1869. ] SURGEON F. DAY ON INDIAN FISHES. 523 
Eyes. Upper orbit in advance of the lower. Eyes minute. 
The length of the snout equals 4 of that of the head. The rostral 
hook extends to beneath the posterior margin of the anterior orbit. 
A nostril exists between the orbits. No fringe to the lips. Mouth 
twisted round to the right side. 
Teeth minute, and on the right side only. 
Fins. Ventral fins confluent, pectorals absent. 
Scales strongly ctenoid on both sides, with a dark line along their 
centres. 
Lateral lines two, with sixteen to seventeen rows of scales between 
them in the widest part. Four to five rows of scales between the 
superior lateral line and the anterior portion of the base of the 
dorsal fin. 
Colours. Coloured side brown, with wide irregular yertical bands. 
Two specimens exist in the Museum. One is 4 inches in length. 
PsEupoRHOMBUs ArRsivus, H. B. 
D724: Pele PW 650 Ansa, -Oo1s. 
Length of head 7, of pectoral 4, of caudal 4 of the total length. 
Height of body nearly 2 of total length. 
Eyes. Diameter 1 of length of head, 1 diameter from end of snout, 
not 4 of a diameter apart. 
Teeth. About six conical ones in the lower jaw on either side, and 
four in the upper. 
Fins. Dorsal arises opposite the anterior margin of the orbit, it 
does not join the caudal; the latter is rather pointed. 
Colours as described by H. B. 
Dr. Ginther mentions in his ‘ Catalogue of Fishes,’ vol. iv. p. 427, 
that ‘‘a coloured drawing of this fish is in the collection of drawings 
presented by General Hardwicke to the British Museum.” I find 
one also exists 2;5, inches in length amongst Hamilton Buchanan’s 
MS. drawings. 
This species grows to 6 or even 8 inches in length, and is common 
in Burmah. 
SILURUS COCHINCHINENSIS, C. & V. 
Silurichthys berdmorei, Blyth. 
These two species, as suggested by Dr. Giinther, I find to be 
identical, the typical specimen of the latter is 4,4; inches in length. 
ARIUS SONA. 
Pimelodus sona, Ham. Buch. 
I believe that this species, as suggested by Dr. Giinther (Cat. of 
Fishes, v. p. 143), is not identical with Bagrus arioides, C. & V., as 
it was considered tu be by Mr. Blyth (J. A. 8. of B. 1860, p. 151). 
Five specimens of the former and one of the latter are in the 
collection. 
"Del, Pl/Gy aa Blain: Oe 17: 
