292 Records of the Indian Museum. [Vol. III^ 



(i) Having six rays in the anal fin instead of seven. 



(2) Having a lateral transverse formula of 4I — 3^ instead 



of 4-4-^—5 or 4i— 2i. 



(3) The fact that the pectorals extend to the ventrals. 



There are at present three specimens in the Indian Museum 

 labelled D. modcstus. Day in his Fishes of India speaks of two, 

 probably from Northern India, the longest measuring 3^- inches. 

 These two specimens are numbered 710 and 1426 in the Museum 

 books, and the latter is that figured in Daj^'s work as D. modestus 

 (pi. 122, fig. 5). In both these specimens the number of lateral 

 transverse rows of scales agrees with that given by Da}', but as it 

 also agrees with all the other specimens of lamta, its value as a 

 specific character is not evident. In both specimens the pectoral 

 does not reach the ventral, and in fact Day's own figure does not 

 agree with his description. The figure is correct in so far as it 

 shows the pectorals not extending to the ventrals. This feature 

 therefore is of no use as a specific distinction. The anal fin ray 

 formula is correctly given as 6 (i — 5) but this also is quite com- 

 monly the case in lamta. 



There is unfortunately^ no type of jerdoni left, but Da^^'s figure 

 shows the lateral transverse rows of scales to be 4^ — 3-|-, his descrip- 

 tion, however, gives 4^ — 2^. The figure therefore of jerdoni agrees 

 with the description of modestus. The figure of modestus is not 

 sufficiently clear to enable any comparison to be made. Day's 

 figure for lamta shows a lateral transverse formula of 4^ — 4^, his 

 description gives 4-4-1 — 5 ; but his type shows unquestionably that 

 the real numbers are 4|^ — 3-|. 



The only difference between the types of Day's lamta and 

 modestus is the concavity or convexity found in front of the dorsal 

 fins and leading down towards the head, but as this difference is 

 found in specimens collected at Paresnath (Chota Nagpur) in April, 

 1909, which are otherwise absolutely identical in form and colour, 

 its value as a specific distinction can be disregarded. 



Now while Giinther gives his reasons for including Day's 

 species of lamta and jerdoni together, Day retaliates by including 

 two of Giinther's species — namely, lamta and macrochir — together, 

 without assigning any reasons. 



Giinther {op. cti., p. 69) admits three Indian species of 

 Discognathus, namely-, lamta, macrochir and nasutus. As alread}^ ex- 

 plained, Giinther's lamta comprises Da^^'s lamta and jerdoni. There 

 are no specimens of macrochir or nasutus in the Indian Museum. 

 Macrochir has been described as a species by Giinther from two 

 specimens, one from the collection of the East India Compan}', the 

 other from Griffith's collection, the locality given being Assam. 



Nasutus is admitted by Giinther to specific rank from 

 McClelland's description of a specimen from the Khassyah Moun- 

 tains ' (now known as the Khasi Hills) ; but both macrochir 



' Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, vol. viJ, p. 947, tab. 55, figs. 2a and b. 



