198 Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. | Szpr 
Hamilton Buchanan’s types to the British Museum; he also observes 
in several places of specimens “ probably types of the species.” 
In short it seems that the original collection, or some part of it, 
still exists in the national one. 
As to the second portion of the sentence, a slight inaccuracy has 
occurred, because Hamilton Buchanan could not have copied from the 
‘‘Tllustrations of Indian Zoology.” He published the ‘‘ Fishes of the 
Ganges” in 1822, and died in 1829. General Hardwicke returned to 
Kurope in 1818, and his work was published in 1832 or 1833, several 
years after Hamilton Buchanan’s death. Irrespective of this the 
original drawing, No. 60, was left in India in 1818, by Buchanan. 
I cannot omit questioning whether the British Museum possesses 
copies of all these original drawings. My reasons for doubting 
are, that some omissions and wrong identifications, besides 
figures placed to the literary credit of General Hardwicke, instead 
of Hamilton Buchanan, have found a place in the B. M. Catalogues, 
which could scarcely have occurred, had Dr. Giinther had access to 
such accurate delineations, as the Asiatic Society of Bengal possesses. 
I, therefore, propose enumerating the drawings which exist in the 
Library, the figures marked before each being identical with what 
I have placed in pencil on those of the collection, for the purpose 
of future identification. 
In examining these drawings in volume marked iv, I have 
first placed the unpublished names as existing upon them within 
brackets, next the names as published in the fishes of the Ganges, 
with H. B. after each of them, and lastly the determinations in the 
Catalogue of the Fishes of the British Museum, as it is believed 
that that institution possesses copies of the original drawings, and 
it is also supposed the remains of the typical collection.* 
“1. (Centropomus phulchanda), 1’, inches long. Chanda phula, 
H. B. = Ambassis oblonga, C. and V., B. M. Catal. 
* By reproduced, it must be distinctly understood that I mean “ with the 
leave of the author’ or acknowledged as “ obtained from H. B. collection,” as 
M’Clelland observed of the use he made of them: “I have been more anxious 
to identify Buchanan’s species than to describe new ones, and to reserve his 
names than to substitute others.” By omitted I of course mean “ accidentally” 
or “ overlooked,” and I believe due to the drawing in question not being 
amongst those in the British Museum. 
