746 SURGEON F. DAY ON BUCHANAN'S [Nov. 18, 



of Bloch." Further remarks seem to me unnecessary ; Buchanan's 

 C chagunio* and C. kunta are evidently the same fish. 



Before passing on to the next species there is another remark of 

 Dr. Giinther's I must reply to, viz. : — "it requires but slight acquaint- 

 ance with Hamilton Buchanan's works to see that his rule was to 

 count the last ray (which is generally split to the base) as one and 

 not as two. Mr. Day's statementf to the contrary is to me quite 

 incomprehensible ; he needed only to compare Buchanan's descrip- 

 tions with the plates" (P. Z. S. Dec. 5th, 1871). Again, "the 

 only case which shows some obscurity is that of C. dero." 



I will now put this nearly unqualified assertion to the proof, 

 giving the dorsal rays as recorded by Hamilton Buchanan in his 

 * Index Methodicus,' and by Dr. Giinther in his ' Catalogue of 

 Fishes ;' for if Buchanan always counted (except in one solitary in- 

 stance) as does Dr. Giinther, the numbers should be identical. Pime- 

 lodussilondia,H. B., D. g; Giinther, D. \. P.pangasius, H. B., 

 D.f;G., D.i P. rite, H.B.,D. f; G.,D.£. P. gagora, H.B.,D. f; 

 P. sagor, H. B., D. | ; G., D. f P. urius, H. B., D. | ; 

 P.jatius, H. B., D. -g. P. nenga, H. B., D. $. P. sona, 

 f. P. rama, H. B., D. |. P. tengana, H. B., D. |; 

 I need not increase this list ; even the last species had not 

 apparently been seen by Dr. Giinther ; but so satisfied must he have 

 become that Hamilton Buchanan had counted the last dorsal ray split 

 to the root as 2, not as 1 , that he altered the figures from 8 to 7, 

 and, I am convinced, correctly so ; he also changed them in P. batasio 

 from D. |, H. B., to D. \. This increasing of the number of the 

 dorsal rays by Hamilton Buchanan may be seen in P. telchitta, P. 

 bagarius, P. nangra, P. murius, P. gagata, P. gulio, P. menoda, 

 P. cavasius, and P. aor. Surely the foregoing twenty-two instances 

 out of thirty-two consecutive species are sufficient to prove that 

 Hamilton Buchanan frequently counted the last ray of the dorsal fin 

 split to its base as two, although " but a slight acquaintance'''' with 

 his writings might lead one to consider he counted them as one. 



But Dr. Buchanan, besides sometimes counting the last dorsal ray 

 divided to its base as two, occasionally decreased the number, as may 

 be seen in Cyprinus cachius, C. sophore, C. ticto, C. chola, C. con- 

 chonius, &c. Consequently it must be admitted that in numbering 

 these rays he was not always very precise. After this, remarks on 

 C. bata, H. B., are unnecessary. 



In his Ronggopur list he observes that Cyprinus cocsa was con- 

 sidered by the fishermen the male of C. barila, and C. chedra ap- 

 parently the male of C. chedrio, but that he considered them distinct 

 species. 



* The native name Chaguni, employed in the ' Fishes of the Ganges,' finds no 

 place in the MS. notes ; but this is by no means a solitary instance. However, 

 in the MS. notes the Kunta is the only fish likened to the C. curmuca ; and in 

 the ' Fishes of the Ganges ' the Chagunio is the only fish compared to the 

 Curmuca, whilst Kunta and Chagunio are both on the same drawing ; the first 

 name is only found in the MS. notes, the second only in the published work. 



f It would have been more strictly accurate had I said " often " or " fre- 

 quently." 



