320 F. Day- — Monograph of Indian Cyprinidce. [No. 4, 



from the end. of the snout. Interorbital space nearly flat. Snout rounded, 

 covered with glands and having a deep groove extending across it from eye 

 to eye. Mouth transverse, inferior. Mandibles sharp not enveloped in lip, 

 and having a thin horny covering. Lips entire. Barbels, a pair of very short 

 maxillary. Fins, dorsal commences midway between the end of the snout, 

 and the posterior extremity of the base of the anal, its third undivided ray 

 weak, fin rather higher than the body. Pectoral as long as the head with- 

 out the snout, not reaching the ventrals, which last arise under the middle 

 of the dorsal. Lateral line nearly straight, 6|- rows, of scales between it 

 and the base of the ventral fin. Colours silvery with a reddish tinge, the 

 bases of the scales the darkest, fins red. 



Hub. — Sind Hills, attaining 8 inches in length. 



Although this fish is evidently a Girrhina, as seen by the position of 

 its ventral fins, still the horny covering to its lower jaw is remarkable. 



ClBRHHSTA BATA, H. B. 



Day, J. A. S. of Beng, 1871, p. 140. 



Cyprinus data, H. Bueh., is said to be " found in the rivers and ponds of 

 Bengal" (H. B.), its native name is given as bata. From the same loca- 

 lities and called by the same name ' bata' I obtained numerous specimens 

 of a fish agreeing in nearly every respect with H. B.'s description and a 

 figure which still exists amongst his MS. drawings ; the only exception 

 being that the drawing gives 12 dorsal rays instead of 11, whilst the text 

 states " the last of them being divided to the root," which division to the 

 root is not shown hi the last ray in the original drawing. To me (but I 

 do not assert that I cannot be mistaken) it appears that the artist has sepa- 

 rated the bases of the last two rays which should be shown as arising from 

 one common root. Were this so in the drawing, the figure and the descrip- 

 tion would agree with my specimens (see Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 636). 



Whilst seeing no reason for changing my views, I think it but fair to 

 give Dr. Gunther's opinion that " Hamilton Buchanan's fish has more than 

 nine branched rays, (Zool. Record, 1870, p. 135). " The words of Hamilton 



Buchanan that this fish has "twelve rays in the fin of the back" " the 



first" and "second" being "undivided, the others are branched, the last of 

 them being divided to the root" have always conveyed to my mind the idea 

 that this fish was described as clearly as possible as a fish with 10 branched 

 dorsal rays." * * " Finally to set the matter beyond further dispute also 

 with regard to the C. bata, I give (p. 765) an exact tracing of Hamilton 

 Buchanan's MS. drawing of this fish, in which the ten separate branched 

 dorsal rays are as clearly shown as could well be done." (Proc. Zool. Soc. 

 1871, p. 764). 



