1872.] F. Day — Monograph of Indian Cyprmidce. 321 



It may perhaps be regretted that an addition has been made to the 

 original figure, by numbers 1 — 10 having been added above the branched 

 rays. Number 10, it will be perceived in the drawing, is not divided to the 

 root, consequently if 9 and 10 sprang from one common root, the fish would 

 agree with the species I have described in its native name, its description, 

 its figure and the locality it inhabits ; whereas such a fish with 10 branched 

 rays, the last divided to its root, has not been collected, so far as I am aware. 

 Still as the species is very largely domesticated, such a variety doubtless 

 might easily occur. 



Finally I may observe that, although Dr. Gtinther appears so decidedly 

 of opinion that my fish with 11 dorsal rays cannot be H. B.'s C. lata, the 

 following occurs in the Catalogue of Fishes of the British Museum, vii, 

 p. 35. " 5. Cyprinus bata, Ham. Buch., p. 283 ; ? = Cyprinus acra, Sam. 

 JBuch., p. 281 ; = Cyprinus cura, Ham. Buch., p. 284." In Hamilton 

 Buchanan's work he gives the number of rays of the dorsal fins of these 

 species thus. C. bata, D. 12, C. acra, D. 11, G. cura, D. 12, and the species 

 G. acra, with D. 11, and G. cura, with D. 12, are set down as identical even 

 by Dr. Giinther, whilst Hamilton Buchanan observes that the G. acra, " has 

 the utmost resemblance to the Bata," and the O. cura is another fish nearly 

 allied to the Bata. McClelland, Ind. Cyp. J. A. S. of B. 1839, p. 356, 

 observes " Cyprinus acra, Buch., is also said to have the upper lobe of the 

 caudal longer than the lower, but it has only eleven rays in the fin of the 

 back ; now whether a species can be said to have eleven or twelve rays in 

 the dorsal depends entirely on the degree to which the last ray is separated 

 or divided, which in this group it always is, more or less ; there can, there- 

 fore, be little doubt the Cyprinus bata and Cyprinus acra are the same 

 species." Thus agreeing with McClelland who considered these fish identi- 

 cal, and Dr. Griinther who supposed them to be so, I have taken Buchanan's 

 first specific name bata instead of his second acra, and which I see no reason 

 for altering. 



ClRRHESTA EULTJNGEE. 

 Chonclrostoma fulungee, ? Sykes, T. Z. S. ii, p. 358. 

 Gymnostomus fulungee, *Giiiither, Catal. vii, p. 76. 



B. Ill, D. 2/8, P. 15, V. 9, A. 2/5, C. 19, L. 1. II, L. tr. 8/9. 



Length of head 1/6, of caudal 1/5, height of body 1/5 of the total 

 length. Eyes, diameter 1/4 of length of head, 1 diameter from end of snout. 

 Dorsal and abdominal profiles equally convex. Snout overhangs the mouth, 

 a few pores upon it. Lips smooth. Barbels, a pair of short rostral, but no 

 maxillary ones. Scales, 6^ rows between the lateral line and the base of the 

 ventral fin. Colours silvery, edges of scales darkest ; fins stained. 



Hab. — Puna, growing to 6 inches in length. 

 10 



