336 REPORT ON FISHES. PART II: SISORIDAE AND CYI'KINIDAE 



1910. Scliicothorax csociiiiis, Zuginayer, Zool. Jalirb. {.Ibih. Sysl.), XXIX, p. 277. 



1916. Scl\izothorax csociiius, Vinciguerra, Ann. Miis. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova (3) VJI, p. 142. 



1934. Schizothora.v csocimis. Ilora, Kcc. Ind.Mus., XXXVl, pj.. 297-300. 



The Yale Nortli India Expeditidn iil>taitie(l 12 specimens of the species in i\prii-June, 

 1032, fnmi the following localities: 



Sriiiagar (.Sta. K 7) ; ca. 5,200 ft 5 (270, 250 nun., 9 9 ; 102-105 mm.) 



Main Canal. Srinayar (Sta. K 12) ; ca. 5,200 ft 1 (235 mm., 9 ) 



Jhelum River, Srinagar (Sta. K 14) ; ca. 5200 ft 3 (270, 235 mm., $ $ ; 410 mm., 9 ) 



Channel : Manashal Lake (Sta. K 48) ; 5,196 ft 1 (260 mm., 9 ) 



Upper Indns, Spitok, Ladak (Sta. L 17) ; 10,730 ft 3 (290 mm., ,5 ; 425 mm., 9 ) 



Scliicotliora.v esociniis is, as far as one can judge from a study of series of specimens 

 from ilifferent localities, a very variable species in regard to the different body proportions, 

 structure of the jaws and the lips, the position of the eye and the relative positions and 

 lengths of the fins and its colouratitm. Among an assemblage of specimens of the species 

 there may l>e found forms which show a remarkable combination of variations from the 

 typical r.Torm!/,?-characters. Such aberrant forms, if judged by themselves, are very baffling 

 and tend to assert claims to distinct si)ecinc ranks. Day's .Schizollun-a.v puiictatits is one 

 of such forms, as I lind from a study of Day's originals of the figures of S. c.^ocinii.'; and 

 .v. pioictatiis, as also from a careful examination of a fair series of si)ecimens from various 

 localities in Kashmir. Zugiuayer, Vinciguerra and recently Mora referred at some length 

 to the discrepancies in Day's descriptions of the two species and to the inaccuracies in his 

 drawings and considered the two species as itlentical. Opportunity is here taken to sub- 

 stantiate the views of these authors by a detailed analysis of more e.xtensive material 

 before me. 



Condensing Day's loose descriptions of the two species and the differences exhibited 

 by his original specimens I find that S. csocinii.^ and .S". puiictatKs differ in the following 

 three principal characters only : 



.S". csociiius S. piinctattis 



1. Upper jaw slightly longer tli;m lower. 1. Lower jaw slightly longer than upper. 



2. Serrated dorsal spine equal to length of 2. Serrated dorsal spine e<|ual to length of 

 head behind nostrils. head behind middle of eye. 



3. Anal fin laid flat almost reaches root of 3. Anal fin laid flat does not reach root of 

 caudal or just misses it. caudal or widely separated from it. 



With a view to testing the \alidity and studying the nature and the range of variation, 

 if any, of these three distinguishing features, I have made observations in details, which 

 fcjr convenience of reference, are given in a tabular form (Table 1 ). It is clearly seen 

 froiu the table that of a series of 20 specimens examined by me, including Day's 2 original 

 specimens, in 17 cases, of which 6 are adult females and 4 adult males, the upper jaw is 

 slightly longer than the lower, similar to the typical ('.vorfH;/,s--condition (Text-figure 5, a), 

 while only in 3 cases, one of which is a full-grown female and two half-grown, the lower jaw 

 is slightly longer than the upjier and corresponds to that of the typical piinctatus (Text- 

 figure 5, b). In regard to the length of the serrated dorsal spine, it was found that in 14 



