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



Whether this is Sykes' species is of course doubtful, as he has not (so 

 far as I know) left any figure of it, but the resemblance, considering these 

 specimens came from the Dakhin (Deccan), is sufficiently strong to avoid 

 giving another name. Sykes states A. 6, but I conclude he may have counted 

 the two first undivided ones as one. 



*ClKKRTNA KOSTBATA. 

 Crossochilus rostratus, Giinther, Catal. vii, p. 72, and Zool. Record, 1870, p. 135. 



B. Ill, D. 11, A. 7, L. 1. 38, L. tr. 5ty7. 



The height of the body is somewhat more than the length of the head, 

 which is one-fifth of the total without the caudal. Eyes, diameter 2/7 of 

 length of head, and situated somewhat behind • its middle. Snout conical, 

 long, and much protruding beyond the mouth. Barbels two, rostral, shorter 

 than the eye. Fins, origin of dorsal considerably in advance of that of the 

 ventral, and midway between the end of the snout and the posterior end of 

 the anal fin ; pectoral a little longer than the head, terminating at a great 

 distance from the ventrals. ' Scales, 4 rows between lateral fine and ventral 

 fin. Colours, a black spot (composed of about four smaller spots) on the 

 fifth and sixth scales of the lateral line. 



Hal. — Cossye river, from which a single specimen 4 inches long has 

 been obtained. 



Dr. Griinther (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 762) appears surprised at my 

 not having perceived the difference between this species and C. lata from 

 his first description (Catal. vii, p. 72) ; his definition there of genus Crosso- 

 chilus, p. 71, gives l: Barbels two or four : if two, the upper only are present." 

 C. bata having only two and those the lower or maxillary ones, seemed to 

 show that some inaccuracy existed in the definition of the genus ; whilst in 

 the text of C. rostratus all that is said about these appendages, is — ■" Two 

 barbels only, shorter than the eye," without stating whether they are rostral 

 or maxillary, otherwise the description agreed pretty fairly with C. bata 

 which came from the same locality. Subsequently in the Zool. Record. 1. 

 c. he states that C. rostratus " has a pair of upper barbels only, but no maxil- 

 lary barbels," thus clearing up this point. I have stated this much because 

 Dr. G-iinther in the Pro. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 762 asks : " Will Mr. Day 

 point out where I have given this second description, or whether I have 

 added one iota to my original description in 1868 ?"* This date I conclude 



* As some time must elapse before my Siluroids find a place in the Journal, I pro- 

 prose offering a few remarks upon Pseudeutropius taakree, Sykes. Dr. Giintlier in 

 the Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871 in remarking on my having been mistaken in considering the 

 skin of this fish, received from the Zool. Soc. as being one of Col. Sykes' types of his 

 paper, states, the registry does not give his name as a donor once, and of the East 

 Indian Museum " although I searched carefully that Museum (before and after the 



