1872.] 
321 
F. Day — Monograph of Indian Cyprmidts. 
It may perhaps he regretted that an addition has been made to the 
original figure, by numbers 1 — 10 having been added above the branched 
rays. Number 10, it will be perceived in the drawing, is not divided to the 
root, consequently if 9 and 10 sprang from one common root, the fish would 
agree with the species I have described in its native name, its description, 
its figure and the locality it inhabits ; whereas such a fish with 10 branched 
rays, the last divided to its root, has not been collected, so far as I am aware. 
Still as the species is very largely domesticated, such a variety doubtless 
might easily occur. 
Finally I may observe that, although Dr. Gunther appears so decidedly 
of opinion that my fish with 11 dorsal rays cannot be H. B.’s C. lata, the 
following occurs in the Catalogue of Fishes of the British Museum, vii, 
p. 35. “ 5. Cyprinus bata, Ilam. Buch., p. 283 ; ? = Cyprinus acra, Ham. 
Buck., p. 281 ; = Cyprinus cura, Ham. Bitch., p. 284.” In Hamilton 
Buchanan’s work he gives the number of rays of the dorsal fins of these 
species thus. O. lata, D. 12, C acra, D. 11, O. cura, D, 12, and the species 
C. acra, with D. 11, and C. cura, with D. 12, are set down as identical even 
by Dr. Gunther, whilst Hamilton Buchanan observes that the O. acra, “ has 
the utmost resemblance to the Bata',' and the C. cura is another fish nearly 
allied to the Bata. McClelland, Ind. Cyp. J. A. S. of B. 1839, p. 356, 
observes “ Cyprinus acra, Buch., is also said to have the upper lobe of the 
caudal longer than the lower, but it has only eleven rays in the fin of the 
back ; now whether a species can be said to have eleven or twelve rays in 
the dorsal depends entirety on the degree to which the last ray is separated 
or divided, which in this group it always is, more or less ; there can, there- 
fore, be little doubt the Cyprinus lata and Cyprinus acra arc the same 
species.” Thus agreeing with McClelland who considered these fish identi- 
cal, and Dr. Gunther who supposed them to be so, I have taken Buchanan’s 
first specific name lata instead of his second acra, and which I see no reason 
for altering. 
C l Hit IIIS A FULUNGEIi. 
Chondrostoma fulungee, ? Sykes, T. Z. S. ii, p. 358. 
Gynmostomus fulunijee, •UuntliGi 1 , Catal. vii, p. 76. 
B. Ill, D. 2/S, P. 15, V. 9, A. 2/5, C. 19, L. 1. 44, L. tr. 8/9. 
Length of head 1/6, of caudal 1/5, height of body 1/5 of the total 
length. Byes, diameter 1/4 of length of head, 1 diameter from end of snout. 
Dorsal and abdominal profiles equally convex. Snout overhangs the mouth, 
a few pores upon it. Lips smooth. Barbels, a pair of short rostral, but no 
maxillary ones. Scales, 6J rows between the lateral line and the base of the 
ventral fin. Colours silvery, edges of scales darkest ; fins stained. 
Hal. — Puna, growing to 6 inches in length. 
40 
