100 Records of the Indian Museum. [Vol. XIX, 



Garman's description of N . indica is incomplete and ejrroneous 

 owing to his having ignored the question of variation in the 

 outlines of the disc, the relative size of the eyes and spiracles, the 

 size and proportion of the dorsal and the caudal fin and the 

 colouration, so well discussed in Annandale's account of N . timlei. 

 All these facts are fully borne out by the large series of specimens of 

 this species in the collection of the Zoological Surve}^, as also by a 

 large number of fresh specimens that I have examined at Puri 

 and elsewhere. The species is fairly common round Puri and a 

 large number of specimens is caught every da3^ in the shore seine- 

 nets. 



Except for a doubtful specimen of N. hrimnea found in an 

 advanced state of decomposition on the Puri beach, I did not 

 secure any specimen of this latter species. ^ 



Narkc, Kaup. 



1826. Narke, Kaup, Arch. Anat. Physiol, p. 365. 



1887. ? Astrape, Day, Op. cit., p. 734. 



1909. Astrape, Annandale, Op. cit., p. 46. 



1913. Narke. Garman, Op. cit.. p. 312. 



Day recorded a single representative of this genus from 

 Indian waters as Astrape dipterygia. It is doubtful, however, 

 in view of the arguments stated further on, whether he had 

 ever seen the true A^. dipterygia of Indian waters. Miiller and 

 Henle's generic name Astrape ^ cannot stand owing to Kaup having 

 described the same genus as Narke some fifteen years earlier. 



Garman in his memoir combined Annandale's new genus 

 Bengalichthys with Narke without giving any reasons. This point 

 is fully discussed further in the account of B. impennis. 



Narkc dipterygia (Bloch., Schn.). 

 (Plate VI, figs. I, 2). 



1870. Astrape diptervgia, Giinther, Brit. Mas. Cat. Fishes VIII, p. 454. 

 1887. ? Astrape dipterygia, Day, Fis/ies of India, p. 734 (in part, not 



the figure). 

 1S89. '' Astrape dipterygia. Day, Faun. Brit. Ind. Fishes I, p. 46 



(in part, not the figure). 



Giinther and Day included in the synonj^ms of this fish 

 Shlegel's N. japonica but this has since been recognized as a 

 distinct species by Jordan and Fowler,* Garman and others. 



In his first work Da}^ gave a figure of A^. dipterygia prepared 

 from a specimen frofn Malabar ; this figure was later reproduced 

 in the '' Fauna " volume. The specimen is preserved in the collec- 

 tion of the Zoological Survey. The figures referred to above led me 

 to doubt as to whether these could be that of the true N . dipterygia, 

 for they rather resembled B. impennis in the shape and position 



' Sitzb. Akad. wiss. Berlin, p. 1 17 (i8y). 



2 Proc. U. S. Nat. Miis. XXVI, p. 656 (1903). 



