322 F. Day — Monograph of Indian Cyprinidce. [No. 4, 
Whether this is Sykes’ species is of course doubtful, as he has not (so 
far as I know) left any figure of it, but the resemblance, considering these 
specimens came from the Dakliin (Deccan), is sufficiently strong to avoid 
giving another name. Sykes states A. 6, but I conclude he may have counted 
the two first undivided ones as one. 
# ClBRnOTA EOSTRATA. 
Crossochilm rostratus, Gunther, Catal. vii, p. 72, and Zool. Record, 1870, p. 135. 
B. Ill, D. 11, A. 7, L. 1. 38, L. tr. 5^/7. 
The height of the body is somewhat more than the length of the head, 
which is one-fifth of the total without the caudal. Eyes, diameter 2/7 of 
length of head, and situated somewhat behind its middle. Snout conical, 
long, and much protruding beyond the mouth. Earhels two, rostral, shorter 
than the eye. Fins, origin of dorsal considerably in advance of that of the 
ventral, and midway between the end of the snout and the posterior end of 
the anal fin ; pectoral a little longer than the head, terminating at a great 
distance from the vehtrals. Scales, 4 rows between lateral line and ventral 
fin. Colours, a black spot (composed of about four smaller spots) on the 
fifth and sixth scales of the lateral line. 
Sah. — Cossye river, from which a single specimen 4 inches long has 
been obtained. 
Dr. Gunther (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 762) appears surprised at my 
not having perceived the difference between this species and C. bata from 
his first description (Catal. vii, p. 72) ; his definition thore of genus Orosso- 
chilus, p. 71, gives “ Barbels two or four : if two, the upper only are present.” 
C. bata having only two and those the lower or maxillary ones, seemed to 
show that some inaccuracy existed in the definition of the genus ; whilst in 
the text of C. rostratus all that is said about these appendages, is — “ Two 
barbels only, shorter than the eye,” without stating whether they are rostral 
or maxillary, otherwise the description agreed pretty fairly with O. bata 
which came from the same locality. Subsequently in the Zool. Record. 1. 
c. he states that C. rostratus “ has a pair of upper barbels only, hut no maxil- 
lary barbels,” thus clearing up this point. I have stated this much because 
Dr. Gunther in tho Pro. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 762 asks : “ Will Mr. Day 
point out where I have given this second description, or whether I have 
added one iota to my original description in 1S68 P” # This date I conclude 
* As some time must elapse before my SHuraids find a place in the Journal, I pro- 
prose offering a few remarks upon Psc-udeutropius taalcne, Sykes. Dr. Giinther in 
the Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871 in remarking on my having been mistaken in considering the 
skin of this fish, received from the Zool. Soc. as being one of Col. Sykes’ types of his 
paper, states, tho registry does not give liis name as a donor once, and of the East 
Indian Museum “although I searched carefully that Museum (boforo and after the 
