OCR Text |
Show 1871.] SURGEON F. DAY ON INDIAN FISHES. 635 for 1869 has been disputed by Dr. Giinther. Premising that it has never been my wish to defend any determination of species whenever their incorrectness becomes apparent, still I consider it but reasonable to show m y correctness when it has been erroneously called into question. SERRANUS LANCEOLATUS. S. horridus, C. et V. It is unfortunate that the drift of m y observations, made in the P. Z. S. 1869, p. 512, have been so misunderstood by the Recorder, m y intention having been to show that Blyth's Serrani which he considered to exhibit the adult livery were identical with what I likewise held to be the mature form, both of us having arrived at the same conclusion from distinct sets of specimens, collected in different localities. I consequently held that my original statements had been erroneously called into question in the • Fishes of Zanzibar.' The presence or absence of csecopyloric appendages is entirely a secondary consideration, apart from the main one, which is, Are Mr. Blyth's species and mine identical or not! And I most distinctly showed them to be so. Genus EUTROPIICHTHYS. Dr. Giinther states, in the ** Record,' that I have " thought proper to create the impression as if the Recorder had overlooked those teeth," viz. those on the palate, m y remark being his own words, in inverted commas, thus, " no teeth on the palate;" and Dr. Giinther in his article continues that, " having received an example from Colonel Playfair some years ago, the Recorder has found the palatine teeth." Where was this fact recorded! He remarks, "Mr. Day was well aware that no specimens were available for examination at the time when the generic diagnosis was compiled." This, however, is also an error, as I knew nothing respecting the various collections of fishes Dr. Gunther had examined. PSEUDEUTROPIUS TAAKRE, Sykes. I identified Hypophthalmus taakree as Pseudeutropius, to which Dr. Gunther demurs, observing, " The position of the barbels in the figure given by Sykes indicates a Eutropius, and not a Pseudeutropius, a circumstance left unexplained by Mr. Day." However, Sykes has published no figure showing the inferior surface of the head in this fish, but merely a side view (Trans. Zool. Soc. ii. pl. 64, f. 4), from which I question whether any one could decide whether the barbels are or are not in a transverse line. Sykes says "they are arranged two and two;" but as they exist in pairs on either side of the chin, this statement gives no assistance at arriving at the true facts. However, I think, all this can be explained. Sykes described two species of Hypophthalmus, H. taakree and H. goongwaree, and placed his typical specimens in the collection of the Zoological Society, |