(1973) The Guadalupe-San Antonio-Nueces-River Basin Project: Phase I: Review of Existing Biological Data

--- Page 1 --- "THE GUADALUPE-SAN ANTONIO-NUECES- RIVER BASIN PROJECT = a F45 eit . PHASE I: Review of Existing Biological Data By Willard €C. Young Bobby G. Whiteside Glenn Longley Neil E. Carter Aquatic Station - Southwest Texas State University Final Report to Texas Water Development Board January 31, 1973 --- Page 2 --- 24 Collection Records of Fishes From the Guadalupe River System there were recorded 9 orders, 18 families, 43 genera, and 85 species. Of these, 9 orders, 17 families, 41 genera, and 75 species appear to be valid (Table 1). Six orders, 15 families, 38 genera, and 72 species were recorded for the San Antonio River System. Of these, 6 orders, 17 families, 3/7 genera, and 64 species appear to be valid (Table 1). For the Nueces River System, 9 orders, 26 families, 52 genera, and 89 species were recorded. Of these, 9 orders, 25 families, 51 genera, and 76 species appear to be valid (Table 1). A composite checklist of fish species recorded in the entire study area, including the Nueces, Guadalupe, and San Antonio river systems is presented in Table 1. The sources of infor- mation on which the checklist is based are given for each river system at the end of the table. Tables 2, 3, and 4 give a checklist of fishes in each of the major streams and lakes of each of the three river systems. A list of sources of data for each stream or lake is given at the end of each table. Species distributions in each of the three river systems are given for each species for which sufficient information was available (Figs. 5-93). Only data which contained sufficient information to pinpoint the collection localities were plotted. Figures 2, 3, and 4 in the introduction will allow more accurate determination of collection localities of the species on the distribution maps. --- Page 3 --- 25 @ Table 1. Composite checklist of fish species from the Nueces (NRS), Guadalupe (GRS), and San Antonio Yiver systems (SARS). Family names are given in all capitals and the scientific name of each species is followed by the common name in parenthesis. xX indicates that the Species was recorded from that river system. X* indicates that it is questionable if the species identification was correct or if the correct collection location was given. # indicates that the species was not recorded from that river system but the river system is within the recorded range of the species. Stream System LEPISOSTEIDAE Lepisosteus spatula (alligator gar) Xx x X Lepisosteus platostomus (shortnose gar) x* Lepisosteus oculatus (spotted gar) Xx x Xx Lepisosteus osseus (longnose gar) xX x ELOPIDAE Elops saurus (ladyfish) # # ms CLUPEIDAE Alosa chrysochloris (skipjack herring) # # Brevoortia gunteri (finescale menhaden) Brevoortia patronus (Gulf menhaden) Dorosoma petenense (threadfin shad) x # Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad) xX x D4 Dd Dd tte ENGRAULIDAE Anchoa mitchilli (bay anchovy) Anchoa hepsetus (striped anchovy) Pe PS SALMONIDAER Salmo gairdneri (rainbow trout) xX CHARACIDAE Astyanax mexicanus (Mexican tetra) X x X CYPRINIDAE Cyprinus carpio (carp) Carassius auratus (goldfish) Notemigonus crysoleucas (golden shiner) ' ') Opsopoeodus emiliae (pugnose minnow) Hybopsis aestivalis (speckled chub) Notropis atherinoides (emerald shiner) PSPS PS PS PS DM Po PST PT PS PS aE PPS SE PX --- Page 4 --- 26 Table !- (Continued) Stream System GRS SARS NRS Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Notropis Oxyrhynchus (sharpnose shiner) amabilis (Texas shiner) shumardi (silverband shiner) chalybaeus (ironcolor shiner) texanus (weed shiner) Simus (bluntnose shiner) blennius (river shiner) amnis (pallid shiner) venustus (blacktail shiner) lutrensis (red shiner) proserpinus (proserpine shiner) stramineus (sand shiner) atrocaudalis (blackspot shiner) volucellus (mimic shiner) Notropis buchanani (ghost shiner) Notropis boops (bigeye shiner) Dionda episcopa (roundnose minnow) Hybognathus nuchalis (silvery minnow) Hybognathus placitus (plains minnow) Pimephale Ss vigilax (bullhead minnow) Pimpehale S promelas (fathead minnow) Campostoma anomalum (stoneroller) CATOSTOMIDAR Cycleptus Ictiobus elongatus (blue sucker) bubalus (smallmouth buffalo) Carpiodes Moxostoma Carpio (river carpsucker) congestum (grey redhorse) Moxostoma erythrurum (golden redhorse) Moxostoma duguesnii (black redhorse) Minytrema melanops (spotted sucker) Erimyzon Sucetta (lake chubsucker) Erimyzon oblongus (creek chubsucker) AMEIURIDAE (=ICTALURIDAE) Ictalurus punctatus (channel catfish) Ictalurus furcatus (blue catfish) Ictalurus melas (black bullhead) Ictalurus nhatalis (yellow bullhead) Ictalurus nebulosus (brown bul Lhead) Troglogla his pattersoni (toothless blindcat) Pylodicti S Olivaris (flathead catfish) Satan eurystomus (widemouth blindcat) Noturus gyrinus (tadpole madtom) Noturus nocturnus (freckled madtom) PS bX mS Po PS Od AE SH Del bet bet be PSPSPS DS Dt Dd Dt ote + + PS PG PS Bt od PS * ms ta ra PSPS PG ate PG PS DG oH PS PS Pd * PS PS PS PG bet be * ms oS ms DS a xX * xX* x PPS DS tHe od PS od Dd sth PS ODS PS bd bd os --- Page 5 --- — | Denes | oa eer | i | ees | ee ae a W Table 1. (Continued) ANGUILLIDAE Anguilla rostrata (American eel) BELONIDAE Strongylura marina (Atlantic needlefish) CYPRINODONTIDAE Lucania parva (rainwater killifish) Fundulus grandis (gulf killifish) Zygonectes notatus (blackstripe topminnow) Zygonectes olivaceus (blackspotted topminnow) Cyprinodon variegatus (sheepshead minnow) POECILIDAE Gambusia geiseri (largespring gambusia) Gambusia gaigei (Big Ben gambusia) Gambusia affinis (mosquitofish) Gambusia georgei (San Marcos gambusia) Poecilia latipinna (sailfin molly) Poecilia formosa (amazon molly) ATHERINIDAE Menidia audens (Mississippi silverside) Menidia beryllina (tidewater silverside) Labidesthes sicculus (brook silverside) PERCICHTHYIDAE Morone chrysops (white bass) CENTRARCHIDAE Micropterus dolomieui (smallmouth bass) Micropterus punctulatus (spotted bass) Micropterus treculi (Guadalupe bass) Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass) Chaenobryttus gulosus gulosus (warmouth) Chaenobryttus cyanellus (green sunfish) Lepomis