﻿of ventrals, somewhat before or behind middle of a hne con- 

 necting end of snout and base of caudal, separated by 1 1 

 scales from occiput. Dorsal emarginate, its fourth osseous spine 

 very strong, strongly dentated behind, somewhat longer than 

 head, its stiff portion not much shorter than head. Anal emar- 

 ginate, its first prolonged rays about equal to head without 

 snout and opposite to 19th scale of lateral line. Pectorals and 

 ventrals subequal, the ventrals not reaching anus, separated 

 by 3 — 3 '/a scales from lateral line; pectorals not much shorter 

 than head. Caudal deeply emarginate, the lobes somewhat 

 rounded, longer than head. Least height of caudal peduncle 

 about 1.5 in head, about equal to the length of the caudal 

 peduncle, surrounded by 16 scales. Scales with numerous un- 

 dulated longitudinal hnes, tubes of lateral line very short. Silvery, 

 base of scales brownish. Length 330 mm. 



N o m. i n d i g. : Lawak, Lalawak (Malay.) ; Turu behaw, Turub 

 hawu (Sundan.) ; Tawes, Badir (Javan.). 



Habitat: Sumatra (Palembang); Java (Batavia!, Krawang, 

 Bekassi, Buitenzorg !, Tjandjur, Lake Kamodjing near Tjiham- 

 peh !, Garut !, Parongkalong, Kudus !, Fishpond near Tasik- 

 malaja!, Ngawi, Gempol, river Brantas!, Tulung Agung!). — Siam. 



Note. Bleeker has founded his Pimtiiis {Barbodes) koilo- 

 nietopon on two specimens of 153 and 164 mm. which, according 

 to him, differ from Pimtius javaniciis in having a more slender 

 operculum, the length of which is contained twice in its height, 

 whereas it is contained 1-/3 — 1^/4 times \w javaniciis. Moreover 

 the body is higher (height about 3 in length with caudal) and 

 the dorsal profile very much concave at nape. GuNTHER 

 (Cat. Brit. Mus. VIL 1868, p. 119), who had the two typical 

 specimens at his disposition, says: "I do not think that B.koi- 

 louietopon is specifically different from B. javaniciis. The specimen 

 figured by Bleeker has the body conspicuously elevated, 

 the pectoral extending beyond the base of the ventrals; but 

 this is much less the case in the second specimen, so that it 

 is even doubtful whether this form can be considered a con- 

 stantly distinct variety." After reexamination of the two above 

 named specimens, we agree with GuNTHER that they do not 

 differ specifically from P. javaniciis Blkr. The difTerence in the 

 operculum, named by Bleeker, does not exist. The height 

 of one of the specimens is nearly 2.2 and of the other 2.3, 

 whereas we find the height of P. javaniciis as 2.4 — 2.6. 



