| OCR Text |
Show 762 DR. A. GUNTHER ON INDIAN FISHES. [Dec. 5, terested in the matter have only to consult what has been written upon it, and then can judge for themselves whether I have misunderstood Mr. Day (which I deny), or whether it is not rather he who has repeatedly misrepresented the author of the ' Catalogue of Fishes' *. But there are other remarks, in which Mr. Day has brought forward fresh facts which, in the interest of truth, must be examined; and being based upon materials in the British Museum, they require notice on my part. They are the following:- 1. Is the type of Pseudeutropius longimanus (Gthr.) one of Colonel Sykes's specimens of Hypophthalmus taakree? Mr. Day says :-" Sykes described two species of Hypophthalmus, the taakree and goongwaree, and placed his typical specimens iu the collection of the Zoological Society, which was subsequently transferred to the British Museum. Neither of Sykes's typical specimens, however, finds a place in the ' Catalogue of Fishes in the British Museum.' Having been courteously permittedf by Dr. Giinther, in 1870, to examine Pseudeutropius longimanus, Gunther (stated in the Catalogue to be * a. Skiu, 6 inches long : not good state. India. From the Collection of the Zoological Society'), I was surprised to find it teas one of Sykes's specimens, a fact overlooked when the • Catalogue ' was compiled. Attached to it was the following label:- '940. Zool. Soc.,' and 'Hypophthalmus goongwaree (13-6-/57),' evidently a transposition of labels from the H. taakree." It would seem, at first, almost incredible that this elaborate statement of Mr. Day proceeds entirely from his own imagination and is wholly fallacious. * Take, for instance, a case from Mr. Day's recent " remarks." He had stated in Proc. Zool. Soc. 1869, p. 371, that Crossochilus rostratus (Gthr.) was identical with Cyprinus bata (H. B ) ; and I set him right on this point in the ' Eecord ' for that year in the words quoted by Mr. Day. But, instead of frankly admitting that he had been mistaken in the matter, he states: " As regards Crossochilus rostratus, Gunther, from the description as now given, it appears to resemble B. bata, H . B., excepting in having a pair of rostral instead of a pair of maxillary barbels." The italics are m y own. N o w will M r . Day point out where I have given this second description, or whether I have added one iota to m y original description in 1868 ? and is it not apparent that he intended to convey an erroneous idea to those of his readers who are not acquainted with the details of the history of the fish (for he could scarcely hope that I would accept such an answer), viz. the idea that it was only by the " description as now given " that he was enabled to perceive the difference between the two fishes? In the first instance, M r . D a y gave as one of the reasons for identifying these two fishes, having found some of his specimens of C. bata (?) in the Cossye river, whence the Crossochilus rostratus in the British Museum was obtained. This is certainly a point for consideration, but too much weight should not be laid upon it. N o doubt Mr. Day, on a visit to a locality, employs every means to collect as many fishes as possible; but it were an illusion to think that he has obtained during a temporary stay all the fishes or even the greater part of the species noticed by previous visitors or residents. t I accept this as a complimentary remark, but must observe that none of the employes of the Trustees of the British Museum have the power of permitting or denying access to the collections to a student of natural history. |
