EDIBLE FISHES OF QVEEXSLAXD.—OGILBY. 
65 
therefore, folloM* them in keeping the speeies separate. It remains, then, to 
discuss the status of the two Vaieneiennean species Caranx para and C, camhon, 
Gunther characteristically evades the responsilhlity l)y relegating them to the 
unattached list, hut Day suggests that they may be identical with (7. kalla, and 
it must he alloAved that an examination of Valenciennes^ descriptions faA^ours 
the suggestion.’^ 
Ixangc: — 8eas of India, China, and Valaj'sia, eastward to the Coast of 
Queensland and perhaj^s to the Solomon Islands j it was also reported to have 
been taken in the Red Sea during th(^ early part of the last century, but there 
has been no subsequent confirmation of the report, which must, therefore, be 
considered doubtful. It is not included in Surgeon-Major Jayakar’s collections 
made at iMaskat, on the Arabian shore of the Gulf of Oman.^’' Nor is it much 
in evidem-e in our home waters, de Vis^ specimen in fact, whieli formed the type 
of his Microi>i( nj.v (pK rnsUntrlue, Ixdng for twenty-six years unicpie; this specimen 
bears all the marks of ISroadhent's collecting, and is, therefore, cei'tain to have 
come from either Cairns or Somerset. In IhlO, the Plndeavour’' was, however, 
so fortunatr* as to come across it on two separate occ-asions during its second trip 
along the Queensland coast; lirstly, off Pine Peak, where 46 examples were 
trawled on mud at a deihh of 25 fathoms, and secondly, in Pdgecumbc Bay, 
the trawl on this occasion acc-ounting for 6 specimens taken on fine sand and 
mud in 14 fathoms. Passing to the north-east Jlacleay recorded it doubtfully 
from the Solomon Islands, hut it is not included in Jordan and Seale's list of 
the Pacific Islands’ Fishes. Turning now to th(‘ w(‘st w(^ are confronted with the 
curious fact that, while the Auicrican collectors found it to he not uncommon at 
the Philippines, mutber Blt*eker nor Cantor ever received it from any part of 
the i\Ialay Archi])elago, tliough the former knew it from Bengal. The British 
i\Iuseum, however, possesses a specumen from Sumatra and another from the 
Aloluccas. b(‘sides several from tin* Chinese Coast. It is generally distributed 
along the eastern shores of India and round Ceylon, but to the westward we 
have no evidence of its presence beyond the .Alalabar Coast. 
As regards the Archipelago the identification of C. para and C. camhon 
with our species at once relieves the situation, for Bleeker claims to have received 
"]f this be I'orvecr the synonymy will have to be amended by the addition of the 
following: — 
Caraiior para Cuvier X- 'N'alenciennes, p. 58; Pleeker, Xederl. Tijds. Dierk., ii, 1865, p. 173; 
Day, Pish. .Malabnr. ,i86.5. ]). 85. 
Caranx i-amhoix Cuvier X Valenciennes, ibid., p. 60; Bleeker, Xat. eii Geneesk. Arch. Ned. 
Ind. ii, 1845, p. 517; id., Verb. Batav. Gen., xxii, 1840, ^Fadura, p. 4; id., ibid., xxiii, 1850, 
IMid. en Oost Java, p. 8. 
Selar para Bleeker, ibid., xxiv, 1852, Makreel., p. 56; id., ibid., xxv, 1853, Bengal, p. 44; 
id., Nat. Tijds. Nederl. Ind., xii, 1856, p. 214; id., ibid., xvi, 1858, p. 407; id., ibid., 
xviii, 1859, p. 367 ; id.. Act. 8oc. Sei. Indo-Neerl., viii, 1860, Sumatra, j). 30 & Celebes, p. 39. 
Type localities: — ^Malabar Coast (C. para); Batavia (C. camhon). 
See Boiilenger, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1887, jip. 653 to 667; ibid., 1889, pj). 236 to 
246, and ibid., 1892, pp. 134 to 136. 
E 
