1916.] B.SunpARA Raj: Freshwater Fish of Madras. 257 
II. SPECIMENS WITHOUT BARBELS. 
1. A specimen 3} in. in length. 
Di Sere 8/5) V3 2/9. od. 25; 
A dark lateral blotch on scales 22 and 23 of the LL. 
Three rows of scales between the Ly. and the ventral fin. 
Length of head 4 in total length. 
Nine rows of scales before the dorsal fin. 
A scarlet lateral band. 
2. Aspecimen 4 in. in length, 
DagSrar a 3/5; vee 7. Lie 25; 
A dark lateral blotch on scales 22 and 23 of the lateral line. 
Three rows of scales between the LL. and the ventral fin. 
Length of head 5, height of body 3% in total length. 
The diameter of the eye 3} in length of head. 
Nine scales before the dorsal fin. 
A scarlet lateral band. 
In all the specimens the eyes are 12 diameters apart, the 
first dorsal ray is osseous and entire, the dorsal fin commences 
rather in advance of the ventral fin, midway between the end of 
the snout and the base of the caudal fin. The lateral line sense 
organs exist in all the specimens only on 25 scales, the 26th scale 
is a small scale, when present, without a perforation. In all, 
there are only 3 rows of scales between the LL. and the base of the 
ventral fin. A dark blotch on the mid-dorsal rays is present in all. 
The only fish with which a possible confusion could arise is 
B. amphibius, which has a maxillary pair of barbels; but in all 
the specimens described above, there are 3 rows of scales between 
the Lu. and the origin of the ventral fin. This character apart 
from others, such as the greater breadth of the body in B. sophore, 
is sufficient to distinguish it from B. amphibius, which has only 
two such rows of scales. 
From the above statements it will be seen that maxillary bar- 
bels, while absent in most specimens, are present in some. If my 
observations are correct, the presence or absence of barbels is evi- 
dently variable and so cannot serve as a safe criterion for classify- 
ing species of Barbus. Day also doubted if the two species 
B. mahecola and B. filamentosus, distinguished by the presence of a 
small pair of maxillary barbels in the former, were really distinct.! 
From the history of B. sophore it is seen that till 1869 B. stigma 
(C & V.) destitute of barbels was considered identical with B. sophore 
(H. B.), and the mention of 4 barbels by the latter author in 
his description, as they were not shown in his figure, was considered 
a mistake. In 1869, Day discovered a form with 4 barbels in the 
Khasi Hills for which he adopted the name B. sophore, b. stigma 
being retained by him for the common form without barbels.* 
t Day, Fishes of India, p. 556; Fauna Brit. Ind., 1, pp. 293 and 204. 
2 Day, l. c., p. 566; Proc. Zool. Soc., 1869, p. 379. 
