OCR Text |
Show 1871.] SURGEON F. DAY ON INDIAN FISHES. 637 If the last is divided to the root, some observers, as Hamilton Buchanan and Bleeker, count it as two; others, as Dr. A. Giinther, consider it, and, I believe, correctly so, only one. Of these ten branched rays, H. Buchanan observes, " the last of them being divided to the root." Deducting one from ten, I see no other result possible than nine, or nine branched rays. Turning to the original drawing, in the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, there are only nine branched rays, counting the last divided to its root as one; consequently m y statement was perfectly accurate, whilst Dr. Giinther, failing to determine Hamilton Buchanan's species, which he considered to have ten branched dorsal rays, placed it as a Cirrhina*, thus affording an excellent illustration of the untrustworthi-ness of arbitrarily splitting species into genera, solely because of the existence of nine or ten branched rays in the dorsal fin. As regards Crossochilus rostratus, Giinther, from the description as now given, it appears to resemble Cypr. bata, H. B., excepting in having a pair of rostral instead of a pair of maxillary barbels, the species being defined from a single immature specimen 4 inches in length. Dr. Giinther likewise observes (/. c. p. 136) that, having found Barbus sophore, H. B., in the Calcutta Museum without any label, I had " nevertheless supposed it to be the type of the species, I. c. p. 376." This, however, being inaccurate, may be a misprint; for I do not use the term " type" at all. In the 'Record' (p. 127), Dr. Gunther states that Hamilton Buchanan's "drawings exist in triplicate, one copy being in the British Museum." At p. 136, he continues respecting m y remarks, P. Z. S. 1869, p. 373 :-"Barbus beavani. Mr. Day thinks that this might be Cyprinus chagunio (H. B.), I. c. p. 373 [but a fish described as having large scales and minute barbels is not likely to be B. beavani]." Amongst Hamilton Buchanan's original drawings one of C. chagunio exists, and is labelled as such ; it is 9^ inches in length, and is a very fair representation of the species. The drawing gives forty-one scales along the lateral line, only six less than exist in nature. The rostral barbels are delineated as long as the eye, and the maxillary slightly longer. In the ' Catalogue of Fishes in the British M u seum,' Dr. Gunther placed "! Cyprinus chagunio, Ham. Buch.," as a doubtful synonym of Barbus clavatus, wherein he gives forty-two scales to the lateral line, and " barbels well developed." There are several omissions in the 'Record ;' but on them I do not propose offering any remarks, as they are mostly concerning facts * The genus Crossochilus, as defined by Gunther, has "dorsal fin without osseous ray, with not more than nine branched rays ;" the existence of ten would cause the fish to become a Cirrhina, according to the Catalogue (at least, as this species was erroneously considered to have such, it is under that genus), which, however, is defined as '' dorsal fin without osseous ray, with from thirteen to seventeen rays." N o w if the C. bata had ten branched ones and two unbranched ones, or a total of twelve, I cannot see how it comes to be included in either, as the definition of the genera would have to be altered or a new one created for its reception. |