174 BULLETIN 188, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



and the presence of a narrow dark stripe extending forward from 

 the peduncular spot nearly to the head, as brought out in Fowler's 

 figure, which has not been met with in any specimens of P. leiacanthus. 

 This feature, together with obscure markings on the dorsal fin, leads 

 to the identification as P. spiloptenis of six specimens, the largest 6.7 

 cm. long, taken by Deignan in a pond in Chiengmai, April 1935. 



PUNTIUS SOPHOROIDES (Gunther) 



Barbus sophoroides Gunther, 18G8, vol. 7, p. 144 (Bengal). 



Three specimens in the British Museum, presented by the Siamese 

 Museum and attributed to the Menam Chao Phya, are listed under the 

 name Barhu.s sophoroides Gunther, described from Bengal and Assam. 

 GiJnther wrote (1868, vol, 7, 144) : "This species, though very closely 

 allied to B. sophore, appears to be distinct, not only on account of the 

 presence of barbels, but of the smaller size of the scales." The question 

 of the relationship of P. sophoroides and Barhus sophore (the latter 

 attributable to Hamilton, 1822) is complicated by the fact that whereas 

 in the original description of B. sophore the presence of four minute 

 barbels is noted, Hamilton's figure shows none. This led Day (1878) 

 to conclude that Hamilton had confused B. sophore with Day's B. 

 stigma^ the latter having no barbels. 



A reexamination of the types of sophoroides and a comparison there- 

 with of the Thai specimens so identified have been courteously made by 

 Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas, of the British Museum, who writes : 



All our specimens labelled B. sophore correspond to Day's B. stigma. I have 

 examined a number of them, including some named B. stignui by Day, and none 

 has the least trace of a barbel. They all have the coloration described and figured 

 by Hamilton, and I have counted in several 22-24 scales in the lateral line, 41/2 

 above and 4% below it, 12 (one specimen 14) around the caudal peduncle. The 

 types of B. sophoroides (61 and 48 mm. st. 1.) have smaller scales, but have lost 

 too many to make a count possible, except around the caudal peduncle, where there 

 are 16. There is only one pair of barbels, less than % diameter of eye. The blotch 

 on the dorsal fin is on the first three or four soft rays (in Day's B. stigma and 

 in all our "B. sophore" on the third to sixth soft ray). The three specimens from 



the Menam R. agree perfectly with the types; scales 24-26 ^^^ around caudal 



4^' 



peduncle 16 ; a single pair of barbels less than % diameter of eye ; dorsal spot as 

 in types (2) or absent (1). The specimen without the dorsal blotch also has none 

 on the caudal peduncle. One of the types has the caudal blotch, the other has not. 

 The fish that Day took to be the true B. sophore is certainly very much like these. 

 The chief difference is in the number and length of the barbels. He gives 3^ 

 scales above the lateral line but figures more. 



These are the facts and I must leave the conclusion to you. Personally I think 

 Giinther's interpretation of B. sophore, agreeing as it does with the bulk of Ham- 

 ilton's description and perfectly with his figure, has at least as much justification 

 as Day's, and as Gunther's B. sophoroides does not agree perfectly with Day's 

 "B. sophore" I should retain B. sophoroides and give that name also to the 

 Siamese .specimens. 



