210 Records of the Indian Museum. Xone ee Ge 
cricket (Gryllotalpa) called in the Punjab ghu, an. Tethered by 
a thread to a peg it moves to and fro and by its restlessness 
attracts notice. It should however be kept in the shade as if 
exposed for many minutes to a fierce sun it will perish. Perhaps 
this is the reason that some bird-catchers prefer the great grass- 
hopper with curved wings (Schtzodactylus monstrosus) called Mzirag 
in the Chach-Hazara district and Jabana'! in the Punjab. For 
some of the smaller insect-eating birds it must be too large and 
terrifying, but it is said to be hardy and to stand the sun far 
better than its rival for favour, the mole-cricket. 
DC seo Tom 
FISH. 
Macrones menoda var. trachacanthus (Cuv. et Val.) —The speci- 
men described below was received in the Museum for identification 
from Mr. Kinnear of the Bombay Natural History Society nearly 
a vear ago, and as it showed some very interesting features and 
was a proof against Day’s charge of misprint and wrong description 
concerning Cuvier and Valenciennes’ species 5b. trachacanthus, it 
was thought desirable to wait for more specimens; but this short 
note need not be kept back any longer. 
In all essential particulars, including the proportionate length 
of the barbels and the remarkable filamentous prolongation of the 
lower lobe of the caudal fin, this fish resembles the species which 
Cuvier and Valenciennes described in 1839 as a new species from 
Bengal in their Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, vol. xiv, p. 479. 
under the name Bagrus trachacanthus. ‘The character of the lower 
lobe of the caudal fin was thus distinctly stated on page 420: ‘* Le 
lobe inférieur de la caudale depasse l’autre de prés d’un tiers et se 
termine en filet. ’’ 
Dr. Gunther in 1864 included this species of Cuvier’s in a foot- 
note under the genus Macrones as one of the doubtful species (Brit. 
Mus. Cat. Fish, vol. v, p. 75), but it was left to Day definitely to 
assert that Cuvier’s description was a misprint and a wrong one, 
especially with regard to the filamentous prolongation of the lower 
caudal lobe. ‘The specimen under examination refutes the charge 
and is a proof positive that Cuvier’s description was not a misprint. 
In 1822 Hamilton (Buchanan) published the plates illustrating 
his descriptions of the fishes of the Ganges. Below fig. 72 of Plate 1 
of these illustrations the name ‘‘ Mugil corsula’’ occurs in print. 
Edward Blyth in 1858, in supplying an additional description of the 
fish represented by this published figure of Hamilton (Buchanan) 
points out that under the original drawing of this fish of which 
fig. 72 is a print, the name ‘‘ Pimolodus menoda’’ occurs in Hamil- 
ton (Buchanan’s) own handwriting. Moreover fig. 97 of Plate ix 
of the same set of illustrations is correctly named ‘‘ Mugil cor- 
sula,’’ which is described by Hamilton (Buchanan) in his Gangetic 
Fishes under the same name (p. 221, Gangetic Fishes Text, and 
! In Chach /abana is the name for small bird. 
