134 Records of the Indian Museum. [Voi.. XVI, 



transverse groove just behind the tip. The dorsal profile slopes 

 abruptly from a point a little in front of the dorsal fin to the tip 

 of the snout and, although the head is not flattened, the upper 

 border of the orbit is practically co-terminous with its upper 

 surface ; behind the dorsal fin the profile is highly convex. The 

 upper lip is very broad, the lower lip greatly enlarged, the mental 

 disk large and subcircular ; the fringe of the lower lip broad, with 

 the margin semicircular. In the adult male there is a semicircle 

 of glandular openings beneath and behind the eye. There are 

 four short barbels, those at the angle of the mouth being particu- 

 larly small. The ventral surface is convex and the scales extend 

 all over the chest. The pectoral fins are longer than the head and 

 broad in proportion, but they are lateral and oblique. They ex- 

 tend backwards almost as far as the base of the ventrals, but 

 their rays are not flattened and expanded. The ventrals are also 

 large and almost reach the anal when adpressed. The caudal is 

 deeply forked and the upper lobe is a little smaller than the lower. 

 The dorsal is short ; its unbranched rays are slender and not at all 

 ossified, but the second is longer than the head. 



Coloiiration. — Head and body purplish-brown, with a darker 

 mid-lateral streak and a dark horizontal lunate mark on the caudal 

 peduncle; ventral surface slightly paler ; pectoral fins infuscated, 

 with pale edges ; other fins pale yellowish clouded towards the 

 base with a dusky brown. 



The only specimen I have seen, an adult male, is 112 mm. 

 long. 



TyPe-specimen. — F 9694/1, Zool. Survey of India {Ind. Mus.). 



Locality. — Stream at He-Ho, Yawnghwe State, Southern 

 Shan States, Burma: alt. 3,800 feet. 



The type-specimen was taken with typical specimens of 

 D. lamta. 



Genus Barbus, Cuvier. 



There are few genera among the freshwater fish that have 

 received greater difference of treatment from different ichthyolo- 

 gists than this. Day in his works on Indian ichthyology recog- 

 nizes three subgenera or groups of species, while Boulenger in 

 his " Fishes of the Nile' ' and in his recent monograph of the fresh- 

 water fishes of Africa divides the genus into a number of sec- 

 tions for which he does not provide names. Weber, on the 

 other hand, in the third volume of his " Indo- Australian Fishes " 

 recognizes a number of distinct genera among the species placed 

 in Barbus by other authors, but denies the occurrence of Barbus 

 s.s. in the Malay Archipelago. So far as specific limits and defini- 

 tions are concerned there is still much confusion among the 

 Indian species, and this is the case not only with rare and incon- 

 picuous forms but even with some of the largest and most con- 

 picuous. Indeed, there is no group in which confusion is greater 

 than that of the Mahseer so familiar to Indian i^portsmen. 



