4^0 Memoirs of the Indian Museum. [Vol V, 



This snake-eel is probably a permanent inhabitant of the main area , only going 

 out to the sea to breed. 



Distribution : — Estuaries of Bengal and the sea of Penang. 



Ophichthus boro (Hamilton Buchanan). 



1822. Ophisurus boro, Hamilton Buchanan, Fish. Gang., pp. 20, 363. 



1822. Ophisurus harancha, Hamilton Buchanan, ibid., pp. 21, 363. 



1845. Ophisurus boro, M'Clelland, Cal. Jonrn. Nat. Hist., V, p. 211, pi. xii, fig. 4. 



1845. Ophisurus caudatus_, M'Clelland, ibid., V, p. 185, pi. xii, fig. 3. 



1849. Ophisurus boro, Cantor, J own. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1849, p. 1304, pi. v, fig. 2. 



1856. Pisoodonophis potamobhdus, Kaup, Cat. Apod. Fish Brit. Mus., p. 20. 



1856. Pisoodonophis boro (in part), Kaup, ibid., p. 17. 



1865. Pisoodonophis boro, Day, Fish. Malabar, p. 248. 



1870. Ophichthvs boro, G'inther, Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus., VIII, p. 77. 



1878. Ophichthys boro (in part). Day, Fish. Ind., p. 664, pi. clxxi, fig. 2. 



1889. Ophichthys boro (in part), Day, Faun. Brit. Ind. Fish., I, p. 94, fig. 41. 



There are four specimens of different sizes in the collection varying from sixteen 

 inches to twenty-five inches, all from the main area of the lake. 



Hamilton Buchanan had three drawings made of the snake-eels of the Bengal 

 estuaries and they are all preserved in the set of his manuscript drawings (plates xxvi 

 to xxviii) which he had to leave behind him in India (p. 443, ante). He however was 

 able to publish the figure of 0. hijala (corresponding to pi. xxvii of the MSS. Draw- 

 ings). Of the remaining two, viz. 0. boro and 0. harancha, reproductions were pub- 

 lished in the year 1834 by Gray/ but that of 0. hijala (pi. xxvii of the MSS. Drawings 

 named thereon as 0. rostrata in ink) was omitted as it had been already published 

 as fig. 5 of pi. v, in the Fishes of the Ganges. The published copies of these illustra- 

 tions were, however, more widely circulated and became better known than the 

 Fishes of the Ginps. 0. h%yanzh%, however, is the same as 0. boro, as was. in a 

 manner, admitted by Hamilton Buchanan, 2 and subsequently also pointed out by 

 Kaup. 3 This was perhaps not fully realized by Gray, who reproduced both the 

 drawings thinking them to be distinct species. In the Fishes of Malabar, Day, follow- 

 ing Kaup, sunk 0. harancha in the synonymy of 0. boro. It is evident from Day's 

 account of 0. boro in this work that he then believed 0. hijala to be quite a dis- 

 tinct species. Günther and others also regarded it as such. In the Fishes of India, 

 however, Day, again following Kaup, stated that 0. hijala, 0. boro and 0. harancha 

 were all one and the same species. In doing this he erroneously sunk the prior name 

 0. hijala for the later name, evidently being misled by Kaup, who mentioned the 

 two names of Hamilton Buchanan in the reverse order — '(probably for the sake of 

 euphony), i.e. " Ophisurus boro et hijala, Ham., Gang. Fish, pp. 20, 21, 363 " — in his 

 note. This reverse order in his note led Kaup also to mistake the later name for the 



1 Illustrations of Indian Zoology from the collection of Major-General Hardwicke by J. E. Gray, Vol. I, 

 pi. xcv, figs. 1 and 2. 



2 The Fishes of the Ganges, p. 21. 



8 Catalogue of Apodal Fishes in the collection of the British Museum, pp. 20, 21. 



