 8.5 | | | + _Micropterus salmoides_ | | | 1.9 | | | + _Etheostoma spectabile_ | 1.0 | | 1.9 | | | + _Percina caprodes_ | | | 3.8 | | | + _Moxostoma erythrurum_ | 1.0 | | 7.0 | | | + _Lepomis megalotis_ | 5.7 | 2.3 | 7.0 | 2.0 | | + _Pimephales notatus_ | | 34.0 | 9.0 | | | + _Ictalurus melas_ | 5.3 | .5 | 29.0 | 49.0 | | + _Notropis umbratilis_ | | 4.7 | 9.0 | 1.0 | | + _Notropis lutrensis_ | 20.6 | 26.0 | 25.0 | 14.0 | 1.0 | + _Lepomis cyanellus_ | 1.0 | | 1.9 | 34.0 | 49.0 | 100.0 + --------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------ + + + TABLE 8.--FISH TAKEN IN NINE POOLS ON UPPER BEAVER CREEK + (PROGRESSING FROM DOWNSTREAM TO UPSTREAM). + + ===================================================================== + | _Notropis | _Notropis | _Lepomis | _Lepomis | _Ictalurus + | umbratilis_ | lutrensis_| humilis_ | cyanellus_ | melas_ + ------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------+------------ + Pools:| | | | | + 1 | 5 adults | 4 adults | adults | young | 1 juvenile + | | 7 young | abundant | abundant | + | | | | | + 2 | 2 adults | 4 adults | 6 adults | young | + | | | | abundant | + | | | | | + 3 | | 1 adult | 7 adults | 3 juveniles| 2 juveniles + | | | | | + 4 | | | 4 adults | young | young + | | | | abundant | abundant + | | | | | + 5 | | | 2 adults | | + | | | | | + 6 | | | | 28 young | + | | | | | + 7 | | | | | + | | | | | + 8 | | | | | 1 adult + | | | | | + 9 | | | | | 1 adult + -------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------+------------ + +A series of collections similar to that on Crab Creek was carried out +along 1-1/2 miles of Beaver Creek on July 22, 1956. Nine pools were +sampled (Table 8) of which number nine was the uppermost point where +water was found (except for farm ponds). Mainly young of _Lepomis +cyanellus_ and _Ictalurus melas_ were found in the uppermost stations, +as on Crab Creek. Only adults of _Notropis lutrensis_ and _Notropis +umbratilis_ were taken. + +In another small intermittent tributary of Grouse Creek two collections +(G-14 and G-15) were made. One was from several isolated pools near the +source of the creek and the other was 1-1/2 miles upstream from the +mouth. The two stations were approximately four miles apart. Table 9 +indicates approximate percentages of fish taken in five seine hauls at +these stations. + + TABLE 9.--FISHES TAKEN IN A TRIBUTARY OF GROUSE CREEK. + + ================================================= + Species | Upstream | Downstream + | station | station + --------------------------+----------+----------- + _Ictalurus melas_ | 45% | + _Lepomis humilis_ | 48% | 40% + _Notropis lutrensis_ | 5% | 30% + _Lepomis cyanellus_ | 2% | 20% + _Fundulus notatus_ | | 10% + --------------------------+----------+----------- + +At two other stations, only _Lepomis cyanellus_ was found. One of these +stations consisted of several small spring-fed pools in a dry arroyo +tributary to Little Beaver Creek. Around these small "oases" rushes and +smartweeds grew and blackbirds were nesting in the rushes. Although +green sunfish up to eight inches in length were common in the shallow +pools, no other species was found. The second station (C-17) on the East +Fork Big Caney River is of special interest. The pool was isolated, had +dimensions of about 25x25 feet, and had an average depth of 15 inches. +The water was foul; cows had been fed fodder in a sheltered area above +the pool during the preceding winter and the entire bottom was covered +to a depth of 6 inches to 1 foot with a detritus of decomposing fodder, +cattle feces, and leaves. The water became almost inky in consistency +when the bottom was stirred and its odor was offensive. A thick +gray-green bloom lay on the surface. This bloom was full of bubbles +indicating gases rising from the bottom muds. One hundred fifty-three +green sunfish, all less than 5 inches in length, were taken in one +seine-haul at this station. + + + + +EAST-WEST DISTRIBUTION + + +In the Arkansas River system in Kansas there are marked differences +between fish faunas of the western and eastern parts of the state. This +can be