symmetricus (bantam sunfish) Lepomis punctatus (spotted sunfish) Lepomis microlophus (redear sunfish) Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill) Lepomis humilis (orangespotted sunfish) Lepomis auritus (redbreast sunfish) Lepomis megalotis (longear sunfish) Lepomis marginatus (dollar sunfish) Stream System a Pe PS PS PG PS PS PS PS PS Pd Ss PS PS PS PS PS OD PS PS PS PE PS PS OS DX OD Ps PS 4 ms PS PS OM PS Pe PS --- Page 6 --- | Table 1. (Continued) Fish Enneacanthus obesus (banded sunfish) Ambloplites rupestris (rock bass) Pomoxis annularis (white crappie) Pomoxis nigromaculatus (black crappie) PERCIDAE Hadropterus scierus (dusky darter) Hadropterus shumardi (river darter) Percina caprodes (logperch) Percina macrolepida (big scale logperch) Etheostoma chlorosomum (bluntnose darter) Etheostoma gracile (slough darter) Etheostoma fusiforme (swamp darter) Etheostoma spectabile (orangethroat darter) Etheostoma lepidum (greenthroat darter) Etheostoma grahami (Rio Grande darter) Etheostoma fonticola (fountain darter) Etheostoma microperca (least darter) CARANGIDAE Oligoplites saurus (leatherjacket) GERRIDAE Eucinostomus argenteus (spotfin mojarra) Eucinostomus lefroyi (mottled mojarra) Gerres cinereus (yellowfin mojarra) POMADASYIDAE Pomadasys crocro (burro grunt) SCTAENIDAE Aplodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum) Bairdiella chrysura (silver perch) Scianenops ocellata (red drum) Leiostomus xanthurus (spot) Micropogon undulatus (Atlantic croaker) Pogonias cromis (black drum) Cynoscion nebulosus (spotted seatrout) SPARIDAE Lagodon rhomboides (pinfish) Archosargus probatocephalus (sheepshead) 28 Stream System Pa Pt PM PSPS PS PS PS DS mS oP xe PSPS DM DM SHE PS PS rs PS Pa PS PS X* xX* X* X* xX* PS PS PS Po PS PS PS PS DS DS Has * rs Ps --- Page 7 --- 29 Table 1. (Continued) Stream System GRS SARS | NRS CICHILIDAE Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum (Rio Grande perch) X X X Tilapia mossambica (Mozambique tilapia) X X oe cl Mert cephalus (striped mullet) x X X curema. shite mullet) X X X GOBIIDAE Gobiomorus dormitator (bigmouth sleeper) # # X Gobiosoma bosci (naked goby) X* X BOTHIDAE Paralichthys lethostigma (southern flounder) X SOLEIDAE Trinectes maculatus (hogchoker) X X Achirus lineatus (lined sole) X —saeninenmen mi ep mere a Sas aac a mntanpemmietee Sources of data: Guadalupe River System - 1, 2, ll; 20, 21, 26, 28, 43, 47, 51; 81, 83, 86, 87. 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 119, 156, 158, 159, 182, 192; 193, 195, 199, 202, 203, 210, 213, 220, 223, 224, 227, 236, 243, 253, 257, 260, 261, 262, 265, 266, 267, 269, 285, 295, 298, 299, 301, 302, 304, 905, 306, 307, 308, 309, 312. 414, S15, 3165, 3172. San Antonio River System - 11, 51, 83, 88, 119, 168, 169, 170, 171, 177, 178, 187, 190, 194, 201, 208, 219, 221, 223, 22/7, 228, 232, 233, 236, 237, 240, 246, 24/7, 248, 263, 265, 268, 278, 295, 296; 299. --- Page 8 --- A ee I ( SR al) USE —— @ 35 Table 3. Checklist of the fishes found in the major streams and lakes of the San Antonio River System. X indicates’ that the species was recorded from that locality. X* indicates that it is questionable if the species identification was correct or if the correct collection location was given. Stream or Lake Medina River San Antonio River Species Lepisosteus spatula Lepisosteus oculatus Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Astyanax mexicanus Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Opsopoeodus emiliae Hybopsis aestivalis Notropis amabilis Notropis chalybaeus Notropis texanus Notropis amnis Notropis venustus Notropis lutrensis Notropis proserpinus Notropis stramineus Notropis volucellus Notropis buchanani Dionda episcopa Pimephales vigilax Pimephales promelas Gampostoma anomalum Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpio Moxostoma congestum Erimyzon sucetta Ictalurus punctatus Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus melas Ictalurus natalis Ictalurus nebulosus Pylodictis olivaris Noturus gyrinus Noturus nocturnus Lucania parva Zygonectes notatus PS PS PS PS PS PP BS BM Pi Pd SPS POS PS Od Pd De PS PL PS PS PS DS PS DS Pe PS PS PS PM PS PS PS PS PS PS Pa PS PS PS PS Pd Pd PS PPS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PG PS ms PS ad PS PS PT PS PS PS a ~ * PS PS Dd >< Po PS PS OS > PS PS PS PS PS PS PS Pd DS as Has ms PS --- Page 9 --- 36 Table 3. (Continued) Stream or Lake Medina Cibolo | Medina River Creek San Antonio Species River Gambusia affinis Pq PS PS Ps PS Poecilia latipinna Poecilia formosa Menidia audens xX* Menidia beryllina x Morone chrysops Micropterus punctulatus Micropterus treculi Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Chaenobryttus cyanellus Lepomis symmetricus Lepomis punctatus Lepomis microlophus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis auritus Lepomis megalotis Enneacanthus obesus Pomoxis annularis Pomoxis nigromaculatus Hadropterus shumardi Percina caprodes Etheostoma chlorosomum Etheostoma gracile Etheostoma spectabile x Etheostoma lepidum x Aplodinotus grunniens Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum Tilapia mossambica Mugil cephalus Mugil curema Pa PS PS PPS Pd Pe Dd OS Pa PS PS DPS PS PS PSG PS PS Pa PS PS PS PS Po PS PS PS PG PS PG PS PS PE PS DS OS OS OS Pe DS ~* > Pe PS PS PS PPS PS Pm PS PS Pd PS PS OS a Sources of data: San Antonio River - 51, 88, 119, 219, 228, 237, 246, 263, 296, 299, --- Page 10 --- 37 @ Table 3. (Continued) Medina River - 51, 83, 170, 227, 236, 240, 265, 295, 296. Cibolo Creek - 51, 247, 278, 296, 299. Medina Lake - 168, 169, 177, 178, 187, 190, 194, 201, 223, 232, 233, 240, 248, 265, 296. p<") cS (« --- Page 11 --- 42 Sources Of information on which the distribution maps as follows: er system are based are 5 - 41) - 1, 2: 11, 26, 28; for each riv Guadalupe River System (Figs- 43, 47, 81; 83, 97, 98> 99, 119, 156, 158; 159, 182, 192; 101, 103, 104; 106, 107, 108, 109, 193, 195, 1995 210, 213, 220: 223, 224, 227; 943, 253, 257, 202, 203, 269, 270, 295; 298, 299; 260, 261, 262; 266, 267; 301, 302, 304, 305; 306, 307, 308; 309, 312, 313; 314, 315; 316, 3173 . o River System (Figs. 41 - 66) - 51, 83; 168, San Antoni 169, 170; 171, 177; 178, 187, 228, 232, 233; 236, 