172 Smaller Fly Takers. CHAP. xn. 



if I propose a simple one for acceptance. Of course the correct 

 Ichthyologist's name shall be appended, and, where I can give them, the 

 several vernacular names. Not being a competitive examiner I shall 

 assign no order of merit. 



THE CHILWA. 

 Chela argentca. 



I used to call it the Chela, after the scientific name. But 1 think 

 the Ichthyologist's name, though meant to follow the vernacular, has 

 unfortunately got wrongly transcribed from a hurried manuscript or 

 inaccurate pronunciation, just as in Gavialis Gangeticus the r has been 

 changed to v by an error of handwriting or of printing, and it should be 

 Garialis Gangeticus. So I will call our little friend the Chilwa. 



The Chilwa is a very common fish. Day gives ten species, some of 

 which are to be found in Northern, some in Southern India. There is 

 a good deal of similarity among them, so that one drawing (Plate V.) 

 will probably suffice to help recognition of a fish that must be known 

 to most lovers of the craft. The chief external characteristic of them 

 all is a very flat-sided, thin body, with a stomach running to quite a 

 thin edge, but not a serrated edge, and the dorsal fin set far back just 

 over the anal fin. They are very silvery, some more so than others, 

 and their numerous minute scales come off very easily. They are a 

 delicate fish both to eat and to keep alive, so that it requires care to 

 transport them alive ; but, once in, they will live in any pond, and 

 keep its surface alive with rises. They thrive in any still water. In 

 the rivers they are to be found in the still water. One of them is very 

 minute, not attaining more than 2| inches in length, but the majority 

 run, according to Dr. Day, from 6 to 9 inches in length. I have 

 certainly never caught any over 9 inches in- length, but I have seen 

 larger ones, and native fishermen assured me, very positively, and 

 exactly, that some of them, and they particularized a Chela dupeoides, 

 ran to 18 inches in length, and to a hand-breadth in depth. Considering 

 the accuracy of their information in other respects, I believe the 

 informants in question to be right. Being such a very thin, narrow 

 fish, with a minimum of depth and breadth, their weight is very dis- 

 appointing in comparison with their length, and a fish of 6 or 7 inches 

 is flicked out with ease by the lightest trout rod. One of 18 inches in 



