OCR Text |
Show 746 SURGEON F. DAY ON BUCHANAN'S [NOV. 18, of Bloch." Further remarks seem to me unnecessary ; Buchanan's C. chagunio* and C. kunta are evidently the same fish. Before passing on to the next species there is another remark of Dr. Giinther's I must reply to, viz.:-"it requires but slight acquaintance with Hamilton Buchanan's works 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 statementf to the contrary is to me quite incomprehensible ; he needed only to compare Buchanan's descriptions with the plates" (P. Z. S. Dec. 5th, 1871). Again, "the only case which shows some obscurity is that of C. dero." I will now put this nearly unqualified assertion to the proof, giving the dorsal rays as recorded by Hamilton Buchanan in his 'Index Methodicus,' and by Dr. Giinther in his 'Catalogue of Fishes ;' for if Buchanan always counted (except in one solitary instance) as does Dr. Giinther, the numbers should be identical. Pimelodus silondia,H. B., D. jj; Gunther, D. T. P.pangasius, H. B., D.f ;G., D.f P. rita,H. B., D. f; G.,D.£. P. gagora, H.B., D. f; G., D. T. P. sagor, H. B., D. | ; G., D. T. P. arius, H. B., D. |; G., D. -)-. P. jatius, H.~B., D. £. P. nenga, H. B., D. f. P.sona, H. B., D. |. P. rama, H. B., D. |. P. tengana, H. B., D. £; G., D. T. I need not increase this list; even the last species had not apparently been seen by Dr. Gunther ; but so satisfied must he have become that Hamilton Buchanan had counted the last dorsal ray split to the root as 2, not as 1, that he altered the figures from 8 to 7, and, I am convinced, correctly so ; he also changed them in P. batasio from D. |, H. B., to D. y. This increasing of the number of the dorsal rays by Hamilton Buchanan may be seen in P. telchitta, P. bagarius, P. nangra, P. murius, P. gagata, P. gulio, P. menoda, P. cavasius, and P. aor. Surely the foregoing twenty-two instances out of thirty-two consecutive species are sufficient to prove that Hamilton Buchanan frequently counted the last ray of the dorsal fin split to its base as two, although " but a slight acquaintance'" with his writings might lead one to consider he counted them as one. But Dr. Buchanan, besides sometimes counting the last dorsal ray divided to its base as two, occasionally decreased the number, as may be seen in Cyprinus cachius, C. sophore, C. ticto, C. chola, C. con-chonius, &c. Consequently it must be admitted that in numbering these rays he was not always very precise. After this, remarks on C. bata, H. B., are unnecessary. In his Ronggopur list he observes that Cyprinus cocsa was considered by the fishermen the male of C. barila, and C. chedra apparently the male of G. chedrio, but that he considered them distinct species. * The native name Chaguni, employed in the ' Fishes of the Ganges,' finds no place in the M S . notes ; but this is by no means a solitary instance. However, in the M S . notes the Kunta is the only fish likened to the C. curmuca; and in the ' Fishes of the Ganges' the Chagunio is the only fish compared to the Curmuca, whilst Kunta and Chagunio are both on the same drawing ; the first name is only found in the M S . notes, the second only in the published work. t It would have been more strictly accurate had I said " often " or " frequently." |