762 DR. A. GCNTHER ON INDIAN FISHES. [Dec. 5, 



terested in the matter have only to consult what has been written 

 upon it, and then can judge for themselves whether I have mis- 

 understood Mr. Day (which I deny), or whether it is not rather 

 he who has repeatedly misrepresented the author of the ' Catalogue 

 of Fishes ' *. But there are other remarks, in which Mr. Day has 

 brought forward fresh facts which, in the interest of truth, must be 

 examined ; and being based upon materials in the British Museum, 

 they require notice on my part. They are the following : — 



1. 7* the type of Pseudeutropius longimanus (Gthr.) one of 

 Colonel Sykes's specimens o/" Hypophthalmus taakree? 



Mr. Day says : — " Sykes described two species of Hypophthalmus, 

 the taakree and goongivaree, and placed his typical specimens in the 

 collection of the Zoological Society, which was subsequently trans- 

 ferred to the British Museum. Neither of Sykes's typical specimens, 

 however, finds a place in the • Catalogue of Fishes in the British 

 Museum.' Having been courteously permittedf by Dr. Giinther, 

 in 1870, to examine Pseudeutropius longimanus, Giinther (stated in 

 the Catalogue to be ' a. Skin, 6 inches long : not good state. India. 

 From the Collection of the Zoological Society'), I was surprised 

 to find it ivas one of Sykes's specimens, a fact overlooked when the 

 ' Catalogue ' was compiled. Attached to it was the following label : — 

 '940. Zool. Soc.,' and 'Hypophthalmus goongivaree (13-6-/57),' 

 evidently a transposition of labels from the H. taakree." 



It would seem, at first, almost incredible that this elaborate 

 statement of Mr. Day proceeds entirely from his own imagination 

 and is wholly fallacious. 



* Take, for instance, a case from Mr. Day's recent " remarks." He had 

 stated in Proc. Zool. Soc. 1809, p. 371, that Crossochilus rostratus (GHihr.) was 

 identical with Cyprinus bata (H. B) ; and I set him right on this point in 

 the ' Record ' for that year in the words quoted by Mr. Day. But, instead of 

 frankly admitting that he had been mistaken in the matter, he states : " As 

 regards Crossochilus rostratus, Giinther, from the description as now given, it 

 appears to resemble B. bata, H. B., excepting in having a pair of rostral instead 

 of a pair of maxillary barbels." The italics are my own. Now will Mr. Day 

 point out where I have given this second description, or whether I have added 

 one iota to my original description in 1868 ? and is it not apparent that he 

 intended to convey an erroneous idea to those of his readers who are not 

 acquainted with the details of the history of the fish (for he could scarcely hope 

 that I would accept such an answer), viz. the idea that it was only by the 

 " description as now given " that he was enabled to perceive the difference 

 between the two fishes ? 



In the first instance, Mr. Day gave as one of the reasons for identifying these 

 two fishes, having found some of his specimens of C. bata (?) in the Cossye river, 

 whence the Crossochilus rostratus in the British Museum was obtained. This 

 is certainly a point for consideration, but too much weight should not be laid 

 upon it. No doubt Mr. Day, on a visit to a locality, employs every means to 

 collect as many fishes as possible ; but it were an illusion to think that he has 

 obtained during a temporary stay all the fishes or even the greater part of the 

 species noticed by previous visitors or residents. 



t I accept this as a complimentary remark, but must observe that none of the 

 employes of the Trustees of the British Museum have the power of permitting 

 or denying access to the collections to a student of natural history. 



