1873.] ' FISHES OF BENGAL.' 747 



Now that the lists of the fish have been discovered, the next 

 question is, where are the type specimens 1 Some are believed to be 

 in the British-Museum collection presented by Mr. Waterhouse ; 

 others also seem to have been given by the Zoological Society. I 

 am now having as close a search as I can made for any papers or 

 records bearing on this question, and trust that any one who can 

 afford information will communicate it to the Society. My reason 

 for wishing this is that I hope shortly to commence a thorough re- 

 examination of my collection of Indian fishes now in England (num- 

 bering about 12000 specimens in spirit, besides skins), and I wish 

 to compare them with undoubted types. 



Then, again, as to Sykes's types some confusion appears to exist. 

 I long since observed the following in his ' Fishes of the Dukhun ' 

 (p. 355): — "Both Mr. Ruppell and Mr. Yarrell.who have done me the 

 favour to look over my fishes, express their belief that the present fish," 

 &c. Now the species he was alluding to was the Cyprinus nukta, of 

 which no figure has been given ; but where is the specimen 1 It is 

 evident he brought his collection to England : some {perhaps types) 

 he presented to the East-India Museum ; others he either retained 

 or may have given to friends, who, it is possible, presented them in their 

 own names to museums or institutions. Any information on this point 

 is therefore most desirable. 



My belief that the British Museum possessed some of Sykes's types 

 was confirmed by seeing the following remarks in ' The Catalogue of 

 the Fishes,' 1864, vol. v. p. 46 : — " a, b. Eight and a half to nine and 

 a half inches long. From Colonel Sykes's collection. Types of Schilbe 

 pabo, Sykes." The same of Glyptosternum lonah, p. 187, stated 

 to be a type, but scarcely agreeing with the definition given by Svkes. 

 However, it was asserted to be the type ; and as such 1 accepted it. 



I was therefore, I must confess, very much surprised at observing the 

 following from Dr. Giinther in the ' Proc. Zool. Soc' Dec. 1871 : — 

 "Although I searched carefully the Museum (before and after the 

 transfer of its fish-collection to the British Museum) for types of 

 Colonel Sykes's paper, I failed to discover them." 



I drew attention to this in a paper read before the Asiatic Society 

 of Calcutta, July 3rd, 1872, and published in their Journal, as I 

 have a very great interest in examining types of Indian species for 

 the purpose of comparison with my own specimens. 



In the 'Proc. Zool. Soc' Dec. 3, 1872, p. 877, Dr. Giinther re- 

 remarks, " I must take this early opportunity to modify a statement 

 made by me in P. Z. S. 1871, p. 763, to the effect that I had failed 

 to discover in the East-India Museum the types of the Dukkun spe- 

 cies described by Colonel Sykes. This is true as regards the majo- 

 rity of these fishes ; but at the time I wrote this I had forgotten 

 that in 1864 I believed that I had found two or three of his types. 

 Although not the true names (if any) were attached to the bottles 

 when they were transferred to the Museum, the name of Colonel 

 Sykes was written on the labels ; and I still believe the specimens to 

 be typical." 



Perhaps Dr. Giinther is correct in his surmise ; but it would have 