240, 247; 190, 194, 201; 208, 221, 223, 227; 248, 265, 268; 278, 295, 296; 2993 Nueces River System (Figs. 66 - 93) - Ol; 83, 84, 106, 159, 166, 174; 181, 183, 184: 223, 229, 232; 237, 240, 245; 185, 186, 191; 197, 202, 207, 217; 222; 246, 247; 254, 256, 263, 264, 268, 296; 297, 299, 303. ces there are species names which occur In several instan t on species distribution maps- on species checklists but no These are due to questionable adentification or location records; or to the inclusion in checklists of species names taken from publications which give only general species distributional ranges that include all or some part of the drainage systems in the study area, but no precise locations. In addition, several fishes indicated in generalized distributional studies as having ranges that may extend into the study area are omitted --- Page 12 --- Ne ° JOA adn jepeng “ i 4 : ) Saf ut efeas _ ee | Of Oz = ] NISVaG YAAIN OINOLNVY NVS oy Snesso snejisostdey oO ernqeds SN}e TNO snejsostdey A SiesseetGer --- Page 13 --- ey wdnoTs wD) (i) hv, JOAly es ae op tPuo adnjepeng af Zz 2g [ep \ ) °\ \? }o o “VG \ ‘ N { sejiwW ul 9; eos a of oz OL on NISVad YAAIY OINOLNV NVS oy snueotxou xeuekqsy A umnuetpedes eulosozog oO *AdM --- Page 14 --- Ol [ee] AWG OINOLNY S NYS VP JBAlY adnjepeng ‘S 7 \eh0 a ES N sajiw ul ajeos | oe 02 Ol 0 NISVva MSAIN OINOLNV NVS aa ND Ta otdzes snutadaéa snjeaine sntsseies SeOnsTOSAIO snuobhbtwuszoON SeTTTus snposodosdo "9 Pb, oy Bande* @ CJ *ACM --- Page 15 --- 9 dOALY adnjepens Q) \) zy ero ee tc \ N ) sajim ul a|eos | of 0Z OL 0 NISVad YSAIMY OINOLNV NVS Gy danol oy snuexs} stdozj0oN A St—Ttqewe stdoz}j0n O STTPATISOR stsdoqAH O * AGH -) , Pay ‘ae 4 4 : ys i Yeu pew De Y en 4 SN WS avi a» kYV NIG a W Oe og 10) W) = y i 25g =?) a) \& , ale" ‘Ye et es oO a) en S oa) 2 * (ea) --- Page 16 --- « SS 97 HHNDIA a) “ S + 0 realy : “e . opiPuo is SNJSNUSA STdozj0N oO adnjepeng Re ov a2 NYS » “2 *e.. Oy. Stsuez4NT STdoz,0N O \ 2? ® © : KAY { Q) . | ae © 2 [© Y e 4 ‘ . sajiw ul 9| POS a ees | v of 02 OL 0 “5 NISVaG YSAAIN OINOLNV NVS sie mA Zz ZG . ‘i a ® 4 iA t 4 | * p -—s --- Page 17 --- «i F) aTeher %, LZ 1) ORSPYO5. dnjepend sy 2, ~\ s Ve Ss ‘ N ( s9j{Wi ul o/ POS ‘ | of 0z ol ) NISVG MYAAIN OINOLNV NVS Ly minolta ey Tue ueyonq SNTTSONTOA SnoutTwei3s STdOZ}0N A STAOZFON @ sTdorjON @ 7AM --- Page 18 --- 87 JOAly adnjepens ZT \er° sees Ee i sa[|w ul ajeos a Se | Oe 06 OL 0 NISV@a YAAIY OINOLNY NVS aA NOT A Ky = $ soTeqdouta 2 Xe&TTHTaA setTeydoutg w < = edoostde epuotqg @ 4 *AGM © % ” ¢Y b ; : ¢ Cui paw A Ys QP» ; ) g © ‘ sy, ¢ = we ayy oY 5 WNIG3W OX EAS > ‘S BY. OY 4 2 ~ . y By ae oO ae, Pay, eeatD oo E ¥9 wn ee S 2 co oe Re ee ia) & — Pied | @ t bby t 6 t Yb Liebe --- Page 19 --- 87 oO as o> > oO c 8s O ‘i ~Z oll? Z— 2a O 9) = <a re ole & 7 Mm 2 poe" <q ae ae ‘ o RS Fi 5 wee, & a res '-, 3 Cp) Gene? . S o rt 12 ok S oi OR SINby, o% Ba wy iS “¢ 0, e 3 u Ee 58g % 8] 35 { ° Geron; 2 co oi t i nimo Cr o ra) oO O, 2\ syst ® = fey r: ie} 1) v5 MULE Po PF ra = “O05 < Bi at 3 Oe Bandé® & ud ¢ O a= e| p is 4 3 Ie 8 : (W al 6 6 o oO ; ca ( N --- Page 20 --- 88 | he a7 Td OS AMNDIa JOA y ° “ adnjepeng cn Bre PRP H0o9 *\ AY, (. cs I \S 5 N ( Saji ul ajeos : oe 0d OL 0 NiISvq YAAIN OINOLNY NVS —_—_—_—_—_———__— OTtdzres Ssepotdies oO 9 > —— = sntTeqnq snqotjoT O hy Sis Pari "AGM oO — % x Y b © x a a i) “ e a i Tas yo i Pwipewd ye “, % %@ ‘ i: or 3 o - . Jo & Sts, ° “ON 7 = Re avya Oo” mAs YNIGGW OX LHS GYR oY. wT E g . : 5 2 Heke 10415 oo, =farte a) ® tei GS a) x oS 5 a O° ao a, = = --- Page 21 --- ( jaAry OX v% 4 adnjepeng a) 49 08 PH98 4 B : Q Ne 2 “o @ ‘ N soj/w ul a}eos , ee | o£ 02 OL 0 NISV@G YAAIN OINOLNV NVS Ts sddnord oy BWA4e0ns UZ Awta av wnjSebuoo PuUloTSsSOXOoW Oo & = ee” --- Page 22 --- cG ddnola XS OK vy 20M 6) Z\u9 pPuos. adnjepeng 3h. et 7 °\ \ Ve ie * N 7} soj{w ul ajeas . Se | og 02% OL 0 NISVa YAAINY OINOLNV NVS - ea o snzeiound snanTeqoT A 9 s a. Ssnyeoiny snainTesorI oO a ra) = AGM re) — % “Op i : : uiP® ) : E SVED ~, A v é eS avi 2 YNIGIW ahs <ops : sy 5 (ve 5 a : “ 4 ma Fs ‘MY p 9 “ipa 3 : W %10q15 is efaJ =." o ee ne & ~ i ~LA ee) = a RZ ee — — — me? --- Page 23 --- 91 12) \\ Za AWE INOLNYV “NWS a 10 ALY : ss ‘s 1 oPYos, adnjepeng EAS wv 7? °\ ( \o ‘ N \ sojiw ul ajeos _ | os 02 OL 0 NISVad YHAAIN OINOLNV NVS — ad €G mdindia seTow snanteqyor O SsTTeqzeu snanTeqzoL oO *Adw “a oN hy nN i o E ‘e) 5 F = M . me a o a af (0 je ey. 7 Hf OV A ys" Ze 9 2 & = Pulp | WB e ey fe) = =Q oS logis eg. «Ja /8. 4 = & a 5 8 oS “3 wis we CD c - ~e ZH 6 : oe isa] —_ { ¢ | &§ yoy os 4 4) 8 4: 4.) 4 “ --- Page 24 --- a ys wdnorla ys JaAly adnjepend snje jou Soq,00Uu0bAZ O ty snutitAb snanjON A Ls] \_f 2 zy - @ STIPATTO STIOTPOTAd O 0" Zz \ > tKaY Li) { : igh . O pee ye ‘ e io <7. Lees) ‘ s iN sajiu ul 9/298 . . of 02 Ol 0 | Bs NISVG YHSAIN OINOLNVY NVS --- Page 25 --- "aN Ze WY AWG OINOLNY “NWS “SS S v o sunyen eng By A) “aD Nees, \ i W 4 N \ sojlw ul a|eos ee eee | OF OZ OL 0 NISV@G YSAAIN OINOLNV NVS a SS dandLa sTuTtyye etsnquey © *AGM HY oS (\ es 5 pS : Pa, a < ¥ Ui pow OF bok’) % + “ee ) ts) < re : aa ae TN Co = WES avi o. 3 AS SYVNIGIW “ON aZ {0 Sor oh yo SD y > B Vv ae “Poy OSD oo, E sO Tes tt e's 2 en a tl so (va) —Z --- Page 26 --- ((( 9¢ muNDId XK x a 1oAly et 7 \19 op PYo5, $ ednjepens ES & ° :. P.”, Sis > a \ 1 3 &) i, oe 4 cs o \% “op 13, ‘ ) N sajiw ul 9/898 _ ee | OL 0 of 0d NISVG YSAIN OINOLNV NVS oy eBsowIoOy VTTTOe0d V euuTdyqeT eTT T9980 O *ASM O = Ns == m OS » OY S 5 PRA WAGGA : AG \ so) BOs. | ' rj % v AO . ie O (8 E wD . ty * RTD By ST Rilo x. ele >», YY N13 4 ato $s “ay 7 ae OY Ww yd" 'S “Y i G Pips ; hee C2 Ww 10415 oo SS ~~ e in 7 oe a) wae 2 mn E en OQ fra) > — Ss --- Page 27 --- 95 LG dandIa snjetTnqzound Sni98}d0i9 th | e sdoskiyd SuoiONW @ oO “> f a &: 7 \u9 oP uo, 3 —— adnjepenyg OL x S> rs BUTT TAieq Teq ePTIptueW O <n s oO" Ft \ = >AaY te of a “N o Ie “Op \s any S Se N ( sajiu ul a]eos : o€ 02 OL Q 5 NISVa YAAIY OINOLNY NVS 4 mB EBEREB REP EUUNEUSES --- Page 28 --- (@ oO JoALy adnjepens i. 8 ye ie \s 1 ‘ sajiw ul ejeos : SS ——€ | of 02 OL ) NISVG YSIAIN OINOLNV NVS gs wanda ay TEnoei} snioeqdozotTW A Septoupes snizeqdoroTW O * AGW =y —"s = --- Page 29 --- JaAly adnjepens sajiw ul a]eos ee | of