42 
W. Theobald —Karshapanci Coinage. 
[No. 2, 
enough neither fox nor goat is included by Thomas in his Plate by 
name, though neither are rare on the coins, while so far as I am aware 
the ‘ Panther ’ is never represented. As from an examination of good 
specimens of these three figures regarded by Thomas as representing 
“ the Panther of Bacchus “ with his vine ” (p. 59, Num.-Orient.) it is 
certain that the animal was provided with straight horns, the Panther 
must also be struck out of the animals which occur on the coins. The 
“ vine ” is there, but the animal has horns, and is really a goat. 
The next instance of erroneous identification to be recorded is from 
the Catalogue of Coins of the Indian Museum by Mr. Rodgers. Here 
No. 7532 figured on PI. II, fig. 1, is described as a horseman. Now 
neither horse nor horseman occur on any early Punch-marked silver 
coins, and the figure in question can be easily identified from the Plate 
as a humped Bull to the right with a Taurine in front of it, identical 
with No. 29, fig. 16, of my former paper, or No. 12 of my present list.. 
A similar figure to the last on No. 7542, PI. II, fig. 2 is also misnamed 
an elephant, which is the more curious as on both the above figures the 
hump is distinctly visible. Another rather amusing mistake is made 
with No. 7544, PI. II, fig 3, where the common symbol of a peacock 
perched on a ‘ Stupa’ is described as a very small horse : The import¬ 
ance of correcting such an error lies in the fact that the horse is an 
animal wholly absent (so far as I know) from these coins. On Nos. 
7539, 7543 and 7545, a ‘ deer’ is recorded, but as no figures are given, 
1 am unable to suggest the correct attribution, though ‘ deer ’ I am 
confident is wrong. 
Lastly, I must not permit any personal considerations preventing 
my inserting my own name among my illustrious predecessors in error, 
and I must, therefore, declare that my identification of the gangetic 
crocodile seizing a ‘ liilsa ’ was an error, which a reference to the 
original drawing of Walter Elliot’s fig. 24 has enabled me to correct. 
In N.O. fig. 7 the tail of neither animal is given, but in the figure of 
Walter Elliot the bifurcated tail of a fish is clearly seen and hence I 
conclude a porpoise (Platanista) is intended, and I presume when the 
chance offers, a porpoise eats fish, as well as the crocodile. The 
incident was moreover long anterior to Buddhism and is made use of 
in Hesiod’s description of the ‘ Shield of Herackles.’ 
A SEA VIEW. 
“ There was seen of mighty Ocean, safely fenced a spacious bay, 
“ All of purest tin its waters, smooth, as though a river, lay : 
“ Many a dolphin there was sporting, there was chasing shoals of fish, 
“ Which for safety fled before them, some on that side, some on this ; 