illustrated by comparison of Spring River in Cherokee County with +the Cimarron River in southwestern Kansas. Single collections from +Spring River or its tributaries usually contain 25 or more species of +fish. Collections from the Cimarron rarely contain more than five or six +species. Many of those fishes found in Spring River are characteristic +of an Ozarkian fauna, and some are endemic to the Ozark uplands. Fish +found in the Cimarron or Arkansas in western Kansas are members of a +plains fauna of wide distribution. There is mingling of these two faunal +groups across the state, with the number of Ozarkian species diminishing +westward, and certain plains species diminishing eastward. A number of +species such as _Moxostoma duquesnii_ and _Notropis spilopterus_ are +limited, on the basis of present records, to Spring River and its +tributaries in Kansas. Others have not been taken west of the Neosho +drainage. The Verdigris River provides the next major avenue of westward +dispersal followed by Caney River, Grouse Creek, and the Walnut River. +West of the Walnut River system Ozarkian species have been almost always +absent from collections. The Chikaskia River is somewhat exceptional. +Moore and Buck (1953) reported from this river several species that seem +more typical of eastern faunal associations. Table 10 indicates the +stream system in which the present westernmost records are located for a +number of fishes found in the Arkansas River system in Kansas. + + TABLE 10.--PRESENT WESTERNMOST RECORDS OF SOME FISHES IN THE + ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN IN KANSAS. + + Spring River + _Cottus carolinae_ + _Dionda nubila_ + _Etheostoma blennioides_ + _Etheostoma gracile_ + _Etheostoma nigrum nigrum_ + _Etheostoma punctulatum_ + _Etheostoma saxatile_ + _Hypentelium nigricans_ + _Moxostoma duquesnii_ + _Notropis spilopterus_ + _Noturus exilis_ + + Neosho River + _Cycleptus elongatus_ + _Etheostoma chlorosomum_ + _Etheostoma flabellare lineolatum_ + _Hybopsis amblops_ + _Hybopsis biguttata_ + _Hybopsis x-punctata_ + _Notropis zonatus pilsbryi_ + + Verdigris River + _Etheostoma whipplii_ + _Etheostoma zonale arcansanum_ + _Percina copelandi_ + _Moxostoma carinatum_ + _Notropis boops_ + _Notropis volucellus_ + _Noturus miurus_ + + Chikaskia River + _Ictalurus natalis_ + _Percina phoxocephala_ + _Labidesthes sicculus_ + _Lepomis megalotis breviceps_ + _Micropterus punctulatus_ + _Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum_ + _Moxostoma erythrurum_ + _Notropis camurus_ + _Pimephales notatus_ + _Pimephales tenellus_ + _Noturus nocturnus_ + +The westernmost records for seven species are in the area studied. + +1. _Lepisosteus platostomus._ + +2. _Carpiodes velifer._ + +3. _Moxostoma carinatum._ + +4. _Minytrema melanops._ One specimen taken at station G-10 near the +mouth of Crab Creek constitutes the present westernmost record. A +specimen has been taken by Cross (C-24-51) in the headwaters of the +Walnut River. + +5. _Notropis boops._ The westernmost record is station G-5 on Grouse +Creek. This fish has been reported slightly west of this in Oklahoma on +Big Beaver Creek in Kay County (number 4776, Oklahoma A & M College +Museum of Zoology). + +6. _Notropis volucellus._ Two specimens were taken at station G-8 on +Silver Creek. + +7. _Percina copelandi._ The westernmost record is from station G-1, two +miles above the mouth of Grouse Creek. + +The easternmost occurrences of four species are in the area studied. +These species are _Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus_ (Station A-2), +_Notropis blennius_ (Station A-1), _Notropis girardi_ (Station A-2), +and _Fundulus kansae_ (Station A-2 and Walnut River). These fish are +associated with the Arkansas River proper and its sandy western +tributaries. In Oklahoma, these fish are found in the Arkansas River +as it proceeds eastward and in the downstream portions of some of its +tributaries. These fish show little tendency to ascend the streams of +the Flint Hills. + + + + +SUMMARY + + +The fish fauna of the area studied is transitional between the Ozarkian +and