O. G. Dely szerk.: Vertebrata Hungarica 3/1-2. (Budapest, 1961)

Berinkey, L.: On a new fish species of our fauna 1-26. o.

differences, cannot be evaluated as weighty evidence for taxonomical purposes. Since BANARESCU made the differentiation of the twc forma on the basis of this method, and as the Temee population separates also statistically, the notion occurs whether the differences established for the Temes and Dnyeper populations actually exist, whether they are constant and suitable as bases for subspecific categories . Finally, I should like to remark that the correctness of the designation of the Roumanian population as Goblo albipinnatus vladykov

i FANG is by no means sure. BANARESCU regards the Carpatho-Ukrainian population as conforming to the Roumanian ones. On the basis of available literatura data, the variation values of the 15 specimens /cf .Table XI/ given by VLADYKOV /14/ sharply deviate from the number o scales of the Hungarian and the Temes specimens /t. » 8.807/ It is not impossible therefore that future investigation will, aside of the present ones, bring to light also othemorphological differencea, and in this case the name Gobio albipinnatus vladykov

i will be valid for the Carpathckrainian population. From my part therefore, and as long as investigations made on larger comparative materials will convincingly show the contrary, I cannot regard Goblo albipinnatus vladykovi as a distinct subspecies, and am forced to relegate both the Hungarian and the Roumanian populations to Gobio albipinnatus beling

i SLASTENENKO.