BY J. DOUGLAS OGILBY. 767 



ferences between A. bengaleusis and A. reinluir Itii are the greater 

 length of the tail and the shortness of the vomerine band in the 

 former ; but my experience with other apodal fishes — Leptoce- 

 pkalus and Gongermiircena — leads me to the conclusion that too 

 much reliance should not be placed on the first of these characters, 

 which often degenerates into a mere racial distinction ; and I can 

 positively assert that any separation of the two species based on 

 the length of the vomerine band is untenable, as that band is 

 constantly shorter than those of the maxillary in tlie species 

 which we have been accustomed to call A. reinhardtii from our 

 waters.* Either, therefore, we have another species of Australian 

 long-finned eel which remains to be re-discovered — a very doubtful 

 supposition — or A. reinhm-dtii should be merged in A. bengalensis. 

 Incidentally, I may mention that Dayf remarks on a peculiarity 

 of the Indian fish which it shares in common with our species ; 

 he writes, it " is much rarer on the hills than in the plains ;" 

 similarly all the specimens which I have seen from the mountain 

 region of New South Wales belonged to A. aasi.ralis, and though 

 both species are equally abundant in the Liverpool and Camden 

 districts, the latter is decidedly the scarcer on the coast. 



From what has been already pointed out, it is plain that many 

 of the characters which were I'elied on by (iriinther in 1870 are of 

 no value for specific distinction, and that if the long-finned 

 anguillids of India, Australia, and the south sea islands are to be 

 kept separate other and more constant characters must be sought. 



I shall make no further reference to the subject here, as I hope 

 soon to be in a position to furnish a comprehensive re\iew of the 

 fresh-water eels of Australia and the South Pacific, wlien the 

 question will be fully dealt with. 



2. KUHLI.A. RUPESTRIS HEDLEYI. 



Eleven examples of Kahli.a are among the fishes collected ; 

 these agree in most respects with K. ricpentris (Lacepede), 

 Boulenger, but some important and constant differences are 



* Compare -'Edible Fishes of New South Wales," p. ISS, 189:^. 

 t Fauna of British India, Fishes i. p. 87, 1889. 



