52 Mr. C. R. Narayan Rao on 



(4) Younger specimens possess an interesting scheme of 

 coloration, in which the orange is confined to the fins more 

 often than not *. 



The description of D. kanyra t suffers from certain 

 defects — for example, the number of caudal fin-rays is not 

 indicated, and it is not clear whether or not the length of 

 the caudal fin is included in the total length of the body. 

 The dorsal profile behind the dorsal fin is described as 

 being slightly concave and the upper lip as being fairly 

 broad. These descriptions do not conform to the proto- 

 graph. I have examined the type and syntypes of this 

 species in the Indian Museum, and find that the lateral and 

 transverse series of scales — viz., 35 and 4/3^ respectively — 

 are correctly represented in the text-figure, and not 34 aud 

 4/5 as stated in the description. The caudal fin-rays are 

 19. The reasons for considering kanyra as a separate 

 species by its author are — (1) the proportions of the different 

 parts of the body, (2) the shape and size of mental disk, 

 (3) the situation of the eye, and (4) the shape of the tail 

 and dorsal fin. As I have already stated that characters 

 2 and 4 are very variable among lamta, it would be 

 risky to consider them to be of specific importance. The 

 measurements of kanyra I have taken are as follows 

 (measurements in hundredths of total length without caudal 

 fin) :— 



kfingrce, lamta. 



mm. mm. 



Total length without caudal fin ... . 95 95 



Depth of body 224 22-6 



Depth of caudal peduncle 12 - 12"7 



Depth of head at occiput 18 - 9 19*1 



Length of head 24-1 23-6 



Width of interorbital space 16-7 16 - 9 



Length of snout 13 - 13*0 



Diameter of orbit 4-2 4-2 



Length of caudal peduncle L7 - 8 17"9 



It will be seen from the above measurements of the two 

 species (I have taken a well-preserved lamta of the same 

 size for comparison) that the only real point of difference 

 between lamta and kanyra. is the relative length of head, 

 which, I consider, is too insufficient a basis for founding a 

 new species upon. Till more material is forthcoming, when 



* Vide description of Garret malabarica, Day, ' Fishes of Malabar,' 

 p. 206, pi. xv. fig. 1. This is the usual coloration of younger forms of 

 G. lamta, which fades in the preserving fluids. 



t 1919. Prashad, op. cit. text-figs. p. 104. 



