G36 SURGEON F. DAY ON INDIAN FISHES. [Nov. 7, 



which was subsequently transferred to the British Museum. Neither 

 of Sykes's typical specimens, however, find a place in the * Cata- 

 logue of Fishes in the British Museum,' in which the latter is con- 

 sidered a Pseudeutropius, and the former a Eutropius, although 

 Sykes placed them in one genus. 



Having been courteously permitted by Dr. Giiuther, in 1870, to 

 examine Pseudeutropius longimanus, Giinther (stated in the Cata- 

 logue to be " a. Skin, 6 inches long : not in good state. India. From 

 the collection of the Zoological Society"), I was surprised to find 

 it was one of Sykes's specimens, a fact overlooked when the Cata- 

 logue was compiled. Attached to it was the following label : — " 940. 

 Zool. Sec," and Hypophthalmus goongwaree (13-6-/57), evidently 

 a transposition of labels from the H. taakree. 



Before I had seen this skin, I had identified Sykes's fish with 

 Dr. Giinther's, and published this fact in the Proc. Zool. Soc. 1869, 

 )>. 617- I question whether the genus Eutropius has any repre- 

 sentative in India. Hamilton Buchanan's Pimelodus murius, con- 

 sidered by Dr. Giinther a doubtful Eutropius, is, I am convinced, 

 identical with Pseudeutropius megalops, Giiuther. Thus the exist- 

 ence of the genus Eutropius in Hindostan rests upon two specimens, 

 3 inches long, in the British Museum, labelled " India," a locality 

 having a wide range in the opinion of some zoologists. 



In remarking that I do not adopt his genus Tylognathus in my 

 papers in the Society's ' Proceedings,' Dr. Giinther observes I do 

 not explain how I am able to maintain Labeo as distinct from Barbus 

 without this intermediate division. Definitions will be found pretty 

 accurately given in the ' Catalogue of Fishes in the British Museum,' 

 wherein a wide difference, amongst others, is shown between the 

 mouths of Labeo and Barbus, whilst Tylognathus has its "mouth 

 essentially formed as stated in Labeo" (p. 62). 



Kespecting my identification of Crossochilus rostratus, Giinther, 

 with Cyprinus bata, Hamilton Buchanan, the following occurs at 

 p. 135 : — " [Mr. Day is evidently again too hasty in this identifi- 

 cation. First, Hamilton Buchanan's fish has more than nine 

 branched dorsal rays (a character the value of which Mr. Day will 

 by-and-by learn to appreciate), his description and MS. drawing 

 agreeing in this respect. Secondly, without attempting to say what 

 Mr. Day's fish may be, it cannot be Crossochilus rostratus, as the 

 latter has a pair of upper barbels only, but no maxillary barbels 

 (provided Mr. Day knows how to distinguish between these two 

 kinds of barbels).]" 



Leaving unnoticed personalities, as irrelevant to scientific discus- 

 sions, wherein facts are the subjects in question, I pass on to the 

 Recorder's statements, into which, I think, some error has found 

 entrance, as neither Buchanan s description nor figure coincides with 

 the text of the 'Record.' Hamilton Buchanan, at p. 283, observes 

 of the C. bata, " with twelve rays in the fin of the back. * * * 

 The first ray of the dorsal fin is short, and closely united with the 

 second, which, like it, is undivided." Deducting two unbranched 

 rays from the total twelve, we have ten branched ones remaining. 