Great Plains faunas. + +Fluctuation in water level seemed especially important in determining +distribution of fishes in the area studied. Variable climate +characteristic of the region studied causes recurrent floods and +intermittency in streams. Both of these conditions have probably been +accentuated by man's modifications of the habitat. The effects of +intermittency were most strikingly demonstrated in small creeks of the +uplands. The number of species of fish in the highly intermittent +streams was small--especially in the uppermost pools sampled--but the +actual number of fish was often high even though the number of species +was low. In several instances the only fishes found in these isolated +pools were _Lepomis cyanellus_ and _Ictalurus melas_. This phenomenon of +concentrated numbers of individuals of a few species would indicate the +presence of limiting factors that allow only those species most +tolerant of the particular factor to flourish. + +Soon after rains restored flow in these intermittent creeks _L. +cyanellus_ and _I. melas_ appeared in parts of the channels that had +previously been several miles from the nearest water. Rapid upstream +movements of other species after rains was also noted. + +It was impossible to ascertain the precise effects of gradient and +bottom-type on distribution, but certain species such as _Notropis +blennius_, _Notropis girardi_, and _Fundulus kansae_ were taken only in +streams with sandy bottoms. _Notropis deliciosus_ and _Hybognathus +placita_ were most abundant over sandy bottoms. + +The high gradient of upland tributaries in the Flint Hills area produced +turbulence and bottoms predominantly of rubble. A fauna of which +_Etheostoma spectabile_ and _Campostoma anomalum_ were characteristic +existed in these waters while they were flowing. As flow decreased and +intermittency commenced, qualitative and quantitative changes in the +fish faunas were observed. Gradient did not change during drought, but +turbulence did. Because turbulence varies with water level as well as +gradient, the effect of gradient on fish distribution ultimately is +linked to climate. + +Probably the small number of fish taken on the Walnut River in +comparison with other eastern Kansas rivers (Verdigris, Neosho) results, +in part, from the long-term pollution of the stream noted by Clapp +(1920:33) and Doze (1924). No percid fishes, black bass, or madtom +catfish were taken on the Walnut in Cowley County and the species of +_Notropis_ numbered only three. + +Four faunal associations seem to be recognizable in the area. + + +_Arkansas River Fauna_ + +This fauna contained _Notropis girardi_, _Notropis blennius_, _Hybopsis +aestivalis tetranemus_, and _Fundulus kansae_ which, in this area, did +not seem to wander far from the sandy main stream of the Arkansas. +Minnows abounded; _Notropis lutrensis_ and _N. deliciosus missuriensis_ +predominated; and _Notropis girardi_, _N. percobromus_, and _Hybognathus +placita_ were common. In quiet backwaters, coves, and shallow pools +_Gambusia affinis_ occurred in great numbers. _Lepisosteus osseus_ +seemed to be the most important predator. + + +_Lower Walnut River Fauna_ + +The Walnut River in Cowley County supported large populations of +deep-bodied suckers, carp, and gar. _Notropis lutrensis_ and _N. +percobromus_ were characteristic minnows. _Lepomis_ _humilis_ abounded +at some stations. The fauna of the main stream of the Walnut River was +somewhat intermediate between that of the Arkansas River and that of the +three streams considered below. Fifteen of the species common to the Big +Caney, Elk, and Grouse systems were also taken in the Walnut River main +stream. Thirteen species were common to the Walnut and Arkansas rivers. +Seven species were common to all these streams. + + +_Caney-Elk-Grouse Main Stream Fauna_ + +This fauna includes fishes living not only in the main streams but also +in the lower parts of the larger tributaries of these streams. The fauna +was comparatively rich: in the main stream of Big Caney River 39 species +were taken, in Grouse Creek 35 species, in the Walnut