190 Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 



head; nostrils in front of eye, separated a little, the anterior in a short 

 tube; interorbital space convex, 1.66 in snout; cheeks slightly swollen; 

 gill-openings lateral; gill-membranes joined below in front of the 

 base of the pectoral. 



Origin of the dorsal about midway in the length of body including 

 caudal, slightly in front of the origin of ventral; anal fin entirely 

 behind the dorsal, nearer to origin of ventral than base of caudal; 

 caudal squarish, with obtusely rounded tip, nearly as long as head; 

 pectoral fin short and low; the ventral short; caudal peduncle deep 

 and long, its depth about three-fourths the length of head. 



Head naked; trunk covered with relatively large cycloid scales; 

 lateral line extends along the middle of the sides. 



Color in formalin uniformly dark gray, obscurely speckled with 

 small dark spots, not marbled; dorsal, anal, and caudal fins dusky, with 

 numerous small dark spots; the pectoral and the ^■entral whitish, 

 some dusky on the longer rays; belly yellowish white. 



Total length 145 mm. 



The present description is taken from a specimen from the fish- 

 market of Taichu, collected by T. Aoki in December, 191 5. 



Habitat: Taihoku; Taichu. 



Remarks: In the year 1888 Giinther recorded a Chinese species of 

 Misgurnus under the name of Misgiirniis mizolepis and stated that it 

 has larger scales than any other species of the genus known to himself. 

 According to his description, the scales of Misgurnus mizolepis are 

 arranged in thirteen longitudinal rows between the dorsal fin and the 

 lateral line, and ten between the lateral line and the ventral fin. 

 Scales of Misgurnus decemcirrosus are also much larger than any other 

 species of the genus, numbering 112 in the lateral series and 23 in an 

 oblique series from the origin of the dorsal to the ventral. Moreover- 

 as all other characters of that species agree quite well with those of 

 M. mizolepis, there is no doubt that these two are the same species. 



Though Jordan & Snyder believe that M. decemcirrosus from 

 Northern China differs from M. anguillicaudatus in ha\ing large 

 scales (about 112 in lateral series), rather deep body, long barbels, 

 and relatively plain color. Berg denies that the former is different from 

 the latter. After examining a vast number of specimens of M. 

 anguillicaudatus he comes to the conclusion that M. decemcirrosus is 

 a nominal species, because there is no difference between Japanese 

 and Nortli Chinese sjjecimens of M. anguillicaudatus in respect of the 



