f 
1912. | Miscellanea. 2B 
fiz. 97, Plate ix of the Illustrations). The species Pimolodus 
menoda represented by fig. 72, Plate i, was described by Hamilton 
(Buchanan) on page 203 of the Gangetic Fishes, additional descrip- 
tion being supplied by Blyth in 1858 as already alluded to above. 
Priority of the specific name ‘‘ menoda”’ was recognized also by 
Gunther in 1864 in the footnote on page 64 of Brit. Mus. Cat., vol. v. 
In spite of all this it is difficult to understand how in 1869 Dr. Day 
could describe this species under the name ‘‘ Macrones corsula’’ 
(H. B.) based on Hamilton (Buchanan’s) fig. 72 of Plate iof M. 
menoda and three specimens obtained from the Mahanaddi at Cut- 
tack (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1869, p. 307). However, in this description 
of ‘‘ Macrones corsula’’ no reference is made of Cuvier’s species. 
But later on in the Fishes of India both the prior name M. menoda 
and Cuvier’s B. trachacanthus are included by Day as syno- 
nyms of ‘‘M. corsula.’’ In doing this he had several diffi- 
culties to encounter and explain away—the most obvious one of 
which he disposed of in a curious manner. Whereas Hamilton 
(Buchanan’s) species M. menoda in his description (Gangetic 
Fishes, p. 203) andin the drawing (fig. 72 of Plate i) was repre- 
sented as having the upper lobe of the caudal fin longer than the 
lower—the lower lobe of the same fin of Cuvier’s species was 
described by him to be filamentous and very much prolonged. 
Thus the only way by which Dr. Day could fit it in with his 
decision that it should be considered as the same species as his 
‘“M. corsula”’ was to declare that Cuvier’s description about the 
filamentous prolongation of the lower caudal lobe was a misprint 
(Proc. Zool. Soc., 1869, p. 307). The specimen which is the sub- 
ject matter of this note, however, proves that Cuvier’s description 
regarding the proportionate length of the barbels and the fila- 
mentous prolongation of the lower lobe of the caudal fin is true 
and could not have been due to a misprint. 
It is therefore identified as Cuvier’s trachacanthus which must 
be regarded as a distinct variety, if not a species—being included 
under Hamilton (Buchanan’s) species Macrones menoda which 
through a mistake Day called ‘‘ Macrones corsuJa’’ in the Fishes of 
India—the mistake being continued unnoticed in the Fauna of 
British India. 
The specimen should therefore be identified as M acrones menoda 
(H. B.) var. trachacanthus (Cuv. et Val.), for which the following 
short description may be supplied :— 
Macrones menoda (H. B.) var. trachacanthus (Cuv. et Val.). 
Depth of body 4s in the length, length of head 4. Snout 3: 
in the length of head, 11 as long as the eye the diameter of which 
is 42 in the length of head. Barbels eight, nasal extends far beyond 
the hind edge of the orbit, maxillary to middle of ventral, external 
mandibular to the middle of pectoral fin and internal mandibular to 
posterior extremity of opercle. Dorsal I 7, the posteriorly serrated 
spine is : of the length of head. Pectoral I 9g, spine posteriorly 
