1872.] 
323 
F. Day — Monograph of Indian Cgprinidce. 
is only another inaccuracy, as Yol. vii of the Catalogue is dated November 
1st, 1867, and contains the description I have adverted to. 
Genus. Scaphiodon, Heckel. 
Capoeta, sp. Chondrostoma, sp. Cuv. and Val. 
Dillonia and Gymnost-omus, sp. Keck el. 
Abdomen rounded , snout rounded ; mouth transverse, inferior, having the 
mandibular edge nearly straight and sharp), the mandibles angularly bent in- 
wards. A horny layer inside the lower jaw, which last is not covered by lip. 
JVo lower labial fold. Barbels four, two, or absent. Pharyngeal teeth com- 
pressed, truncated, 5 or 4, 3, 2/2, 3, 4 or 5. Dorsal Jin of moderate extent (up 
to about ten branched rays'), its last undivided ray being osseous and serrated, 
or else articulated ; anal rather short. Scales large, of moderate or small 
transfer of its fish collection to the British Museum) for types of Colonel Sykes’s paper 
X failed to discover them,” 
In the Catalogue of the fishes of the British Museum, by Dr. Gunther, Yol. v, p. 46, 
is “ a. b. eight and a half to nine and a half inches long. Dukliun. From Colonel Sykes’s 
collection, types of Schilbe pdbo, Sykes.” At p. 76, uudor Maeroncs cavasius is a specimen 
“ from the collection of Colonel Sykes” about the same size as his published figure. At 
page 187 under Glyptnstemnm lonah is “ a. Type of the species from the collection of Col. 
Sykes.” Thus in the Catalogue of the fishes of the British Museum the possession of 
some of Sykes’ types is assortod, but where they came from I believe is not known ; Col. 
Sykes’s name is not referred to, that I see, when the collections in E. I. Co. Museum are 
mentioned, though Cantor’s, Griffith’s and McClelland’s are. Still it seoms that I was 
mistaken in considering this skin as one from the collection of the Zoological Society, 
whose donor’s name was omitted from tho Catalogue, and which had on it a label with 
one of Col. Sykes’s names, as being one of his types. 
Kespocting my being assisted, as Dr. Giinthor more than insinuates, in determin. 
ing the species by his having erroneously (as he believes) written P. taakree on the 
bottle, a slight reference to dates again disposes of this. My first inspection of this 
skin was in 1870, whilst in the Proo. Zool. Soc. 1869, p. 617, I observed whon writing 
from Barma — “ The Psendeutrapius taakree, Sykes, or P. bngimanus, Gunther, . is to- 
lerably abundant in the Irrawadi and its branches.” Since thon I have received 
it from Puna in the Dakhin (Deccan). 
Lastly Dr. Gunther states the skin which is 6 inches long (Sykes’s figure is 5 T ’j.) 
“ had been presented with othors to the Society by Mr. Willie in 1834, — that is five 
(four ?) years before Col. Sykes communicated his papor to the Zoological Society.” 
To complete this observation, I may continue that Col. Sykos loft India in 1831, and 
though tho “ fishes of the Dekhun” wore published in 1841, he expressly observes in 
a note, that “ although the preceding details respecting the fishes of the Dekhun were 
comprised in a report to tho Court of Directors of the East India Company in June, 
1831, they were only communicated to the Zoological Society on the 27th November, 
1838.” Thus the Zoological Sooiety obtained the specimen (Pimelodus vacUa as regis- 
tered, not very closely resembling a Pseudeutropius') three years after Col. Sykes re- 
turned to Europe and subsequent to the timo when his manuscript had been complet- 
ed and given to the E. I. Company. 
