IX THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM. 
21 
posterior."* The latter character, which is exactly opposed to fact, 
Valenciennes thought so highly of that he remarks "This arrange- 
ment appears to me to be characteristic of this species. "f The 
single character on the strength of which Day separates M. subviriclis 
from M. dussumieri, namely, the absence or presence of teeth in the 
upper jaw, is, we consider, valueless, since we have found it equally 
variable in our 31. georgii; consequently the correct name bv which 
the species should be known is Mugil sitbviridis. Day, furthermore, 
places in the synonymy of M. dussumieri, both 31. subviridis 
Grtinther and M. nepalensis Giintber ; ' as regards the latter species 
we are quite in accord with the author of the " Fishes of India," but 
we must join issue with him as to the former. Throughout his whole 
classification of the family Giinther very properly lays great stress 
on the number of soft anal rays as a valuable character in the 
differentiation of the species ; now, having a Madras example before 
him, he unhesitatingly records it as having but eight soft rays ; it 
cannot, therefore, be identical with 31. dussumieri, which, like his 
own 31. nepalensis, has nine; and since Day, after examining the 
types, assures us that each of the two Cuvierian species have also 
nine, it follows that it cannot be either of them ; there are besides 
other differential characters between the two species. For instance 
in Griinther's fish the mouth is much wider, both adipose eyelids are 
well developed, the outer edge of the preorbital is apparently smooth, 
the spinous dorsal is inserted further back above the eleventh body 
scale ; the caudal peduncle is deeper, the pectoral fin shorter, &c. 
The mullet, therefore, described by Giinther is at present without a 
name and might with propriety be separated as Mugil alcochi 1 in 
commemoration of the splendid work accomplished by the present 
Superintendent of the Indian Museum. J Our species, which is the 
* "Le museau est comprime en coin ; le sous-orbitaire est carene, plie 
sur lui-meme ; au-devant de l'oeil, on voit une peau epaisse adipeuse, qui ne 
s'avance > pas assez sur cet organe pour lui servir de voile : il y a aussi un peu 
d'adiposite pres de Fautre angle." 
f " Cette disposition me parait caracteristique dans cette espece." 
X The synonymy of the two Indian fishes should then be as follows : — 
1. MUGIL SUBVIRIDIS. 
Mugil subviridis Cuvier & Valenciennes, Hist. Nat. Poiss., xi, p. 115, 1836 : 
Pondicherry ; River Ganges— Day, Fish. India, p. 353, 1876. 
Mugil dussumieri Cuvier & Valenciennes, ibid., p. 147, 1836: Bombay — Day, 
Fish. India, p. 352, pi. lxxiv, fig. 4, 1876 : Seas of India, entering fresh 
water ; River Hooghly. 
Mugil nepalensis Giinther, B.M. Catal. Fish., iii, p. 424, 1861: Fresh waters of 
Nepal. 
2. MUGIL ALCOCKI. 
Mugil subviridis Giinther, B.M. Catal. Fish., iii, p. 423, 1861 : Madras— Day, 
Fish. Malabar, p. 138, 1865. Not of Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836. 
