764 DR. A. GDNTHER ON INDIAN FISHES. [DeC. 5, 



assisted him in determining this example as one of Sykes's speci- 

 mens of H. taakree. When I examined it for the first time in 1863, 

 I thought it might be the taakree of Sykes, and wrote this name on 

 the label of the bottle*; but having convinced myself that it was 

 not likely to be this fish, I drew my pen through the name, and 

 wrote below longimanus. 



2. Has Cyprinus bata (Ham. Buch.) nine, or ten branched rays in 



the dorsal fin 1 



The words of Hamilton Buchanan, that this fish has " twelve rays 



in the fin of the back," "the first" and "second" being 



" undivided ; the others are branched, the last of them being divided 

 to the root," have always conveyed to my mind the idea that this 

 fish was described, as clearly as possible, as a fish with ten branched 

 dorsal rays. Surely no author would count the same ray in one line 

 of the description as two, and in another as one, "the last" being 

 clearly the singular and not the plural form. If "the last" had 

 been meant for two rays, Hamilton Buchanan would have written 

 " the two last" ! However, it requires but slight acquaintance with 

 Hamilton Buchanan's work 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 statement to the contrary is to me quite incomprehensible ; 

 he needed only to compare Buchanan's description with the plates. 

 When we take, for instance, the five species succeeding Cyprinus bata 

 (viz. C. boga, catla, gonius, calbasu, and nandind) and the five pre- 

 ceding it (viz. C. mrigala, dero, cocsa, bacaila, and moraf) and com- 

 pare their descriptions with the figures, we find that Buchanan has 

 invariably counted the ray in question as a single ray. The only 

 case which shows some obscurity is that of C. dero. In C. mrigala 

 Buchanan expressly mentions the number of branched rays in the 

 text ; and the description of C. sarana (pp. 307, 309) offers another 

 striking instance, disproving Mr. Day's assertion. Finally, to set 

 the matter beyond further dispute, also with regard to C. bata, I 

 give (see p. 765) an exact tracing of H. Buchanan's MS. drawing 

 of this fish, in which the ten separate branched dorsal rays are as 

 clearly shown as could well he done. 



3. What are the relations between Barbus beavani (Gthr.) and 

 Cyprinus chagunio (H. B.)1 



Mr. Day states that " amongst Hamilton Buchanan's original 

 drawings exists one of C. chagunio, and labelled as such." No 

 doubt such a drawing would considerably assist us in answering the 

 question. 



In the British Museum copy of those drawings (which always was 

 believed to be complete) no such drawing exists, nor any thing ap- 

 proaching Barbus beavani. Therefore I have applied to the Li- 

 brarian of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for a tracing of the drawing 

 * I preserve all skins of importance in bottles to insure their greater fety. 