NiISVad ie] YSAIN OINOLNVY NVS @ 6S danola ey Snso[nb sn} 3ATqouseyo e ’ “AGM “ALA @ --- Page 30 --- Ss 09 wind 1OMY © %, 1 OF P40, adnjepen ON LY 2 Ps. °\ ts Ve 2 we 4 N sajlw ul ajeos ————— eel 0 Of Od OL NISVad MAAIM OINOLNV NVS Cy Snjejound stuodey A SuTToueAo snq3Arqouseyo O > Ad NN ()) é Ssioe & AY 3xwl % = SWNIGIW d & a & = i io fg’ ey f DL OS go “y . & Pulp : BNO , aos Sfogis 4 = TORS. h on ge ey Ch, ~ oie’ 5 Sg Oo n --- Page 31 --- T9 Handy Q) oO v 9 (c) 9 JOALy ; gip adnjepeng Bt %y 43 0% “20s 4 2 . we Cy vs - \ to ay {. Q o es <7. \S 4 N \ sa[lw ul ejeos O€ 0% OL 0 NISVG YSAIN OINOLNV NVS ey snydoToaotu stwodey a sna TyooroeU stwodeT O *AdM --- Page 32 --- 100 WW 7] laAly adnjepends N sojju ul o/eos _———— of 0% OL MAAIM OINOLNV NVS 0 S) oy sagtaine STwodeT « SPopebsu STuods7 oO ® RAY (Q --- Page 33 --- JOALYy adnyjepend 2 I 8 ‘ N , sajiw ul} a|eas : ——— ae | Of 0d OL 0 NISVd MYAAIN OINOLNV NVS (GC €9 adnd Ia oy Staetnuue “a ® oo SnqeTnoeworbtu stTxowod A >AGH --- Page 34 --- 79 aMNOIa i) hfs) solty ot F 19 oP SPYo5, S adnjepend a © , : Pe. 5 on 4 a) (. : wo S o I “op \e 4 N } sew ul a] Bos ee a Ol QO oe 02 NISVa YAAIM OINOLNY NVS Cy ((( Tpreunys snzejdorpeH w BSpordes Bupored @ *AGM Wo --- Page 35 --- (( ¢9 MIND i) vv. 9 9 JaAlyy © % Tn) opsbvos, é adnjepens . ol x e) Ss oo ne) N , sa[iw ul a|eos ee | 0 of 02 OL NISVaG YAAIN OFNOLNV NVS ey unptdetT ewo}SoSeuaA Vv STrqej;oeds euojSOSsyIA O ‘AGM Sy S \ I Fipow @ vy i ©) Tanna: 5 Ne ‘8 2 Zs S WH —~ = 49 ( & S Ap aMV1 Oo: 3 ad 4, RYVNIC AW > by > ey, a te} ie oe Meu a] ye, O}og ps nT a na 1oqig Sf =n oo oS “2 _— eae £ oS = 5 al Re) + ral ee’) Z --- Page 36 --- © 99 wanola A i ro) a cy ° 9 A981 eo. Z\ oP btoos » é adnjepen ‘ “3 jepeng a. v Fe i] °\ * ‘G 4), a ‘ AN 16 a iS Q *G % by \w ; Ki 1 se}{w ul ajeos <n ' Oc 0g OL 0 3 NISVd YSAIN OINOLNV NVS eotTquessou etdeTtL A snvteydes TtThnw a bnjejgnboueAS euoseTyoTyO O > AGH NN 6 o £ c o Bc >. LAO eo. 7 ia OS OAR Hg a : ° Yip “oO meee: ay i Ph sh ~ ogi a =f aks ~ ew FS 2 i AO! ot oO yy = --- Page 37 --- (4 q@ 132 from our checkiists and distribution maps, since there are no firm records that indicate they occur there. The following discussion includes only those species that require further consideration to clarify their status in the river systems. Hubbs (95) indicated that Ichthyomyzon gagei (southern brook lamprey) may occur in the Guadalupe River System, but Hubbs (83, 85) showed it occurs only in east Texas. Thus, it is assumed that this species does not occur in the Guadalupe River System. Hubbs (95) indicated that Polyodon spatula (paddlefish) may occur in the Guadalupe River System. However, tne Guadalupe River System is in the extreme south end of game area 4 which Hubbs (95) indicated is within the range of tne paddlefish. Since Hubbs (85) gave its range as east Texas, it is assumed that this species does not occur in the study area. Chaney (300) recorded one specimen of Lepisosteus platostomus from the Nueces River between the Calallen Dam and the Wesley Seale Dam. Hubbs (85, 95) reported its range in Texas as limited to north Texas. Thus, tnis record was probably a misidentification. According to Hubbs (95) Amia calva (bowfin) might occur in any of the drainage basins in the study area, however, he in- dicated the study area is in the extreme southern end of the range. Hubbs (85) stated that this species was limited on the southwest by a line between Brazos and Matagorda counties. Thus, it is assumed that this species does not occur in the study area. --- Page 38 --- (G 133 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (245) recorded two specimens of Elops saurus from the lower Nueces River. Hubbs (95) listed it as a coastal form. Knapp (116) said jt enters the lower parts of rivers, and Parker, Gallaway>, and Moore (138) indicated it is a marine and estuarine form. Thus, this species may occur in the lower parts of all three river systems in the study area. Although no collections of Alosa chrysochloris have been reported from the study area, Hubbs (95) indicated that jt may occur in any of the three river systems in the study area. Knapp (116) stated that it occurred in tne Gulf of Mexico and in adjacent streams in Texas. Parker; Gallaway, and Moore (138) reported it is an estuarine and freshwater form. Thus, it is possible that this species occurs in the study area. Chaney (300) recorded many specimens of Brevoortia patronus from the lower Nueces River. Hubbs (95) did not list this species from freshwaters in Texas; however, Knapp (116) stated that the young may ascend streams. Parker, Gallaway;, and Moore. (138) listed it as a marine and estuarine form. Thus, this species probably occurs in the lower Nueces River. No records of Dorosoma petenense jn the San Antonio River System were found. However, Hubbs (85,95) and Knapp (116) showed its range included this river system. Since this species has been recorded from river systens adjacent to the San Antonio River System, it very likely occurs in the San Antonio River System and has probably been confused with the more common species, D. cepedianum. --- Page 39 --- (@ G 134 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (245) collected 212 specimens of Anchoa hepsetus from the lower Nueces River. Parker, Gallaway, and Moore (138) listed this species as being marine and estuarine and Hubbs (95) listed it as a coastal form. Knapp (116) listed A. mitchilli as the only species of anchovy which enters the Texas rivers where he found it in abundance in the mouths of rivers. Since Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (245) did not list A. mitchilli in their collections, Anchoa hepsetus may have been a misidentification. No records could be found of releases of Salmo gairdneri into Canyon Lake. However, one specimen was reported taken by gill nets in Canyon Lake by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in January 1966 (295). Since many releases of S. gairdneri have been made into the Guadalupe River below Canyon Dam (see p. 166), it is possible that some were released into Canyon Lake also. However, tnere is no evidence that this is a self-reproducing population. Hubbs (95) indicated that Esox americanus (redfin pickerel) may