1919J N. Annandale : Bombay Streams Fauna. 129 



narrow and pointed, 11 in number, arranged in three rows, 2 in the 

 outer row, 5 in the middle row and 4 in the inner row, grouped 

 close together on a very distinct outward protuberance of the 

 bone ; the two outer teeth less sharply pointed than the others. 

 The air-bladder well developed and distinctly divided into two 

 parts. 



Head and body dark purplish-grey or black, paler immediately 

 above and below mid-lateral region; ventral surface white; oper- 

 culum strongly iridescent, edged with white behind ; a black hori- 

 zontal bar or spot on the caudal peduncle edged with white 

 posteriorly ; fins whitish ; dorsal more or less inf uscated and with 

 a black spot on each branched ray, caudal with its central part 

 infuscated and with a vertically oval black spot at its base. 



My largest specimen is less than 45 mm. long. 



Type-specimen — F. 9695/1, Zool. Survey of India {Ind. Mus.). 



Distribution. — Abundant in small hill- streamlets at Khandalla 

 in the Poona district (2-3,000 feet), less common in the Yenna 

 River at Medha in the Satara district (2,000 feet). 



Genus Discognathus, Heckel. 



(Plate II, figs. 1-3). 

 1868. Discognathns, Giinther, Cat. Fishes Urit. Mus. VII, p. 68. 



Both the name and the species of this genus have been sub- 

 jected to many vicissitudes and the Indian forms are still imper- 

 fectly known The earlier writers on Indian ichthyology, notably 

 Buchanan and McClelland, described a considerable number of so- 

 called species that would now be placed in the genus, but they 

 paid little attention to sexual differences or individual variation 

 and their descriptions were too brief to be definitive. Day in his 

 Fishes of India (1878) and his volume in the Fauna of British 

 India (1889) recognized three species, D. lamta (Ham. Buch.), 

 D. jerdoni and D. modestus. Giinther, however, in his British 

 Museum Catalogue (1868), though he also recognized three Indian 

 species, gave them different names and different definitions : he 

 called them D. lamta, D. macrochir and D. nasutus. Jenkins 

 {Rec. Ind. Mus. Ill, p. 291 : 1909), with Day's specimens before 

 him, was of the opinion that they represented a single species, 

 possibly with local varieties, while I pointed out in 1913 {Journ. 

 As. Soc. Bengal, n. s. IX, p. 36) that a considerable number of 

 forms occurred in different parts of the Indian Empire that were 

 at least worthy of racial distinction. In the meanwhile Vinci- 

 guerra ^ had not only discussed the form he believed to be Buchan- 

 nan's Cyprinus lamta but had also described a very distinct 

 Burmese species under the name D. imberbis. Finall}'', in the 

 early part of the present year, 1 was able to provide evidence that 

 two distinct species occurred in the Southern Shan States and that 

 one of them was the D. lamta of Day {Rec. Ind. Mus. XIV, p. 45). 



L Ann. Mus. Stor. Nat Genova (2) IX (XXIX), pp. 275-280, figs. (1889). 



