OCR Text |
Show 512 SURGEON F. DAY O N INDIAN FISHES. [NOV. 11, to Buchanan-Hamilton's original drawings, I am enabled to lay results of some of my investigations before the Zoological Society. The collection of fishes is extensive and exceedingly interesting. Its nucleus was formed by the Asiatic Society of Bengal; while amongst the contributors to it were Dr. M'Clelland, and more especially Mr. Blyth, most of whose type specimens I have thus had the opportunity of examining. It is not unlikely that some few of the fishes, such as the Barbus sophore, may have been derived from Buchanan- Hamilton's collection-my reason for asserting this being that the specimen is evidently very old, whilst the species was never, I believe, recognized by M'Clelland or Blyth. The typical collection presented to the British Museum by Mr. Waterhouse does not appear to have possessed it. In the following paper I have described some species said to be "insufficiently known," as well as others which appear to be new. SERRANUS LANCEOLATUS, Bloch. Serranus horridus, C. & V. In the 'Proceedings of the Zoological Society,' 1865, p. 6, and again in my ' Fishes of Malabar,' p. 4, and plate 1. figs. 1 & 2, I gave my opinion that the adult form of this species is identical with that termed S. horridus, C. & V. Dr. Giinther, however, in the ' Fishes of Zanzibar,' p. 4, holds a different opinion, and observes :-" Mr. Blyth was the first to refer lanceolatus as a synonym to another species, namely S. coides, H. B. (-S. serillus, C. & V.) (J. A. S. Bengal, xxix. p. 111). Mr. Day, without referring to this paper, also represents lanceolatus as a young Serranus, but takes it to be that of horridus, K. & v. H. We may remark at once, to judge from the figure given bv Mr. Day, that this appears rather improbable, and he does not explain, or even notice *, the difference in the length of the dosarl spines in the two fishes; " and concludes by remarking, "we do not venture to say what the species stated by Mr. Day to be the old state of the lanceolatus may prove to be" (p. 5). Had a name been given, it would, in my opinion, only have added one more synonym to tbe S. lanceolatus. I overlooked the note of Mr. Blyth thus referred to, until after my work had been printed. To find short remarks on species in a work destitute of an index is always difficult. Thus Dr. Giinther, in vol. iii. of his catalogue, dated July 1861, places the three following species of Mr. Blyth amongst his doubtful ones- Gobius breviceps, Blyth, Periophthalmus fuscatus, Blyth, and Salarias olivaceus, Blyth ; but in the year 1860 Mr. Blyth had already stated them to be' Gobius albopunctatus, C. & V., Periophthalmus papilio, Bl. Schn., and Salarias lineatus, C. & V. (J. A. S. Bengal, xxix. pp. Ill, 147, 111). I only mention these instances to show how the most accurate observers may overlook casual remarks. * Dr. Gunther has overlooked the following observation I made at p. 5 in the * Fishes of Malabar':-" In young specimens the proportionate height of the dorsal spines (as in some other Serrani) is greater than in the adult." |