What speices

[moguy1973]

I'm going to say it's a river carp sucker.  Dorsal fin isn't long enough for the other two species.

[Johnsfolly]

1 hour ago, moguy1973 said:

I'm going to say it's a river carp sucker.  Dorsal fin isn't long enough for the other two species.

Looks like more investigation is needed ! I'll dig thru some keys and see if there are identifying features in the original photo possibly those that have been discussed already or others that will help with this id.

[snagged in outlet 3]

2 hours ago, moguy1973 said:

I'm going to say it's a river carp sucker.  Dorsal fin isn't long enough for the other two species.

Original picture even has the distorted scales toward the tail like the one your picture...

[Johnsfolly]

So I pulled out the Fishes of Missouri 2nd edition to look over this guy again.

The first pair was between the quillback and the other carpsuckers (i.e., highfin and river).

The features for the quillback were:

A lack of a projection on the lower lip - well we can't see the lower lip

The upper jaw does not extend beyond the front of the eye - hard to tell from the photo but looks like it might not extend beyond the front of the eye.

Quillback had 36 or 37 lateral line scales - this fish appears to have 36 again hard to tell from the photo; the other carpsuckers have from 34 to 36 lateral line scales

The length of the snout is about equal to the distance from the back of the eye to the upper end of the gill opening - on this fish the snout is much shorter than the distance from the back of the eye to the gill opening

Based upon that last feature, I went to the pairing for the highfin and river carpsuckers.

For a highfin the primary dorsal ray is approximately as long or longer than the length of the dorsal fin - it does not appear that on this fish that the dorsal ray is that long

For a highfin the standard length (length from tip of snout to the base of the tail (caudal peduncle)) is les than 2.6 times the body depth (distance from belly to top of the back)  - for this fish its standard length is 2.26 times its depth

The river carpsuckers does not have a long primary dorsal ray and its length is at last 2.6 times its body depth.

To me the weight of evidence is that @Al Agnew is correct about this fish being a highfin carpsucker.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ham]

I’m changing my vote to River Carpsucker

[Al Agnew]

14 minutes ago, Ham said:

I’m changing my vote to River Carpsucker

Ham, look at the shape of the snout on the three photos that moguy1973 posted.  The snout on the fish in question matches the highfin carpsucker perfectly.  The other two don't have that bump in front of the eye.  If you're going by the long first ray of the dorsal fin, it is often broken off on both the highfin and the quillback.

[Ham]

Honestly, I changed my mind because 1) depth of body 2) weird area of oddly arranged scales at tail 3) length of dorsal (didn’t know they get broken) 4) color of scales

[Mitch f]

It’s got a head like my old girlfriends mom! 😂

[Jerry Rapp]

what color is that Ned?

[curtisce]

HABITAT AND CONSERVATION

The highfin carpsucker is rare in Missouri and may have become rarer in recent decades. Most records for this fish are more than 50 years old. This fish prefers clearer waters and firmer bottoms than the river carpsucker. It is much less tolerant of turbidity and siltation than other carpsuckers. This intolerance probably explains its present restricted distribution in our state.

This species has the curious habit of skimming along near the water’s surface with its dorsal fin and part of its back exposed, and it frequently jumps clear of the water.

This from MDC website goes against it being a highfin. As I said earlier, I have fished the James for over 15 years. The water clarity in the lower section is good enoungh to identify fish type in 5 feet of water. I have never seen these fish till this year. There are schools ,10-20 fish, in the slower deeper water. Thy don't skim as it says here but I think when I see them they are already alerted to my presence and are in evasive manuevers.