River main stream +21 species, and in the Arkansas River 19 species. It has been pointed +out that large rivers such as the Walnut and Arkansas have been +subjected to greater direct and indirect modification by man, possibly +resulting in a less diverse fauna than would otherwise occur in these +streams. At present, there is a paucity of ecological niches in the +upland tributaries and large rivers, as compared with streams of +intermediate size. Fishes typical of the Caney-Elk-Grouse association +were _Notropis umbratilis_, _Lepomis megalotis_, _Lepomis humilis_, +_Labidesthes sicculus_, _Fundulus notatus_, and the two species of +_Micropterus (Micropterus punctulatus_ was not taken in Grouse Creek). + + +_Upland Tributary Fauna_ + +Tributary faunas were divisible into two categories: (1) Those of the +Walnut River and Grouse Creek (intermittency was severe, species were +few, with _Ictalurus melas_ and _Lepomis cyanellus_ predominating); (2) +those of Big Caney River (stream-flow was more stable, and eastern +fishes, some of which have Ozarkian affinities, occurred in greater +abundance than in any other part of the area surveyed). In the latter +streams _Campostoma anomalum_ and _Etheostoma spectabile_ usually were +dominant. _Pimephales notatus_, _Notropis volucellus_, _N. camurus_, _N. +boops_, and _N. rubellus_ characteristically occurred. _Notropis +lutrensis_ was sparsely represented in flowing tributaries. _Notropis +umbratilis_, which seems to prefer habitats intermediate between those +of _Notropis lutrensis_ and Ozarkian shiners, was usually represented. +Deep-bodied suckers and carp were not taken in upland tributaries but +_Moxostoma erythrurum_ was common and _Minytrema melanops_ was taken. + +The kinds and numbers of shiners (_Notropis_) taken at different points +along Grouse Creek seem significant. _N. lutrensis_ and _N. umbratilis_ +occurred throughout the stream but were rare in sluggish areas where +populations of _Gambusia affinis_, _Fundulus notatus_, and _Labidesthes +sicculus_ flourished. At the lowermost station _Notropis percobromus_ +and _N. buchanani_ were taken; these were not present in other +collections. In the uppermost stations where water remained plentiful, +_N. boops_ and _N. volucellus_ were taken, and _N. rubellus_ has been +recorded. + +In the broader distributional sense those fishes that seemed most +tolerant of intermittency (_Lepomis cyanellus_, _Lepomis humilis_, +_Ictalurus melas_, _Notropis lutrensis_) are widely distributed in the +Arkansas River Basin, and are common in the western part of the Arkansas +River Basin. Species less tolerant of intermittency are _Notropis +boops_, _Notropis camurus_, _Notropis rubellus_, _Notropis volucellus_, +and _Pimephales tenellus_; they have not been taken far west of the area +studied, and become more common east of it. + + + + +LITERATURE CITED + + + BASS, N. W. + + 1929. The geology of Cowley County, Kansas. Kansas Geol. Survey + Bull., 12:1-203, 23 figs., 12 pls. + + BIEBER, R. P. + + 1932. Frontier life in the army, 1854-1861. Southwest Historical + Series, 2:1-330. + + BREUKELMAN, J. + + 1940. A collection of fishes in the State University Museum. Trans. + Kansas Acad. Sci., 43:377-384. + + BUCK, H., and CROSS, F. B. + + 1951. Early limnological and fish population conditions of Canton + Reservoir, Oklahoma, and fishery management recommendations. + A Report to the Oklahoma Game and Fish Council reprinted by + the Research Foundation, Oklahoma A&M College. 110 pp., + 17 figs. + + CALDWELL, M. B. + + 1937. The southern Kansas boundary survey. Kansas Hist. Quart., + 6:339-377. + + CLAPP, A. + + 1920. Stream pollution. Kansas Fish and Game Department Bull., + 6:33. + + CROSS, F. B. + + 1950. Effects of sewage and of a headwaters impoundment on the + fishes of Stillwater Creek in Payne County, Oklahoma. Amer. + Midl. Nat., 43 (1):128-145, 1 fig. + + 1954a. Fishes of Cedar Creek and the south fork of the Cottonwood + River, Chase County, Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. + 57:303-314. + + 1954b. Records of fishes little-known from Kansas. Trans. Kansas + Acad. Sci. 57:473-479. + + CROSS, F. B., and MOORE, G. A. + + 1952. The fishes of the Poteau River, Oklahoma and Arkansas. + American Midl. Nat., 47 (2):396-412. + + DOZE, J. B. + + 1924. Stream pollution. Bien. Report. Kansas Fish and Game Dept. + 5:1-42. + + ELKIN, R. E. + + 1954. The fish population of two cut-off pools in Salt Creek, Osage + County, Oklahoma. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 35:25-29. + + ELLIOTT, A. + + 1947. A preliminary survey and ecological study of the fishes of + the South Ninnescah and Spring Creek. Unpublished thesis, + Kansas State College. + + EVERMANN, B. W., and FORDICE, M. W. + + 1886. List of fishes collected in Harvey and Cowley counties, + Kansas. Bull. Washburn Lab. Nat. Hist., 1:184-186. + + FLORA, S. D. + + 1948. Climate of Kansas. Rept. Kansas State Board Agric. + 67:xii-320, Illus. + + FOLEY, F. C., SMRHA, R. V., and METZLER, D. F. + + 1955. Water in Kansas. A report to the Kansas State Legislature as + directed by the Kansas State Finance Council. University of + Kansas, pp. 1-216--A1-J6. + + FRYE, J. C., and LEONARD, A. B. + + 1952. Pleistocene geology of Kansas. Bull. Kansas Geol. Surv., + 99:1-230. 17 figs., 19 pls. + + FUNK, J. L., and CAMPBELL, R. S. + + 1953. The population of larger fishes in Black River, Missouri. + Univ. Missouri Studies, 26:69-82. + + GATES, F. C. + + 1936. Grasses in Kansas. Rept. Kansas State Board Agric., 55 + (220-A):1-349, frontispiece, 270 figs., 224 maps. + + GRAHAM, I. D. + + 1885. Preliminary list of Kansas fishes. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., + 9:69-78. + + HALE, M. E., Jr. + + 1955. A survey of upland forests in the Chautauqua Hills, Kansas. + Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 58:165-168. + + HALL, G. E. + + 1952. Observations on the fishes of the Fort Gibson and Tenkiller + reservoir areas, 1952. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 33:55-63. + + 1953. Preliminary observations on the presence of stream-inhabiting + fishes in Tenkiller Reservoir, a new Oklahoma impoundment. + Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 34:34-40. + + HOYLE, W. L. + + 1936. Notes on faunal collecting in Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. + Sci., 39:283-293. + + HUBBS, C. L., and ORTENBURGER, A. I. + + 1929a. Further notes on the fishes of Oklahoma with descriptions of + new species of cyprinidae. Publ. Univ. Oklahoma Biol. Surv., + 1(2):17-43. + + 1929b. Fishes collected in Oklahoma and Arkansas in 1927. Publ. + Univ. Oklahoma Biol. Surv., 1 (3):47-112, 13 pls. + + HUBBS, C. L., and LAGLER, K. F. + + 1947. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. Cranbrook Inst. Sci. Bull., + 26 (Revised Edition):i-xi-1-186, illus. + + JEWETT, J. M., and ABERNATHY, G. E. + + 1945. Oil and gas in eastern Kansas. Bull. Kansas Geol. Survey, + 57:1-244, 21 figs., 4 pls. + + METZLER, D. F. + + 1952. Water Pollution Report, Walnut River Basin. Department of + Sanitation, Kansas State Board of Health (Unpublished), + 64 pp. + + MILLER, N. H. + + 1932. Surveying the southern boundary line of Kansas. Kansas Hist. + Quarterly, 1:104-139. + + MOORE, G. A. + + 1944. Notes on the early life history of _Notropis girardi_. + Copeia, 1944 (4):209-214, 4 Figs. + + MOORE, G. A., and CROSS, F. B. + + 1950. Additional Oklahoma fishes with validation of _Poecilichthys + parvipinnis_ (Gilbert and Swain). Copeia, 1950 (2):139-148. + + MOORE, G. A., and PADEN, J. M. + + 1950. The fishes of the Illinois River in Oklahoma and Arkansas. + Amer. Midl. Nat, 44:76-95, 1 Fig. + + MOORE, G. A., and BUCK, D. H. + + 1953. The fishes of the Chikaskia River in Oklahoma and Kansas. + Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 34:19-27. + + MOORE, R. C. + + 1949. Divisions of the Pennsylvanian system in Kansas. Bull. Kansas + Geol. Survey, 83:1-203, 37 Figs. + + MOORE, R. C., FRYE, J. C., JEWETT, J. M., LEE, W., and O'CONNER, H. G. + + 1951. The Kansas rock column. Bull. Kansas Geol. Survey, 89:1-132, + 52 Figs. + + MOOSO, J. + + 1888. The life and travels of Josiah Mooso. Telegram Post, + Winfield, Kansas, pp. 1-400. + + ORTENBURGER, A. I., and HUBBS, C. L. + + 1926. A report on the fishes of Oklahoma, with descriptions of new + genera and species. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 6:132-141. + + SCHELSKE, C. L. + + 1957. An ecological study of the fishes of the Fall and Verdigris + rivers in Wilson and Montgomery counties, Kansas, March 1954, + to February 1955. Emporia State Research Studies, 5(3):31-56. + + SCHOONOVER, R., and THOMPSON, W. H. + + 1954. A post-impoundment study of the fisheries resources of Fall + River Reservoir, Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 57:172-179. + + TRAUTMAN, M. B. + + 1951. _Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum_, a new subspecies of sucker + from the ozarkian streams of the Mississippi River System. + Occ. Papers Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 534:1-10, 1 pl. + + + _Transmitted December 19, 1958._ + + + 27-7079 + + + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS + MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + + +Institutional libraries interested in publications exchange may obtain +this series by addressing the Exchange Librarian, University of Kansas +Library, Lawrence, Kansas. Copies for individuals, persons working in a +particular field of study, may be obtained by addressing instead the +Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. There +is no provision for sale of this series by the University Library which +meets institutional requests, or by the Museum of Natural History which +meets the requests of individuals. However, when individuals request +copies from the Museum, 25 cents should be included, for each separate +number that is 100 pages or more in length, for the purpose of defraying +the costs of wrapping and mailing. + +* An asterisk designates those numbers of which the Museum's supply (not +the Library's supply) is exhausted. Numbers published to date, in this +series, are as follows: + + Vol. 1. Nos. 1-26 and index. Pp. 1-638, 1946-1950. + + *Vol. 2. (Complete) Mammals of Washington. By Walter W. Dalquest. + Pp. 1-444, 140 figures in text. April 9, 1948. + + Vol. 3. *1. The avifauna of Micronesia, its origin, evolution, and + distribution. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 1-359, 16 figures + in text. June 12, 1951. + + *2. A quantitative study of the nocturnal migration of birds. + By George H. Lowery, Jr. Pp. 361-472, 47 figures in text. + June 29, 1951. + + 3. Phylogeny of the waxwings and allied birds. By M. Dale + Arvey. Pp. 473-530, 49 figures in text, 13 tables. + October 10, 1951. + + 4. Birds from the state of Veracruz, Mexico. By George H. + Lowery, Jr., and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. 531-649, + 7 figures in text, 2 tables. October 10, 1951. + + Index. Pp. 651-681. + + *Vol. 4. (Complete) American weasels. By E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 1-466, + 41 plates, 31 figures in text. December 27, 1951. + + Vol. 5. Nos. 1-37 and index. Pp. 1-676, 1951-1953. + + *Vol. 6. (Complete) Mammals of Utah, _taxonomy and distribution_. + By Stephen D. Durrant. Pp. 1-549, 91 figures in text, + 30 tables. August 10, 1952. + + Vol. 7. *1. Mammals of Kansas. By E. Lendell Cockrum. Pp. 1-303, + 73 figures in text, 37 tables. August 25, 1952. + + 2. Ecology of the opossum on a natural area in + northeastern Kansas. By Henry S. Fitch and Lewis L. + Sandidge. Pp. 305-338, 5 figures in text. August 24, + 1953. + + 3. The silky pocket mice (Perognathus flavus) of Mexico. + By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 339-347, 1 figure in text. + February 15, 1954. + + 4. North American jumping mice (Genus Zapus). By Philip + H. Krutzsch. Pp. 349-472, 47 figures in text, 4 tables. + April 21, 1954. + + 5. Mammals from Southeastern Alaska. By Rollin H. Baker + and James S. Findley. Pp. 473-477. April 21, 1954. + + 6. Distribution of Some Nebraskan Mammals. By J. Knox + Jones, Jr. Pp. 479-487. April 21, 1954. + + 7. Subspeciation in the montane meadow mouse. Microtus + montanus, in Wyoming and Colorado. By Sydney Anderson. + Pp. 489-506, 2 figures