occur in the Guadalupe River Sys Sills However, this would be the extreme southern end of the range given by Hubbs (95). Knapp (116) gave its range as east Texas and Hubbs (85) stated that it is limited on the southwest by a line between Brazos and Matagorda counties. Thus, it is assumed that this species does not occur in the study area. Carassius auratus was collected from Woodlawn and Pavis lakes in the San Antonio River System by the Texas Parks and --- Page 40 --- rs es —s t= c i | ns | 7, = | boi | oy OF 1 oe | «@ 135 Wildlife Department (240, 247, 296). Within the Guadalupe River System,Whiteside (316) collected this species from the Blanco River, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (266, 295) collected it from Flat Rock Lake and Lake McQueeney, and Kuehne (119) collected it from the Comal River. No specimens of this species have been recorded from the Nueces River System. Since this species is an important bait and aquarium fish and is often released into streams and lakes as indicated by the above dis- junct distribution, it likely also occurs in the Nueces River System. We found no record of Hybopsis aestivalis from the Nueces River System, but it was collected from the San Antonio and the Guadalupe river systems. Hubbs (95) and Knapp (116) gave the entire state as within the range for HK. aestivalis. Thus, this species probably occurs in the Nueces River System. Rhinichthys cataractea (longnose dace) was not reported from the study area, although Hubbs (95) indicated that this species may occur in any of the river systems in the study area. Knapp (116) stated that this species occurs in tributaries of the Rio Grande and in the Pecos region of west Texas. Hubbs (83, 85) reported that the species is known only from the Rio Grande. Tnus, it is assumed that this species does not occur in the study area. No records were found of collections of Phenacobius mirabilis (suckermouth minnow) from the study area. While Hubbs (95) indicated that this species may occur in any of the river --- Page 41 --- (6 ( 136 basins in the study area, Hubbs (85) gave the Texas range as limited chiefly to northeast Texas and the lower Colorado River System and Knapp (116) listed it as uncommon in Texas. Thus, it is assumed that this species does not occur in the study area. Smith (309) reported one specimen of Notropis atherinoides from the Blanco River seven miles east of Wimberley and Mecham (304) reported this species from the San Marcos River at San Marcos. Hubbs (95) indicated that this species occurs in game areas 1, 2, and 4, all of which extend into the northeastern edge of the study area. However, Hubbs (85) indicated that this species occurs only in east Texas and although he stated (83), "Notropis atherinoides is not known southeast of the Trinity drainage", he apparently intended to say southwest instead of southeast. Thus, the occurrence of this species in the Blanco and San Marcos rivers is questionable. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (269) recorded Notropis oxyrhynchus from Lake Dunlap. Hubbs (95) indicated that this species might occur in the study area. Hubbs (85) stated that this species is limited to the Texan Biotic Province (Fig. 94) which includes only the Guadalupe River System portion of the study area. However, Knapp (116) stated that this species is confined to the Brazos River System. Thus, the occurrence of this species in the study area is questionable. Ho records of collections of Notropis fumeus (ribbon shiner) in the study area were found. Hubbs (85, 95) indicated that the extreme southwest part of its range may extend into the study --- Page 42 --- (© 138 area- However, Knapp (116) stated that this species occurs an the Red River and extends southward into Texas only as far as the Brazos River System. Thus, it is questionable if this species occurs as far southwest as the study area. Reno (308) reported two specimens of Notropis shumardi from the Blanco River one mile east of Wimberley. Hubbs (85; 95) indicated that its range may extend into the study area. Knapp (116) listed the range of this species as "known only from the Brazos River system but possibly occurs in the lower parts of adjacent rivers in Texas." Hubbs (83) listed additional collection localities but none were in the study area. Thus, this species possibly occurs in at least the Guadalupe River System of the study area. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (296) collected one specimen of Notropis chalybaeus from Cibolo Creek. Hubbs (85, 95) and Knapp (116) gave the range for this species as the eastern part of the state. Thus, it is likely that this specimen was misidentified and therefore this species does not occur in the study area. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (297) collected six specimens of Notropis simus from tne upper part of the Nueces River, two niles south of Montell. Knapp (116) and Hubbs (85, 95) gave its Texas range as tne Rio Grande and its tributaries east to near Laredo. Since the collection site of this species 1S adjacent to the Rio Grande System, this may be a correct identification and an extension of its known range. --- Page 43 --- Caldwell (299) reported four specimens of Notropis blennius from Woodlawn Lake, Bexar County. Hubbs (83, 85, 95) and Knapp (116) showed that it does not occur in Texas south of the Red River drainage. Thus, we assume this species does not occur in the study area. No records were found of Notropis potteri (chub shiner) being in the study area. Knapp (116) gave its range as the B3razos and Red River systems. However, Hubbs (95) indicated its range may include part of the study area. Since no records of this species in the study area were found, and since the exact range given by Hubbs (95) for this species cannot be pinpointed, it is likely that this species does not occur in the study area. Records of collections of Notropis amnis were found for both the Guadalupe and the San Antonio river systens. Hubbs (95) andicated that both of these river systems are within its range. However, Knapp (116) showed its range to include only tne Guadalupe River System in the study area. Since Hubbs (95) is the more recent paper of the two, 4t is assumed that tnese were correct identifications of N. amnis, and that this species is found in both river systems. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (296) collected one specimen of Notropis proserpinus from the San Antonio River and one specimen from Cibolo Creek, Knapp (176) and wubps (85, 95) snowed its Texas range to be the Rio Grande and its tributaries, including the Pecos River. It is assumed the two specimens were misidentified since this species is easily --- Page 44 --- 140 confused with the more common, closely related species N. lutrensis. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (297) reported 38 specimens of Notropis atrocaudalis from Lake Corpus Christi. Knapp (116) stated the Texas range of this species is "East Texas west to Guadalupe system (rare) w+" Hubbs (83) stated, "There are no specimens an the Texas A. and M. collection from west of the Brazos River." Hubbs (85; 95) gave its range in Texas as the eastern part of the state. Thus, it is probable that these specimens were misidentified. Collection records of Notropis volucellus were found for all three river systems an the study area. The only record from the Nueces River System was a collection of five specimens reported by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (231) from Hondo Creek, a tributary of the Frio River. Knapp (116) reported it as occurring throughout Texas and Hubbs (95) showed {ts range included all of Texas except the extreme western part of the state. However, Hubbs (85) stated that its range is dis- continuous and that it is absent from the Nueces River System. N. volucellus may have been confused with 4 similar species, N. buchanani, which occurs in the Nueces River System. Thus, its occurrence in the Nueces River System is questionable. Caldwell (299) recorded Notropis boops from the Guadalupe River five miles below Canyon Lake Dam. Hubbs (95) did not Tis this species in his checklist of Texas fishes. Knapp (116) and Moore (126) listed it from the Red River System between Texas --- Page 45 --- 141 and Oklahoma. Thus; it is assumed that this species does not occur in the study area. No records were found to indicate Hybognathus nuchalis occurs in the study area. However, Hubbs (95) indicated its range may reach the Guadalupe River System and Knapp (116) stated its Texas range as being "in large silty rivers; oxbows and backwater areas in the central and eastern parts of Texas. Rather widespread in the state but nowhere common." According to tnese distribution descriptions, this species may occur in at least the Guadalupe River System in the study area. No records were found of Hybognathus placitus being in the study area. However, Hubbs (95) and Knapp (116) indicated that its range may include any of the river systems in the study area. Thus, it is possible that this species occurs in the study area. No records were found to indicate that Cycleptus elongatus occurs in the study area. The Academy of Sciences of Philadelphia (1) listed Carpiodes elongatus as being collected from the Guadalupe River near Victoria, however, it could not be determined if they were referring to Cycleptus elongatus or a subspecies of the river carpsucker, Carpiodes carpio elongatus. Hubbs (85, 95) and Knapp (116) indicated that Cycleptus elongatus may occur in small numbers throughout the study area. Thus, it 45 assumed that Cycleptus elongatus occurs in the study area. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (269) recorded specimens of Moxostoma erythrurum from lakes Dunlap, Placid, --- Page 46 --- 142 Meadow, and eS on the Guadalupe River. However, Hubbs (83, 85, 95) and Knapp (116) showed that the nearest extension of the range of this species to the study area is the Red River System. Thus, it is assumed that these specimens were the closely related, commonly occurring M. conge: tums and that M. erythrurum does not occur in the study area. Fowler (56) listed Moxostoma duguesnii from the Colorado and Guadalupe rivers. Hubbs (83) stated, "Because this fish has not otherwise been recorded in Texas, it is presumed that the record is based on specimens of M. congestum, with which M. duquesnii has much in common." Everman and Kendal | (51) reported Minytrema melanops from the Guadalupe River near New Braunfels in 1894. Hubbs (95) reported it as antroduced into game area 6 which includes the study area. Hubbs (85) stated that they are found north and east of a line from Fort Worth to Houston but not south and west of it. Knapp (116) gave the range for this species as "Widespread but not common; from Minnesota to lowa to Pennsylvania on the north to northern Florida; southwest to the Rio Grande..--" Hubbs (83) stated that "No recent collections are available west of the San Jacinto drainage." Since this species is not easily confused with other species of suckers, 1 7s assumed that this 1894 record of M. melanops for the Guadalupe River was correct, but it 7s questionable af this species still occurs there. --- Page 47 --- 143 Hubbs, Kuehne, and Ball (100) recorded Erimyzon oblongus from the headwaters of the Guadalupe River. However, Hubbs (85) stated that the above record was based on E. sucetta. Thus; this species as not known to occur in the study area. Fowler (56) recorded Ictalurus nebulosus from the Nueces River; probably on the basis of his (1904) record from Hondo Creek. Hubbs (83) stated that Fowler's fish, on re-examination, proved to be lL. natalis. Evermann and Kendall (51) listed lL. nebulosus from San Marcos, Comal; and San Antonio springs and stated that this species Was quite numerous at San Marcos and Comal springs. Hubbs (83) stated that Ll. natalis was the only species of the genus in these springs in 1954. Recently, Whiteside (313, 316; 317) collected both I. natalis and I. melas from the San Marcos River but only a few specimens were I. melas. Thus, it is assumed that the records of I, nebulosus were based on misidentified specimens of 1. natalis. Hubbs (94), Hubbs and Bailey (82), and Suttkus (162) reported that Trogloglanis pattersoni and Satan eurystomus have been taken only from deep artesian wells in the vicinity of San Antonio. Noturus gyrinus was recorded from all three