(
C. tahoensis), can develop bright colors during the spawning season Currently, 23 recognized species are in this genus: •
Catostomus ardens D. S. Jordan &
C. H. Gilbert, 1881 (Utah sucker) •
Catostomus bernardini Girard, 1856 (Yaqui sucker) •
Catostomus cahita Siebert &
W. L. Minckley, 1986 (Cahita sucker) •
Catostomus catostomus (
J. R. Forster, 1773) •
Catostomus catostomus catostomus (J. R. Forster, 1773) (Longnose sucker) •
C. c. cristatus (Cope, 1883) •
C. c. lacustris (Bajkov, 1927) (Jasper longnose sucker) •
Catostomus columbianus (
C. H. Eigenmann &
R. S. Eigenmann, 1893) (Bridgelip sucker) •
Catostomus commersonii (
Lacépède, 1803) (White sucker) •
Catostomus conchos (Meek, 1902) •
Catostomus fumeiventris R. R. Miller, 1973 (Owens sucker) •
Catostomus insignis Baird & Girard, 1854 (Sonora sucker) •
Catostomus latipinnis Baird & Girard, 1853 (flannelmouth sucker) •
Catostomus leopoldi Siebert &
W. L. Minckley, 1986 (Bavispe sucker) •
Catostomus macrocheilus Girard, 1856 (largescale sucker) •
Catostomus microps Rutter, 1908 (Modoc sucker) •
Catostomus murivallis Harris, Markle & Campbell, 2025 (Wall Canyon sucker) •
Catostomus occidentalis Ayres, 1854 •
C. o. lacusanserinus Fowler, 1913 (Goose Lake sucker) •
C. o. mnioltiltus Snyder, 1913 (Monterey sucker) •
C. o. occidentalis Ayres, 1854 (Sacramento sucker) •
Catostomus rimiculus C. H. Gilbert &
Snyder, 1898 (Klamath smallscale sucker) •
Catostomus rostratus (Tilesius, 1813) •
Catostomus snyderi C. H. Gilbert, 1898 (Klamath largescale sucker) •
Catostomus tahoensis T. N. Gill & D. S. Jordan, 1878 (Tahoe sucker) •
Catostomus tsiltcoosensis Evermann &
Meek, 1898 (Tyee sucker) •
Catostomus utawana F. W. Mather, 1886 (Summer sucker) •
Catostomus warnerensis Snyder, 1908 (Warner sucker) •
Catostomus wigginsi Herre &
Brock, 1936 (Opata sucker) There are is also one candidate species: • Elk Lake sucker (Carlson, Morse & Hekkala, 2015) which is sister to the
white and
summer suckers The genus
Pantosteus was formerly classified as a
subgenus of
Catostomus. However, more recent studies have found them to be a monophyletic group that forms a distinct clade from all other members of
Catostomus, and they also have a different morphology and ecological preferences from
Catostomus. Due to this, they are now treated as their own distinct genus. == References ==