in text. July 23, 1954. + + 8. A new subspecies of bat (Myotis velifer) from + southeastern California and Arizona. By Terry A. + Vaughan. Pp. 507-512. July 23, 1954. + + 9. Mammals of the San Gabriel mountains of California. + By Terry A. Vaughan. Pp. 513-582, 1 figure in text, 12 + tables. November 15, 1954. + + 10. A new bat (Genus Pipistrellus) from northeastern + Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 583-586. November 15, + 1954. + + 11. A new subspecies of pocket mouse from Kansas. By E. + Raymond Hall. Pp. 587-590. November 15, 1954. + + 12. Geographic variation in the pocket gopher, + Cratogeomys castanops, in Coahuila, Mexico. By Robert J. + Russell and Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 591-608. March 15, + 1955. + + 13. A new cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) from + northeastern Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 609-612. + April 8, 1955. + + 14. Taxonomy and distribution of some American shrews. + By James S. Findley. Pp. 613-618. June 10, 1955. + + 15. The pigmy woodrat, Neotoma goldmani, its + distribution and systematic position. By Dennis G. + Rainey and Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 619-624, 2 figures in + text. June 10, 1955. + + Index. Pp. 625-651. + + Vol. 8. 1. Life history and ecology of the five-lined skink, + Eumeces fasciatus. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 1-156, + 26 figs, in text. September 1, 1954. + + 2. Myology and serology of the Avian Family + Fringillidae, a taxonomic study. By William B. Stallcup. + Pp. 157-211, 23 figures in text, 4 tables. November 15, + 1954. + + 3. An ecological study of the collared lizard + (Crotaphytus collaris). By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 213-274, + 10 figures in text. February 10, 1956. + + 4. A field study of the Kansas ant-eating frog, + Gastrophryne olivacea. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 275-306, 9 + figures in text. February 10, 1956. + + 5. Check-list of the birds of Kansas. By Harrison B. + Tordoff. Pp. 307-359, 1 figure in text. March 10, 1956. + + 6. A population study of the prairie vole (Microtus + ochrogaster) in northeastern Kansas. By Edwin P. Martin. + Pp. 361-416, 19 figures in text. April 2, 1956. + + 7. Temperature responses in free-living amphibians and + reptiles of northeastern Kansas. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. + 417-476, 10 figures in text, 6 tables. June 1, 1956. + + 8. Food of the crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos Brehm, in + south-central Kansas. By Dwight Platt. Pp. 477-498, 4 + tables. June 8, 1956. + + 9. Ecological observations on the woodrat, Neotoma + floridana. By Henry S. Fitch and Dennis G. Rainey. Pp. + 499-533, 3 figures in text. June 12, 1956. + + 10. Eastern woodrat, Neotoma floridana: Life history and + ecology. By Dennis G. Rainey. Pp. 535-646, 12 plates, 13 + figures in text. August 15, 1956. + + Index. Pp. 647-675. + + Vol. 9. 1. Speciation of the wandering shrew. By James S. Findley. + Pp. 1-68, 18 figures in text. December 10, 1955. + + 2. Additional records and extensions of ranges of + mammals from Utah. By Stephen D, Durrant, M. Raymond + Lee, and Richard M. Hansen. Pp. 69-80. December 10, + 1955. + + 3. A new long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) from + northeastern Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker and Howard J. + Stains. Pp. 81-84. December 10, 1955. + + 4. Subspeciation in the meadow mouse, Microtus + pennsylvanicus, in Wyoming. By Sydney Anderson. Pp. + 85-104, 2 figures in text. May 10, 1956. + + 5. The condylarth genus Ellipsodon. By Robert W. Wilson. + Pp. 105-116, 6 figures in text. May 19, 1956. + + 6. Additional remains of the multituberculate genus + Eucosmodon. By Robert W. Wilson. Pp. 117-123, 10 figures + in text. May 19, 1956. + + 7. Mammals of Coahuila, Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. + 125-335, 75 figures in text. June 15, 1956. + + 8. Comments on the taxonomic status of Apodemus + peninsulae, with description of a new subspecies from + North China. By J. Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 337-346, 1 figure + in text, 1 table. August 15, 1956. + + 9. Extensions of known ranges of Mexican bats. By Sydney + Anderson. Pp. 347-351. August 15, 1956. + + 10. A new bat (Genus Leptonycteris) from Coahuila. By + Howard J. Stains. Pp. 353-356. January 21, 1957. + + 11. A new species of pocket gopher (Genus Pappogeomys) + from Jalisco, Mexico. By Robert J. Russell. Pp. 357-361. + January 21, 1957. + + 12. Geographic variation in the pocket gopher, Thomomys + bottae, in Colorado. By Phillip M. Youngman. Pp. + 363-387, 7 figures in text. February 21, 1958. + + 13. New bog lemming (genus Synaptomys) from Nebraska. By + J. Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 385-388. May 12, 1958. + + 14. Pleistocene bats from San Josecito Cave, Nuevo Leon, + Mexico. By J. Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 389-396. December 19, + 1958. + + 15. New Subspecies of the rodent Baiomys from Central + America. By Robert L. Packard. Pp. 397-404. December 19, + 1958. + + More numbers will appear in volume 9. + + Vol. 10. 1. Studies of birds killed in nocturnal migration. By + Harrison B. Tordoff and Robert M. Mengel. Pp. 1-44, + 6 figures in text, 2 tables. September 12, 1956. + + 2. Comparative breeding behavior of Ammospiza caudacuta + and A. maritima. By Glen E. Woolfenden. Pp. 45-75, 6 + plates, 1 figure. December 20, 1956. + + 3. The forest habitat of the University of Kansas + Natural History Reservation. By Henry S. Fitch and + Ronald R. McGregor. Pp. 77-127, 2 plates, 7 figures in + text, 4 tables. December 31, 1956. + + 4. Aspects of reproduction and development in the + prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). By Henry S. Fitch. + Pp. 129-161, 8 figures in text, 4 tables. December 19, + 1957. + + 5. Birds found on the Arctic slope of northern Alaska. + By James W. Bee. Pp. 163-211, pls. 9-10, 1 figure in + text. March 12, 1958. + + 6. The wood rats of Colorado: distribution and ecology. + By Robert B. Finley, Jr. Pp. 213-552, 34 plates, 8 + figures in text, 35 tables. November 7, 1958. + + More number will appear in volume 10. + + Vol. 11. 1. The systematic status of the colubrid snake, Leptodeira + discolor Guenther. By William E. Duellman. Pp. 1-9, + 4 figs. July 14, 1958. + + 2. Natural history of the six-lined racerunner, + Cnemidophorus sexlineatus. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 11-62, + 9 figs., 9 tables. September 19, 1958. + + 3. Home ranges, territories, and seasonal movements of + vertebrates of the Natural History Reservation. By Henry + S. Fitch. Pp. 63-326, 6 plates, 24 figures in text, 3 + tables. December 12, 1958. + + 4. A new snake of the genus Geophis from Chihuahua, + Mexico. By John M. Legler. Pp. 327-334, 2 figures in + text. January 28, 1959. + + 5. A new tortoise, genus Gopherus, from north-central + Mexico. By John M. Legler. Pp. 335-343, 2 plates. April + 24, 1959. + + 6. Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk counties, + Kansas. By Artie L. Metcalf. Pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 + figures in text, 10 tables. May 6, 1959. + + More numbers will appear in Volume 11. + + * * * * * + + + + + TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES + + +1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_. + +2. Passages in bold-italics are surrounded by #bold#. + +3. Images and tables have been moved from the middle of a paragraph to +the closest paragraph break. + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk +Counties, Kansas, by Artie L. Metcalf + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FISHES *** + +***** This file should be named 34523.txt or 34523.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/4/5/2/34523/ + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/34523.zip b/34523.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..209e557 --- /dev/null +++ b/34523.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..11c1ce3 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #34523 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34523) |
