FISH. (PABT IL) 



By B. L. Chaudhuri. 



This part contains a systematic treatment of the suborders Apodes, Haplomi 

 and Catosteomi of the Order Teleostei. The total number of specimens examined 

 and recorded is 245. They belong to only nine species. Of these one (Ophichthus 

 chilkensis) is new to science, while one (Hippocampus brachyrhynchus) has recently 

 been described in the Records of the Indian Museum. The nine species fall into seven 

 genera and five families. 



Suborder APODES. 



Family ANGUILUDAE. 



Genus MURAENESOX, M'Clelland. 



Muraenesox cinereus (Forskâl). 



1775. Muraena (Toto) cinerea, Forskal, Descrip. Anim., pp. x, 22. 



1801. Muraena arabica, Bloch and Schneider, Syst. Ichthyol., p. 488. 



1803. Muraena sp. [Taloopaum], Rüssel, Fish. Vizag., I, No. 36, p. 25. 



1822. Muraena bagio, Hamilton Buchanan, Fish. Gang., pp. 24, 364. 



1843. Muraenesox tricuspidata, M'Clelland, Cal. Journ. Nut. Hist., IV, p. 409, pi. xxiv, fig. 1. 



1844. Congrus tricuspidatus, Richardson, Ichthyol. Voy. Sulphur, p. 105, pi. li, fig. 2. 



1845. Mtiraenesox hamiltoniae, M'Clelland, Cal. Journ. Nat. Hist., V, p. 182, pi. viii, fig. 3. 



1845. Muraenesox bengalensis, M'Clelland, ibid., V, p. 182. 



1846. Conger hämo, Temminck and Schlegel, Faun. Jap. Poiss., p. 262, pi. cxiv, fig. 2. 

 1849. Conger bagio, Cantor, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1849, P- 12 9&- 



1856. Muraenesox bagio, Kaup, Cat. Apod. Fish, p. 116, pi. xiv, fig. 73. 



1870. Muraenesox cinereus, Günther, Brit. Mus. Cat. Fish., VIII, p. 45- 



1878; Muraenesox cinereus, Day, Fish. Ind., p. 662, pi. clxviii, fig. 4. 



1889. Muraenesox cinereus, Day, Faun. Brit. Ind. Fish., I, p. 91. 



1909. Muraenesox cinereus, Günther, Fisch. Sudsee, III, p. 395. 



There is one specimen in the collection. It was obtained in the lake at the end of 

 July, 1913. It measures two feet and nine inches in length. The specimen is of a 

 somewhat ( ' shining golden colour ' ' as described by Rüssel , though some of the later 

 writers disputed the correctness of his description. 



Hamilton Buchanan's specimen was probably a young one— hence his conclusion 

 that the fish grew only to eighteen inches or two feet in length, the difference of colour 

 being probably also due to difference in age. Other slight inaccuracies in his descrip- 

 tion were due to his not having his original drawings with him at the time of 

 writing. He had left them behind in India along with others. Plate XXIX of the one 



