512 SURGEON F. DAY ON INDIAN FISHES. [Nov. 11, 
to Buchanan-Hamilton’s original drawings, I am enabled to lay the 
results of some of my investigations before the Zoological Society. 
The collection of fishes is extensive and exceedingly interesting. Its 
nucleus was formed by the Asiatic Society of Bengal ; while amongst 
the contributors to it were Dr. M‘Clelland, and more especially Mr. 
Blyth, most of whose type specimens I have thus had the opportu- 
nity of'examining. It is not unlikely that some few of the fishes, such 
as the Barbus sophore, may have been derived from Buchanan- 
Hamilton’s collection—my reason for asserting this being that the 
specimen is evidently very old, whilst the species was never, I be- 
lieve, recognized by M‘Clelland or Blyth. The typical collection 
presented to the British Museum by Mr. Waterhouse does not 
appear to have possessed it. In the following paper I have de- 
scribed some species said to be “insufficiently” known,” as well as 
others which appear to be new. 
SERRANUS LANCEOLATUS, Bloch. 
Serranus horridus, C. & V. 
In the ‘ Proceedings of the Zoological Society,’ 1865, p. 6, and 
again in my ‘ Fishes of Malabar,’ p. 4, and plate 1. figs. 1 & 2, I gave 
my opinion that the adult form of this species is identical with that 
termed S. horridus, C. & V. Dr. Giinther, however, in the ‘ Fishes 
of Zanzibar,’ p. 4, holds a different opinion, and observes :—< Mr. 
Blyth was the first to refer /anceolatus as a synonym to another 
species, namely S. coides, H. B. (=S. serillus, C. & V.) (J. ALS. 
Bengal, xxix. p. 111). Mr. Day, without referring to this paper, 
also represents /anceolatus as a young Serranus, but takes it to be that 
of horridus, K. & vy. H. Wemay remark at once, to judge from the 
figure given by Mr. Day, that this appears rather improbable, and he 
does not explain, or even notice *, the difference in the tength of the 
dosarl spines in the two fishes; and concludes by remarking, “ we 
do not venture to say what the species stated by Mr. Day to be the 
old state of the lanceolatus may prove to be” (p. 5). Had a name 
been given, it would, in my opinion, only have added one more syno- 
nym to the S. /anceolatus. 
I overlooked the note of Mr. Blyth thus referred to, until after 
my work had been printed. To find short remarks on species in 
a work destitute of an index is always difficult. Thus Dr. Giinther, 
in vol. iii. of his catalogue, dated July 1861, places the three follow- 
ing species of Mr. Blyth amongst his doubtful ones— Gobzus breviceps, 
Blyth, Per tophthalmus Juscatus, Blyth, and Salarias olivaceus, 
Blyth ; but in the year 1860 Mr. Blyth had already stated them to 
be Gobius albopunctatus, C. & V., Per ee ae papilio, Bl. 
Schn., and Sa/arias lineatus, C. & V.(J.A.S. Bengal, xxix. pp. 111, 
147,111). I only mention these instances to show how the most 
accurate observers may overlook casual remarks. 
* Dr. Giinther has overlooked the following observation I made at p. 5 in the 
‘ Fishes of Malabar’ :—‘In young specimens the proportionate height of the 
dorsal spines (as in some other Sevranz) is greater than in the adult.” 
