320 
F. Day — Monograph of Indian Oyprinidee. [No. 4, 
from the end of the snout. Interorbital space nearly flat. Snout rounded, 
covered with glands and having a deep groove extending across it from eye 
to eye. Mouth transverse, inferior. Mandibles sharp not enveloped in lip, 
and having a tbiu horny covering. Lips entire. Barbels, a pair of very short 
maxillary. Fins, dorsal commences midway between the end of the snout, 
and the posterior extremity of the base of the anal, its third undivided ray 
weak, fin rather higher than the body. • Pectoral as long as the head with- 
out the snout, not reaching the ventrals, which last arise under the middle 
of the dorsal. Lateral line nearly straight, 6^ rows of scales between it 
and the base of the ventral fin. Colours silvery with a reddish tinge, the 
bases of the scales the darkest, fins red. 
Sab. — Sind Hills, attaining 8 inches in length. 
Although this fish is evidently a Cirrhina, as seen by the position of 
its ventral fins, still the horny covering to its lower jaw is remarkable. 
ClEBHIFA BATA, H. B. 
Day, J. A. S. of Beng, 1871, p. 140. 
Cyprinus bata, H. Buoh., is said to be “ found in the rivers and ponds of 
Bengal” (H. B.), its native name is given as bata. From the same loca- 
lities and called by the same name ‘ bata' I obtained numerous specimens 
of a fish agreeing in nearly every respect with H. B.’s description and a 
figure which still exists amongst his MS. drawings ; the only exception 
being that the drawing gives 12 dorsal rays instead of 11, whilst the text 
states “ the last of them being divided to the root,” which division to the 
root is not shown in the last ray in the original drawing. To me (but I 
do not assert that I cannot be mistaken) it appears that the artist has sepa- 
rated the bases of the last two rays which should be shown as arising from 
one common root. Were this so in the drawing, the figure and the descrip- 
tion would agree with my specimens (see Proe. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 636). 
Whilst seeing no reason for changing my views, I think it but fair to 
give Dr. Gunther’s opinion that “ Hamilton Buchanan’s fish has more than 
nine branched rays, (Zool. Record, 1870, p. 135). “ The words of Hamilton 
Buchanan that this fish has “ twelve rays in the fin of the back” “the 
first” and “ second” being “ undivided, the others are branched, the last of 
them being divided to the root” have always conveyed to my mind the idea 
that this fish was described as clearly as possible as a fish with 10 branched 
dorsal rays.” # * “ Finally to set the matter beyond further dispute also 
with regard to the C. bata, I give (p. 765) an exact tracing of Hamilton 
Buchanan’s MS. drawing of this fish, in which the ten separate branched 
dorsal rays are as clearly shown as could well be done.” (Proc. Zool. Soc. 
1871, p. 764). 
