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.