54 
Memoirs of the Indian Museum. 
[VOL. II, 
but unfortunately only the head and tail were preserved. The teeth of the upper jaw 
measure 28 mm. in transverse diameter, but there is some evidence to show that the 
mouth is relatively smaller in this species than it is in M. nieuhofii. Judging from 
the analogy of the few young examples of M. maculata I have examined in detail, 
the adult specimen (a female) must have measured about 78 cm. across the disk, but 
in making this statement I take it for granted that there is little difference in propor- 
tions between the adult and the young of the species. 
I have not seen any specimen of M . maculata with a superciliary horn,’ or of 
either of the Indian species of the genus with a caudal spine. 
’ Genus Aëtobatis, Müller and Henle, 
This genus is separated from Myliohatis by the character , of the teeth. In all the 
specimens I have seen those of the lower jaw project from the mouth in the form of a 
plate with parallel sides and an obtusely pointed tip. The nasal flap in these specimens 
is deeply emarginate. Day says that the tip of the lower tooth-band is sometimes 
broken off and that the free edge of the nasal flap is then straight as it is in Myliohatis 
[Fishes of India, ii, p. 743), but it is clear from specimens named by him that he confused 
A etohatis guttata with Myliohatis maculata in some cases. 
Great confusion still exists as regards the species of AUohatis. Most recent authors, 
following Günther {Cat. Fishes, viii, p. 492), recognize only one species, namely A. 
narinari ; but at least two distinct forms occur in Indian seas and it is clear that 
neither is the same as the American and African species. 
As regards the last point, there is of course no positive proof that there are not 
two forms (or even more) in the Atlantic Ocean (one or more of which may be rale) 
as there are in the Bay of Bengal. But figures published by Duméril {Arch. Mus., x, 
pi. 20, Paris, 1861) and by Jordan and Everman {Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 47, vol. 
iv, pis. 37 and 38, 1900) represent a species which differs in at least two characters 
namely, the shape of the snout and coloration — from any Indian specimen I have seen. 
Duméril shows, moreover, that the adult of the form he called Aetohatis latirostris, the 
type specimens of which came from the mouth of the Gaboon, does not differ mate- 
rially from the young as regards coloration. 
Jordan, who examined specimens from Florida {Guide to the Study of Fishes, vol. 
fig- 349 ) ^ 9 A 5 ) well as from the West Indies and Mazatlan [Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., 
No. 47, vol. iv, p. 2753) and found no difference between them, decided with Everman 
that this species ” [i.e., Aetohatis laticeps, Gill] is probably not different from 
A . narinari ” . 
There is little doubt that Aetohatis laticeps. Gill, is a synonym of A. latirostris, 
Duméril, while Euprasen [Kong. Svens. Vet. Akad. Nya Handl., xi, p. 218, 1790) says 
regarding the species he described as Ra]a narinari : — “ Habitat in India occidentali, 
juxta Insulas Caribæas, in portu Carenage Insulæ St. Bartholemei.” The figure 
' In a half-grown specimen taken in a seine-net on the beach at Puri in March there is a distinct 
but low rounded eminence on either side just in front of the eye. 
