134 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. |N.S., XiX, 
ies were carried on in the early 1800’sas well as how the coloured 
figures in the Calcutta icollection were referred to. This Day 
did with alacrity and at once published (1873) a preliminary 
report, saying in part: ‘“‘I was quite unprepared to discover 
epat bis see notes on fishes, which bea now lain 
own notes.’ 
Later a Day published (with suitable introductory 
and concluding sections) in verbatim form Buchanan’s “ Fish 
and Fisheries of Dinajpur”’ with 64 species, Rangpur with 126 
species, Purniah with 134, Bhagalpur with 76, Behar aud 
Patna with 62, Shahabad with no list! and Gorakhpur and 
North-West Provinces with 79: a total of 541 species listed, 
many of which are of course duplicates (identical species). 
Buchanan gives for these fishes the native name followed in 
some cases by the scientific name transliterated into French, 
as ‘‘ Vagari, Pimelode.”’ To these he frequently adds notes as 
to the sai Rhy al ge identity with fish found in other 
districts, or r data relating to the fishes. Jn a series of 
eae Das poeta each fish with the corresponding one in 
‘* Fishes of the Ganges ” and in the unpublished manuscript 
pte which he found in Calcutta. Occasionally he adds 
notes ot his own, but these are always set in the footnotes. 
hus the greatest student of Indian fishes has sought to 
give due credit to the pioneer student of its fresh-water piscine 
fauna, a credit denied him for nearly two-thirds of a century, 
to the great loss of Indian ichthyology. Tt should be noted in 
passing that Day found in 1877 that a number of drawings seen 
by McClelland in 1838 had disappeared and that others had been 
damaged by termites. It would bea valuable contribution to 
the history of Indian ichthyology if some of the able students 
of this science in Calcutta would see if these drawings are sti 
in the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, would inspect 
them and would publish the facts. Thus possibly there might 
be cleared up the pete in the count of the volumes of 
manuscript and of the n er of drawings, as well as of the 
matter of the Bo hiten a names on the margins of the latter— 
said to be Buchanan’s by McClelland (1839), but stated for some 
drawings to be that of another by Giinther (1872) and also by 
Day himself (1877) 

_? Buchanan ex plains the absence of a list for Shahabad as due to the 
fact that while epervering that district he had no fixed abode (where oti 
mens could pred and further that these fishes were the same a> 
those found in ene 
