The
third most common fish in Hot Springs stream in 1999 was the Desert
Sucker (Pantosteus clarki), comprising
about 14% of all fish captured:

This fish reaches 11" (28 cm), prefers to live in flowing pools, and is common
in Arizona. Its juveniles prefer insect larvae, while adults eat algae and other
plant material scraped from rocks. Remains of these fish in archeological sites
indicates their formerly extensive use as food by the Northern Pima. (Click
on the image to enlarge it.)
Fourth
is the Gila chub (Gila intermedia), 3.9% of
all fish captured, but formerly quite rare in Hot Springs, and this proportion
indicates considerable increase:

These
reach 10" (25 cm) in length, and prefer deep, slow-moving pools. Formerly
associated with now-vanished cienegas around the state, they feed on invertebrates,
smaller fishes, and organic matter. It is a threatened species in Arizona.
(Click
on the image to enlarge it.)
Fifth is the Sonora
sucker (Catostomus insignis), which is fairly abundant in the
Gila drainage:

This
too has been rare in Hot Springs, accounting for 1.2% in 1999. It can become quite
large (up to 30", 76 cm, 4 lbs). It feeds on gravelly bottoms. (Click
on the image to enlarge it.)
..............................................
Two
fish not now found in Hot Springs, but formerly more widespread in the Gila drainage
and now considered threatened species in Arizona, are shown below:
The
SpikeDace (Meda fulgida)

This fish reaches about 3" (7.6 cm) in length and is native
to the Gila River basin. Males become brassy colored during breeding season, females
retain the silver coloration year-round. They feed on aquatic and terrestrial
invertebrates. (Click
on the image to enlarge it.)
Gila
Topminnow Peociliopsis o. occidentalis)

This
fish reaches about 1 3/4" (4.4 cm), was once common in the Gila River drainage,
but is now restricted to a few natural sites in the state. It gives birth
to live young, feeds on organic detritus and small invertebrates. (Click
on the image to enlarge it.)
For
more information on these two threatened species, see Environmental
Assessment 1999.)
