new Cypriaoid Fishes from Mysore. 53 



kangrce may perhaps be considered as a variety of lamta, I 

 propose to treat kangrce as synonymous with lamta. It is 

 needless to observe that the other differences in the measure- 

 ments must be due to conditions of preservation, food, and 

 maturity of the specimens. The formula of rays and scales 

 for kangrce is almost the same as for lamta *. 



2. Garra jerdonia, Day. 



1878. Discognathus jerdoni, Day, Fish Ind. Text. ii. p. .528. 



1909. Discognathus jerdoni, Jenkins, Rec. Ind. Mus. vol. iii. p. 291. 



1919. Discognathus jerdoni, Anuandale, Rec. Ind. Mus. vol. xvi. 



p. 132. 

 1919. Discognathus jerdoni, Annandale, Rec. Ind. Mus. vol. xvii. p. 73, 



pi. ix. figs. 1, 2, and pi. xi. fig. 3. 



My specimens of jerdonia have been taken chiefly in the 

 rapidly running waters of the Cauvery, both in the Mysore 

 State and Coorg. Having examined a fairly large collec- 

 tion of this species, I think it is impossible to maintain with 

 Gunther that it is identical with lamta. As Dr. Annandale 

 proposes to discuss this and the following species in his 

 forthcoming paper, I content myself here with recording 

 their occurrence in Mysore, hoping for a future opportunity 

 for offering such remarks on them as may be called for. 



3. Garra stenorhynchia, Jerdon. 



1849. Gonorhgnchus stenorhgnchus, Jerdon, Mad. Journ. Lit. Sci. 



p. 310. 

 1919. Discognathus stenorhgnchus, Annandale, Rec. Ind. Mus. vol. xvii. 



pi. ix. fig. 3, pi. xi. fiy. 4. 



Jerdon's account of this species, obtained in the Bhavani 

 River (foot of the Nilgiri Hills) and the streams of Malabar, 

 is absolutely brief. My specimens, which were obtained 

 from the rocky pools in the Cauvery (Seringapatam), show 

 a relatively lai^ger internasal protuberance studded with 

 spiny mucous pores, the upper lip thick and suctorial, the 

 upper surface of the head proportionately much broader, and 

 a greatly enlarged mental disk. 



* I have, since writing the above, noticed that kangrce, Prashad, is 

 regarded by Dr. Annandale (1919, op. cit. p. 74) as a subspecies oijerdo?ii. 

 " This form seems to be no more than a local race of D. jerdoni, Day, 

 distinguished by its longer head and smaller eye." I consider, for the 

 reasons given above, that it is more correct to treat it as a subspecies of 

 lamta. 



