160 BULLETIN 188, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



Through the courtesy of Dr. Sunder Lai Hora, of the Indian Museum in 

 Calcutta, the writer was able to compare the Raheng fish with a speci- 

 men of B. guttatus from Prome, on the Irrawaddy in Burma, one of the 

 lot from which Day described the species ; the agreement was complete. 

 Other waters from which the fish has been obtained are the Meklong 

 at Tambol Na Muang, September 1, 1930 ; and the Meyuam at Mesa- 

 rieng, January 23, 1933, the last in the Salwin drainage system. Addi- 

 tional specimens, in the Deignan collection, were obtained from the 

 Salwin at Ta Fang, October 15, 1936, and from the Mekong at Chieng- 

 sen Kao, January 9, 1937. 



In local waters it reaches a known length of 27.5 cm. 



Under the name of Barilius hurirhmuU, Fowler reported the fish from 

 the Meping, the Metang, and the Mepoon in Northern Thailand ; and a 

 specimen in the British Museum thus labeled was collected by Vernay 

 in the Mewang, near Lampang in the Central area. 



There seems little doubt that Bola harmxindi Sauvage, described in 

 1880 from the Grand Lakes in Cambodia, is the present species. Sau- 

 vage compared it with the Indian Barilius hola^ which is a very dis- 

 similar form, but made no comparison with B. guttatus^ which Day had 

 described in 1869. Sauvage's account is incomplete and in some re- 

 spects at variance with his figure published a year later, the artist 

 showing features that the author overlooked, such as the presence of a 

 small but very distinct maxillary barbel, while the description defi- 

 nitely states there are no barbels. Fowler's description and figure of a 

 specimen 26.5 cm. long from the Meping at Chiengmai indicated a 

 fish very different in body coloration from Sauvage's account which, 

 however, did not agree with his figure. Fowler (1934a) noted that in 

 B. harmandi "the dark bar in the lower caudal lobe is usually an un- 

 failing character of distinction," but the same dark bar is present in 

 B. guttatus. 



To indicate the similarity in the fish described under the names 

 B. guttatus and B. harmandi^ the following comparison has been pre- 

 pared. The only difference worthy of note in the three sets of data 

 is in the number of scales between the midline of the back and the 

 lateral line; the fewer scales shown in Sauvage's figure would have 

 some importance if this feature had been referred to in the text or if 

 full reliance could be placed in the accuracy of the drawing. 



This species may be recognized easily by its very large mouth, the 

 maxillary extending far beyond a vertical from the posterior margin 

 of the eye and being about two-thirds the length of the head. Com- 

 bined with this feature is the presence of rows of dark spots on the 

 side and the broad dark submarginal longitudinal band on the lower 

 lobe of the caudal fin. 



