Fishes of the River Ti(jris. 37 



times. Snout rather depressed, not very broad, its length 

 being two fifths of that of the head ; the upper jaw is the 

 longer. The nasal barbels extend to the hind margin of the 

 eye, those of the maxillaries to the origin of the adipose fin. 

 Dorsal spine rather strong, serrated behind, and nearly as long 

 as the head. The adipose fin is about twice as long as the 

 dorsal, and commences at a distance from it lohich is about 

 equal to the length of the dorsal. Caudal fin forked, with the 

 lobes rounded, the upper being the longer. Pectoral spine 

 nearly as long and strong as that of the dorsal fin, very strongly 

 serrated interiorly. The ventral fin is inserted immediately 

 behind the last dorsal ray, and terminates at a considerable 

 distance from the anal fin. Olivaceous, with three narrow, 

 white, parallel, longitudinal stripes, one along, one above, and 

 one below the lateral line. 



This species does not appear to be scarce. The specimens 

 sent are 9 inches long. Vernacular name " Abu Zumare." 



The remaining specimens belong to the family of Gyprinidte^ 

 and to the following species : — 



1. Aspius vorax, Heck. 



2. Capoeta trutta, Heck. 



3. Bary7iotus luteus. Of this species there was only one 

 example in the collection ; it seems to occur in the Orontes, 

 throughout Mesopotamia and Persia. Since I have had the 

 opportunity of examining specimens collected by the Marquis 

 Doria at Shiraz, I have convinced myself that it should be 

 removed from the genus Barhus (or Systomus), to which 

 Heckel had refeiTcd it, and placed in Barynotus. 



4. Barhus subquincunciatusj Gthr. When I described this 

 species in 1868 from a single skin in the British Museum 

 without known locality, I suggested that it might have come 

 from Mesopotamia. That tliis supposition is correct is proved 

 by a single very fine example in Mr. Colvill's collection. 

 It is readily recognized by the large black spots. 



5. Barhus scheich, Heck. Appears to be common. The 

 examples are the first I have seen ; they vary considerably in 

 the comparative length of the dorsal spine; and I have no longer 

 any doubt that Lucioharhus xanihopterus of Heckel and Lucio- 

 barhus mystaceus of the same author are founded on individual 

 variations of the same species. 



6. Barhus Kotschyi, Heck., with which most probably 

 Barhus grypus (Heck.) is identical. 



7. The last species is undescribed ; it likewise belongs to 

 the genus Barhus, and can be readily distinguished from the 



