February i, 1889.] THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
HAVE WE THE TRUE MASHEER IN 
CEYLON, OR ONLY A MISERABLE 
PRETENDER ? 
It would seem as if the controversy as to the 
existence of the true mahseer in Ceylon would pass 
into the interminable. Some people are inclined to 
charge the Ceylon representative of the giant 
freshwater lash of India with having more than 
a set of teeth in his throat. That he is 
not " the real Simon Pure" Mr. Jeffries of 
Gangaruwa is certain ; for, so far from being a 
pure fish, Mr. Jeffries has told Mr. Haly 
of the Museum, that "psychologically (sic I) the 
Ceylon fish is dull and heavy, giving little or no 
spoit " (thus failing, of course, to meet the main 
purpose of its existence), and worbe still for those 
who care for good fish more than they care for 
sport, it is as deficient gastronomically as it is 
psychologically, its flesh is dangerous, being at 
times very poisonous 1 If this is the normal 
character of the mahseer, und not an aberrant 
condition, dependent on the food eaten by the 
fish (poisouous blossoms and fruits), Mr. Le Me- 
surier is surely acting &a a very questionable benefac- 
tor to Ceylon in the earnest attempts he is making 
to propagate this stupid, insipid, dangerous and at 
times very poisonous fish 1 Mr. Le .Mesurier it was 
who first sent epecimons from Bintenua, which Mr. 
Haly says he at onoe identified as Barbus tor (the 
true mahseer), as he recorded in his report for 
18o7. Notwithstanding this, an Indian visitor was 
very sceptical ;- naturally enough if Mr. Jeffries has 
given our fish a true character as neither good to 
angle for nor pleasant to eat. So, according to cor- 
respondency in the looal " Times," Mr. H. Mac- 
Leod supplied the sccptioal Indian with specimens 
from the Mohaweliganga, which Mr. W. L. Sclater 
of the Caloutta Museum identified as Barbus 
lonijupinis, so closely allied to Barbus tor that " for 
all practical purposes the mahseer may be said to 
exist in Coylon." but what comfort does this afford 
to auglurs or gourmands while Mr. Jeffries cries : — 
" Poisonous fish I" Mr. Haly accepts Mr. Jeffries' 
condemnatory judgment with respect, but our 
Museum Director vehemently scoffs at synonym- 
mongerd and subdividers of species, as altogether 
fishy without tho merit of freshness. Listen : — 
"Synonouiy in Zoology too often ropro.icuU titber 
the carelessness or ambition of authors, tho want of 
proper comp&ri on with previously identified ipexii- 
mens, or the desire of seeing ouo's uuuie attached to a 
I")" species ; but this is not tho casu with Barbus 
tor : to a great extent the names under which this 
specie* has been described really do express observed 
dilKrcncu. ll you follow L)r. Day you will consider 
that the Mahseer is a fish of wide range, living under 
very different conditions, and const quently aubj' ct to 
great variations. If on the other hand you are not 
disposed to acc< pt authority, you may divide tbespecb 8 
into six or even eight, or you may consider th< m 
merely sub-species, or you may make two or three 
species with sub-species or varieties under them. 
The openings for heterodox opinions are almost un- 
limited. 
" In Barbus tor the lips are lobed ; in some in- 
dividuals they are very fleshy indeed. When this 
character tends to become obsolete, as it does in fish 
living in gravelly streams, it is very difficult to dis- 
til guish thorn from the common Kolaui Barbel barbus 
hexastichus. " 
In view of all this, it is of importance to know 
what species, sub-species, or variety, Mr. Le Mesurier 
is taking out of the Kotmaleganga and distribu- 
ting : Barbus tor, B. longispinis, or — B. hexastichus 1 
But more important even than niceties of classifi- 
cation are the questions of character. Is it only in 
that portion of the Mahaweliganga which runs 
through the valley of Dumbara and the lower country 
generally, from Bintenna down to the splitting 
asunder of the great river near Trincomalee, 
that the mahseer is dull in disposition and 
" fusionless " in flesh ? If so, are the un- 
favourable characteristics owing to soil, or climate, 
each affecting the water, or, more probably to the 
prevalence of trees on the banks which drop 
blossoms and fruits of a narcotic nature and 
which blossoms and fruits the fishes feed 
on, and so become inert in disposition and 
unwholesome in tissue? Are the upper afflu- 
ents of the Mahaweliganga, which run through 
Nuwara Eliya, Dimbula, Kotmale, Maskeliya, Dik- 
oya, and Ambagamuwa, free from such influences, 
and is the mahseer in those regions lively 
on the rod and pleasant in the pot ? Mr. 
Le Mesurier and other disciples of Isaak Walton 
ought to be able to tell us something to 
our advantage in reply to such questions, or the 
wider a berth we give to mahseer the better. It is 
Burely curious that freshwater fi=h in Cejlon should 
generally be so questionable ; partaking of it so 
frequently followed with unpleasant effeots. The 
only marked exception is the luld (mahseer is 
MM), which seems to be good always and at all 
seasons. 
Once again we are induced to suggest that the 
Madras Government bo asked to allow the great 
pisoatorial authority, tho Hon. Mr. Thomas, to 
extend his inquiry regarding the freshwater fish 
and fisheries of Southern India, so as to embrace 
tho neighbouring island of Ceylon. Why should 
flahofl winch are wholesome iu Southern India 
bo poisonous in Ceylou ? 
