74 Madras fisheries bulletin vol. xv, 



LITERATURE. 



The literature on mullets is comparatively scanty, and not a little 

 confusing; I have not been able to consult the papers of earlier 

 writers such as Cuvier and Forskal, nor all those of later contri- 

 butors. Day's classic work on the fishes of India and Giinther's 

 " Catalogue " have been the principal works consulted. 



It is evident from the literature that workers have found the 

 group difficult, and their descriptions include many contradictions 

 and much overlapping in the ranges of variations. Thus one 

 frequently has specimens which answer almost equally to the 

 descriptions of two different species. 



The value of systematic literature is much reduced by the fail- 

 ure of authors to describe the same features in each of the species 

 described; any comparison therefore becomes impossible; Day's 

 descriptions are notably weak in this respect, important characters 

 frequently being omitted from them. 



SPECIES AND NOMENCLATURE. 



Day (3) enumerates no less than 27 species of mullets to be found 

 in Indian waters, freshwater and marine, all under the genus Mugil. 

 I am able to distinguish but eight species in Tuticorin waters. 



After many repeated close examinations of a large number of 

 specimens, I have found it impossible to recognize Mugil cunnesius 

 (Cuv. & Val.) though Dr. Chaudhuri identifies this species from 

 specimens sent to him from Tuticorin. Some species have close 

 resemblances ; for example M. planiceps (Cuv. & Val.) and M.jerdoni 

 (Day) are easily confused, not only from their general appearance, 

 but also by resemblances in detail. 



Jordan and Seale (5) regard Mugil (Liza) troschelii (Bleeker) and 

 Mugil (Liza) borueensis (Bleeker) as synonymous species with a pre- 

 ference for the former name ; but one of the commonest mullets of 

 Tutitcorin corresponds more closely with the descriptions of 

 M. tros 7/c///than of M. borneensis, hence this fish has been described 

 as Liza troschelii. 



Now Jordan and Swain (6) have proposed that the members of 

 the genus Mugil should be distributed between two sub-genera, 

 according to the presence or absence of adipose eyelids; Mugil is, 

 reserved for those with these eyelids, and Liza includes those in 

 which they are absent. The distinction is quite a sharp one, and 





