DISTRIBUTIOK OF INDIAN mESHWATER EISHES. 



559 



have unduly multiplied some species, considering local varieties 

 as more appropriate ; by referring to those enumerated it will be 

 easy to erase those objected to. Others, I know, think that some 

 which T have placed as synonyms should be given as species. 

 Anyhow, by following out every form as I have done, I have tried 

 to obviate one of Mr. Blanford's objections, that " with only the 

 facts procurable from museum catalogues and other published 

 works, I know from experience that it is impossible to ascertain 

 correctly the details of distribution ; the numerous errors com- 

 mitted by the older naturalists, by whom the term India was used 

 in the very loosest and vaguest sense, have but rarely been elimi- 

 uated ; and it is constantly the practice in monographs and cata- 

 logues to quote species and genera as found in two localities — 

 the old and erroneous one, and the real locality subsequently dis- 

 covered" (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 1876, xviii. p. 278). 



The fishes I have enumerated belong to 87 genera, thus dis- 

 tributed : — 



It appears that out of 87'' genera, 2 only are restricted to 

 Africa (not being Malayan), both being likewise Palaearctic ; 32 

 extend to the islands of the Malay archipelago ; 12 are common 

 to both the African and Malayan regions, out of which 6 are like- 

 wise Palsearctic. 



1 2 are also Palaarctic ; the other two, Periophthalmzcs and Eleotris, have 

 marine representatives also. 



- and 3 Also Palsearctic. 



* Cyprinodon also Palsearctic ; liaplochilus not so. ■ 



5 Barilius has been taken at Candahar ; Rashora is not known to be Palse- 

 arctic, the remaining two are. 



^ Out of these 10 genera, 3 are Burmese, not belonging to the Hindustan sub- 

 region. 



' Genus Etroplus will be considered separately. 



