Miscellaneous. 153 
would thus appear that three generic appellations have been given to 
this curious genus, that of Professor Stimpson having the precedence. 
Naturalists are indebted, however, to M. Lacaze-Duthiers for the 
detailed account he has now given of its structure. 
On the Extension of certain marine Fishes to the freshwater Rivers 
of India. 
To the Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 
GENTLEMEN.—Dr. Giinther, in reply to my note impugning his 
statement regarding the extension of certain genera of marine fishes 
to Nepal, states that he has received information that several species 
of Therapon are exclusively inhabitants of fresh water. Now, with- 
out denying this statement, I must say that it is quite opposed to 
my own experience. No doubt some species of Therapon frequent 
streams of fresh water near the sea, as well as tidal rivers and back- 
waters, as I many years ago pointed out, stating that I had caught 
one species of Therapon, with fly, in small streams on the Malabar 
coast; but I doubt if any species extends, in non-tidal rivers, more 
than a very few miles from the sea. 
2. This, however it may be, does not affect my refutation of its ex- 
tension to Nepal, which I emphatically deny, as well as that of the 
other marine genera of fishes mentioned by Giinther as extending to 
Nepal. I have not his paper at hand, but, writing from memory, 
aided by a Catalogue of Hodgson’s collections, I believe that, besides 
Therapon and Scatophagus, he makes a Serranus, two Diagramma, 
Sillago, and Trachinotus all extend to the rivers of Nepal, which, I 
need hardly again say, is perfectly erroneous. The only marine genera 
that I know which extend beyond the influence of the tides in India 
are Coroina, Mugil, and one or two Clupeoid fishes, including the 
celebrated Hilsa fish (dlosa tlisha), which, however, does not extend 
nearly so far as the mountain-streams of Nepal. 
3. With regard to Dr. Gunther’s rejection of my generic name 
Pristolepis, because he was unable to recognize it, I can only state 
that a much less experienced ichthyologist, Dr. Day, in a copy of his 
‘ Fishes of Cochin,’ quite recently received by me, though forwarded 
last July, gives a footnote to Catopra malabarica (in manuscript), in 
which he states that in his large work with illustrations he shall 
give it as his opinion that Pristolepis must be preferred to Catopra. 
4. The assumption by any one individual, however learned, to re- 
ject a genus or species because he states that he himself finds it im- 
possible to recognize it, is certainly not authorized in the rules re- 
garding nomenclature laid down in the Proceedings of the British 
Association, 
I am, Gentlemen, 
Yours obediently, 
T. C. JERDON, 
Camp, Muzuffurnuggur, Surgeon- Major. 
December 6, 1865. 
