O. G. Dely szerk.: Vertebrata Hungarica 1/1-2. (Budapest, 1959)
Berinkey, L.: Data relating to the question of a taxonomic differentation of Barbus meridionalis petényi Heckel 125-136. o.
weingstens nicht solche, die Führung des B. petényi als selbstständiger Art rechtfertigen könnten, Sie waren auf folgendes zu reduzieren:Die Kopf und Körperhöhe ist bei sap. petényi etwas kleiner, ebenso die Kopf- und Körperbreite,die Barteln sind bei diesem durchschnittlich um oöa 1/4 kurser, Die Schuppenzahl um 2-5 Schuppen gröaser, Die Schuppen etwas kleiner." Since I have pointed out above that differences in the number of scales cannot be used for the segregation of the two subspecies, it follows that, of the findings of KARAMAN, only the differences of proportions given by him may eventually be acceptable. But as KARAMAN made his examinations with only a few apecimens /7/ these differences in measurement proportions should hardly be evaluated. Thus the existence of these differences remains an open question, to be decided only by variation-statistical investigations on a large number of specimens.A further difficulty in the proper evaluation of KARAMAN ' s finding lies therein that the place of origin of the epecimens studied by him were the Lakes Ochrid and Prespa and it is therefore doubtful that these specimens represent the typical form as supposed also by VLADYKOV and PETIT /1930/. Concerning this question these authors expressed their opinion as follows: „Le Barbus meridionalis de cette region parait ainsi établir - du point de vue du caractère numérique de sa ligne laterale - une transition entre le Barbue typicus /midi de la France/ et la sousespèce petényi Heckel." On the baais of the above considerations the following problems have to be clarified to establish the Formenkreis of the species: It' is to be examined 1. whether Barbus meridionalis caninus BONAPARTE and Barbue meridionalis petény i HECKEL differ from each other and if se in what respect ; 2. whether both the subspecies caninus and petényi are to be
