OCR Text |
Show 764 DR. A. GUNTHER ON INDIAN FISHES. [Dec. 5, assisted him in determining this example as one of Sykes's specimens of II. taakree. When I examined it for the first time in 1863, I thought it might be the taakree oi Sykes, and wrote this name on the label of the bottle*; but having convinced myself that it was not likely to be this fish, I drew my pen through the name, and wrote below longimanus. 2. Has Cyprinus bata (Ham. Buch.) nine, or ten branched rays in the dorsal fin ! The words of Hamilton Buchanan, that this fish has " twelve rays in the fin of the back," "the first" and " second " being " undivided ; the others are branched, the last of them being divided to the root," have always conveyed to m y mind the idea that this fish was described, as clearly as possible, as a fish with ten branched dorsal rays. Surely no author would count the same ray in one line of the description as two, and in another as one, "the last" being clearly the singular and not the plural form. If " the last" had been meant for two rays, Hamilton Buchanan would have written " the two last" ! However, it requires but slight acquaintance with Hamilton Buchanan's work to see that his rule was to count the last ray (which is generally split to the base) as one, and not as two. Mr. Day's statement to the contrary is to me quite incomprehonsible ; he needed only to compare Buchanan's description with the plates. When we take, for instance, the five species succeeding Cyprinus bata (viz. C. boga, catla, gonius, calbasu, and nandina) and the five preceding it (viz. C. mrigala, dero, cocsa, bacaila, and morar) and compare their descriptions with the figures, we find that Buchanan has invariably counted the ray in question as a single ray. The only case which shows some obscurity is that of C. dero. In C. mrigala Buchanan expressly mentions the number of branched rays in the text; and the description of C. sarana (pp. 307, 309) offers another striking instance, disproving Mr. Day's assertion. Finally, to set the matter beyond further dispute, also with regard to C. bata, I give (see p. 765) an exact tracing of H. Buchanan's M S . drawing of this fish, in which the ten separate branched dorsal rays are as clearly shown as could well be done. 3. What are the relations between Barbus beavani (Gthr.) and Cyprinus chagunio (H. B.) ! Mr. Day states that "amongst Hamilton Buchanan's original drawings exists one of 0. chagunio, and labelled as such." No doubt such a drawing would considerably assist us in answering the question. In the British Museum copy of those drawings (which always was believed to be complete) no such drawing exists, nor any thing approaching Barbus beavani. Therefore I have applied to the Librarian of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for a tracing of the drawing * I preserve all skins of importance in bottles to insure their greater fety. |