Ichthyology has never been a favourite study with English writers; and of all the branches of natural history it is the most neglected by amateurs and collectors. The difficulty of procuring fishes, and the uninviting appearance they present in general, is, doubtless, the chief cause of this: to wbich may be added the meagre history we are able to procure of their babits and manners.
We can assure the reader, however, that if once he commences the study of the flnny tribe, he will find himself amply repaid by the number and variety of forms he will meet with, and the rich colouring of many; whilst the philosophic naturalist, in his attempts to arrange fishes in their natural order, will find abundant materials to work upon, and a greater individuality of form belonging to each species, than, perhaps, in any other of the vertebrated classes.
We can assure the reader, however, that if once he commences the study of the flnny tribe, he will find himself amply repaid by the number and variety of forms he will meet with, and the rich colouring of many; whilst the philosophic naturalist, in his attempts to arrange fishes in their natural order, will find abundant materials to work upon, and a greater individuality of form belonging to each species, than, perhaps, in any other of the vertebrated classes.
With regard to Indian fishes we have in Russell's two folio volumes but very few fresh water fishes. Cuvier and Valenciennes have, however, described many from the Carnatic and Malabar, of which I have been unable to identify several ; and Hamilton Buchanan in his Fishes of the Ganges, and McLelland, in his valuable paper on the Cyprinidae in the Asiatic Researches, have described a vast number; of which, however, we appear to possess but few in the south of India. Colonel Sykes has given a list of the fresh water fishes of the Deccan, which is very valuable, as it enumerates many new species from the tributaries of the Kistnah and Godavery - a locality which I have not had an opportunity of observing, since I turned my attention to this branch of natural history. His descriptions however are rather brief, and it is impossible to make out his species accurately, without a comparison with allied forms; and I regret much that Valenciennes has not attempted this - nor has he indeed introduced them at all into the great work on fishes of Cuvier himself. I shall notice Sykes' species in their proper place.
My own researches have been, as yet, confined to parts of the Carnatic, of Mysore, and of Malabar, I have obtained, chiefly among the carp, many species apparently new, which I shall briefly describe; and, to make the catalogue more complete, I will introduce all those described by Cuvier and Valenciennes, which I have not met with in a torpid state, till a fresh supply of water calls them into renewed existence.
[ ... ]
Body lengthened, somewhat cylindrical; head broad, depressed, covered with bony plates; muzzle short, obtuse; dorsal fin long; it and the anal destitude of spiny rays.
O. Karouvei, Lacep. , O. lata, Ham. Buch.
Body compressed behind the pectorals; muzzle semi-circular; eyes near the end of the muzzle, D. 3 1, A. 20, V. 1/5. Color dusky green above, whitish beneath, with obscure markings on the back, dorsal, anal, and caudal fins. I have not seen any spotted in the marked manner described by authors. The rays of the dorsal fin are sometimes 30, and those of the anal 21, 22, and 23.
This fish which is the korave of the Tamuls, and the muttah of the Telingas, is exceedingly common in all the sluggish rivers of India, and also in almost every tank, ditch, and well. It is not usually met with longer than 6 or 8 inches, but is said to reach a foot and more. It is very easily taken with a hook baited. with worm, and is said to be good eating.
Head shorter, broader, and more round than the last; ventrals very small, of an uniform dusky green color, lighter beneath; dorsal and caudal fins margined with orange; the former, and pectoral, with a tinge of the same color throughout. A 34, A. 22.
I have found this species most abundant in Mysore, both in rivers and tanks, but it is also found in the Carnatic. I have not seen it longer than 6 inches. The natives apply the same name to it as to the last , which indeed it very closely resembles. 1
Head and cheeks more swollen out than the last. last . D. 35 or 36. A. 22. From Bengal and Mysore, 6 inches long. I have not seen this species myself, to my knowledge at least, for I may have very lazily passed it over. 2
O. chena and C. sola. Ham. Buch.
Head depressed rounded in front, D. 40 to 45, A, 26-27. Colors, (dusky green above, white beneath, with bars of the former color extending into the white of the lower parts. Belly often spotted; fins sometimes uniform in tint, at other times barred and spotted.
This fish is the Kora of the Telingas, and the Varalu of the Tamuls. It abounds in all large rivers and tanks, and is highly es,teemed both by Natives and Europeans, and as it is the only good fish to be procured at many inland stations is much sought after. It attains a large size. I have seen it nearly 3 feet long. It is very voracious, and is easily taken with a frog or small fish as a bait.
Head more compressed than in the others of this genus. D. 52 to 56, A. 31 to 36. Colors greenish above, white beneath. Dorsal and anal fins fine green, dotted with white spots; body sometimes similarly white spotted. Attains the length of 3 feet and more. I have seen this very fine fish only in large rivers. It is most excellent eating. I think that Sykes' O. leucopunctatus , described as having 51 to 53 rays in the dorsal fin, must be identical with this species, - which is said by Buchanan to be found in every part of India.
I may here state that Polyacanthus cupanus C. V. another fish. belonging to this family - is only found, that I am aware of, in backwaters and rivers within the influence of the tides. It must be handled with caution, for the spines of its fine inflict a most severe burning pain which last for two or three hours.
[ ... ]
1 O. marginatus commonly identified as C. gachua but Kottelat investigated this case systematically and brought forward that this cannot be decided whether is true or not. Back
2 O. fuscus was identified as C. gachua by Ng et al. 1999. Back
These passages were originally published under the above title in: Madras Journal of literature and science ; vol. 15, pp. 139-149; 1848.
| © 2001 - 2004 snakeheads.org | HOME of this page |