river systems in the study area. Hubbs (85) stated that this species is not found in the upper portions of these river systems which lie within the Balconian Biotic Province (Fig. 94) nor in those parts of the San Antonio or Nueces river systems which 17e within the Tamaulipan Biotic Province (Fig: 94). However, there were --- Page 48 --- @ 144 records of this species from Medina Lake (187; 190, 201) which is in the Balconian Biotic Province and from several localities jn the Nueces River System (174, 181; 937, 245; 297) which are in the Tamaulipan Biotic Provinces The only species in the study area with which N. gyrinus 4g sometimes confused is young-of-the-year bullheads- Thus, the above records of N. gyrinus were probably correct. Evermann and Kendall (51) stated that they obtained eight specimens of Noturus nocturnus from San Antonio Springs at San Antonio. Hubbs (85) stated that this species is found north and east of a line from Fort Worth to Houston but not south and west of it. Though Hubbs (95) later included the study area within the range of N. nocturnus» Knapp (116) stated that this species 4s not common in Texas- Thus, it is assumed that this record of N. nocturnus was 4 misidentification. Anguilla rostrata was recorded from the Nueces and Guadalupe river systems; but no records of the species were found for the San Antonio River System. Hubbs (85; 95) and Knapp (116) stated . that the range of this species includes the entire study area- Since this species is most frequently taken on hook and line or with traps, data which 45 usually not recorded or published, at is assumed that this species also occurs jn the San Antonio River System, but has never been reported. Evermann and Kendall (51) recorded Lucania parva from San Antonio Springs at San Antonio. Hubbs (95) indicated that the range of this species may include the San Antonio River System. Hubbs (85) stated that members of this species “occur --- Page 49 --- © @ 145 abundantly in the saline waters of the Pecos but not in the nearby less saline habitats in Texas." Hubbs (85) also reported that they are often found in the Rio Grande above Falcon Dam and that perhaps they occupy most of the Tamaulipan Biotic Province (Fig. 94) which includes the San Antonio River System. Thus, the Evermann and Kendall (51) record may be correct. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (245) recorded Fundulus grandis from the lower Nueces River. Hubbs (95) listed this species as coastal and Knapp (116) gave its range as "Gulf Coast from Florida to Mexico. A brackish water species ranging from salinities of 2 to 25 parts per thousand salt." Parker, Gallaway, and Moore (138) listed jt as an estuarine and fresh- water form. Thus, it is assumed that this species occurs in the Jower Nueces River System. Records of Zygonectes notatus were found for the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems but not for the Nueces River System. Hubbs (85) indicated this species in Texas occurs in the Texan and Austroriparian biotic provinces. The Texan Biotic Province includes parts of the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems but not the Nueces River System (Fig. 94). Knapp (116) said Z. notatus is typical of headwaters and fast streams in Texas. Hubbs (95) indicated that its range might extend south into the Nueces River System. It is assumed that Z. notatus occurs only in the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems of the study area. The only record of Zygonectes olivaceus from the study area was by Kuehne (119) from Lake Belmont (H-4 Lake) on the --- Page 50 --- « 146 Guadalupe River. Hubbs (95) indicated that the range of this species in Texas might include this area. However, Hubbs (85) stated that the western limit of this species corresponds with the western limit of the Mixed Pine-Qak Region in east Texas (Fig. 94). Kuehne (119) also collected Z. notatus from Lake Belmont and several other localities on the Guadalupe River, and stated that the specimens identified as Z. olivaceus may have been very aberrant Z. notatus. It is assumed that this was probably a misidentification and that Z. olivaceus does not occur in the study area. Records of Cyprinodon variegatus and Guadalupe river systems but not f were found for the Nueces or the San Antonio River System. Hubbs (95) indicated that this species may occur in the lower sections of any of the three river systems in the study area. Hubbs (85) stated that this species may occupy most of the Tamaulipan Biotic Province which includes parts of the San Antonio and Nueces river systems (Fig. g4). Knapp (116) gave its Texas range as "Very abundant on the Texas coast . in salinities from 10 to 25 parts per thousand salt. Not un- "Thus, common in purely fresh waters of the coastal streams..--- it is possible that C. variegatus may also occur in the San Antonio River System. The only record of Gambusia gaigei from the study area was that of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (297) from the Dry Frio River. Hubbs (85, 95). Knapp (116), and Hubbs and Springer (104) stated that this species occurs only in the Big --- Page 51 --- a @ 147 Bend area of west Texas. Thus, this record of G. gaigei is assumed to be a misidentification. Hubbs (85) stated that Poecilia formosa is restricted to the extreme southern tip of the state. Hubbs (95) also stated that it has been introduced into game area E6 which includes the upper portions of all three river systems in the study area. Drewry, Delco, and Hubbs (47) and Hubbs (91) stated that this species was introduced into the San Marcos River at San Marcos, and Whiteside (313, 315; 317) and Smith (307) have recorded this species from the San Marcos River. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department recorded P. formose from several localities in the San Antonio River System (237, 246, 247, 296) and from Lake Corpus Christi and the lower Nueces River (245, 246, 297). This species has either extended its range in recent years or there are several cases of misidentification. Knapp (116) gave the range for Menidia audens as “now known to be widely scattered over most of the state." Hubbs (83) stated, "The records attributed to me are based on specimens of Menidia beryllina (Cope) misidentified by me. In Texas, M. audens is known only from the Red River and its tributaries (chiefly Caddo Lake)." No other records of this species in the study area were found except for Knapp (116), who stated that he collected it from the Medina River. It 1s assumed that M. audens does not occur in the study area. The only record of Labidesthes sicculus in the study area was that of Mecham (304) from the San Marcos River at San Marcos. --- Page 52 --- 148 Hubbs (85) stated that the Texas range for this species is north and east of a line from Fort Worth to Houston but not south and west of it. In recent years, we have collected extensively in the San Marcos River at San Marcos and have not taken this species. Thus, it is assumed that this record is incorrect. Records of Micropterus punctulatus were found for the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems and records of M. treculi were found for all three river systems in the study area. Knapp (116) considered these as two subspecies and Hubbs (83) considered them as distinct species. At best, they are difficult to separate, and many of the specimens reported may not be correctly identified. Our collections from the Guadalupe River System, made over the last six years, have yielded two specimens that might be identified as M. treculi. However, it remains questionable if M. punctulatus and iM. treculi are distinct species. Only one record of Lepomis symmetricus was recorded from the study area; a single specimen collected by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (296) from Medina Lake. Hubbs (92, 95) gave the Texas range of this species as the eastern part of Texas. Thus, it is assumed that the single specimen was mis- identified. Hubbs (95) indicated that the range of Lepomis humulis may extend into any of the three river systems in the study area, and Hubbs (85) indicated that its range may extend into the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems. The only records for this species in the study area were from the Guadalupe River System and apparently this is the only river system in the study --- Page 53 --- 149 area in which L. humulis occurs. The only reports that Lepomis marginatus occurs in the study area were made by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (269) on the basis of collections from lakes Dunlap, McQueeney, H-4, and H-5. Hubbs (85, 95) and Knapp (116) listed the Texas range of this species as east Texas. Thus, it is probable that these records are based on a misidentification of the common, closely related L. megalotis. Callahan (278) reported three specimens of Enneacanthus obesus from Cibolo Creek. Hubbs (95) did not list this species in his checklist of Texas fishes. Moore (126) gave the range of this species as southeastern New Hampshire to Florida, in coastwise waters. Thus, we consider this record of E. obesus as a misidentification. Several records of Ambloplites rupestris were found for both the Guadalupe and Nueces river systems but not for the San Antonio River System. Brown (27) stated that this species has been introduced extensively in the Edwards Plateau area. Thus, it is possible that this species also occurs in the San Antonio River System. Records of Hadropterus scierus were found for only the Guadalupe River System in the study area. Knapp (116) stated that this species is generally widespread throughout Texas in suitable habitats and Hubbs (95) indicated that its range may extend into the other two river systems in the study area. However, Hubbs (85) stated that H. scierus is abundant in the --- Page 54 --- —_ ——————. _ a _. | email c™ (© (@ 150 Guadalupe River System and northern streams, but absent from the Nueces. He considered the Guadalupe River System to include the San Antonio River System. Thus, it is possible that this species occurs in both the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems. The only records of Etheostoma fusiforme from the study area were reported by Evermann and Kendall (51) who gave the collection localities as, “Rio Seco and Rio Leona at Uvalde (as Boleosoma gracile types, Gilbert, 1859b), and (as Poecilichthyes gracilis, Synopsis)...-." Hubbs (85) stated that E. fusiforme occurs in the Red River System east of Lake Texoma and is absent from the Sabine River and elsewhere in Texas. Thus, jt is assumed that the above records were likely misidentifications of E. gracile, which occurs in the study area. Records of Etheostoma spectabile were found for all three river systems in the study area. Hubbs (83, 85) and Strawn (158, 159) stated that this species is found in the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems but is absent from the Nueces River System. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department reported two specimens of E. spectabile from tne upper Nueces River (240) and two specimens from the upper West Nueces River(244). It is questionable if the Nueces River System specimens indicated as E. spectabile were correctly jdentified. They may have been confused with £. lepidum which commonly occurs in that area. The only record of Etheostoma grahami from the study area was that of Knapp (116) who gave its range as, ‘flueces River in Texas south into the Rio Grande and streams of Chihuahua, west to --- Page 55 --- at = 151 the Pecos." However, Hubbs (83) stated, "This fish is not known in the Nueces River System, where it is replaced by E. jepidum." Also, Hubbs (95) and Strawn (158, 159) indicated its range does not include the study area. Thus, it is assumed that E. grahami does not occur in the study area. Fowler (56) recorded Etheostoma microperca as Microperca punctulata, from Sabine, Trinity, Colorado, and Nueces rivers. However, Hubbs (83) stated that E. microperca does not occur in Texas and that he suspected that Fowler (56) based his statement of the range on misidentified specimens of E. gracile. Thus, it is assumed that £. microperca does not occur in the study area. Itubbs (83, 85), Strawn (158 159), and Hubbs, Kuehne, and Ball (100) stated that Etheostoma fonticola is endemic to the Comal and San Marcos springs and adjacent waters downstrean, where it i…