albert r. majvn library AT COflNELL university date due NlAf l31 1979 O’ A!U3 1 fi Q7Q « AUI1 1 M-i ' M Pi g *r — 32 -inferffli mrfBRf n iQQfi • CAYLORO PH1NTKO »N U S.A. (.OBNt 1 1 l o O X ® « o ^ h « gi^ b. S X ■g hj X « Measurements arid Counts of six female Sahelinus namaycush from the Allagash Branch of St. John’s River, Aroostook County, Maine.’- LAKE TROUT, 25 00 00 Oi 0 © 0 < 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q m CD 05 t'- © © © © 1 -^ l-H ^ r”4 1-^ ^ 0 0 1 -^ c> ^ 01 1 -^ (M C- t- 0 ' v-rv-^ *0 40 40 2 11^1 © a U5 40 10 40 0 GO CD 00 8 CO 0 10 Tf CD 10 40 t'- !>. L- 0 CD CD CD CD CD a 0 0 © (M (M 10 40 CO 10 »D iq 10 40 40 0 40 © © t- 00 © 0; * D1 C'] O] oi 01 40 40 rH IM CO 1-H c (M ^ 0 CD 00 00 ^ Tj' Th 40 a rH CD 0 CD 40 »D CO (M (M CO 0 CD iO 0 05 CO W 00 CD 40 © © -c CO C<1 (N C 0 j & 3 « ^ s ^ ,S -g 6 cS o;> = ^ 0 i '3d 2 .0 0-0 o3 H Ph 0 w e O’ 1 “ ss e 05 o 53 O •2 O 53 •<« s, M o 53 a, -ti © © Q © 10 CO © © © © (M 01 CO CO 1-H tH t + + + + 0 u- l>- ’ ' 40 to 40 CO C. 40 CO CO 0 rt* 40 t- to r- 00 CD 40 XI © X 40 © 01 © 0 01 rH rH 0 00 (M © (M a © CO CO 0 rH CO © © © -D CO oi 40 l-r l>- Th + r(M 03 to be ‘ Blue-back’ ; they weigh as high as two and a half pounds.” Habits. Girard’s account of the habits of the Blueback has already been quoted. ; The Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries of Maine for 1874 states that the Blueback ] remains in the deep water of the lake from near the middle of November until the middle of October when they ascend brooks in countless numbers to spawn, the run lasting about three weeks. The male Brook Trout, it is stated, visits the spawning bed and prepares it for the use of the females before they arrive, but the Bluebacks go up in pairs, male and female, using spawning beds cleared, used, and vacated by Brook Trout. The runs occur at night but in ^ the height of the season many fish remain up through the day hidden beneath rocks and stumps. ' The Report for 1875 adds that it is never seen but once a year when it comes from the depth of the pond where it lives, to spawn in some sandy, pebbly-bottomed brook. The Report for 1878 says that they are rarely seen, excepting the last of October, when in immense numbers they enter the brooks to spawn, on the same ground as the trout. In Forest and Stream of November 26, 1874, the following appears: “On the 10th of Octo- ber — or within three days of that date — the outlets of Gull Pond and Dodge Pond, both ; BLUEBACK TROUT. 31 emptying into Rangeley Lake at points six miles apart, and the outlet of Rangeley Lake, six miles from Dodge Pond, are thronged by myriads of this exquisite fish. The waters of the streams are actually filled with this crowding, springing multitude, gathering as do smelts and alewives, to deposit their spawm. They do not make a ‘ spawning bed,’ like the salmon and trout, but deposit their eggs in all parts of the stream, remaining about ten days, when they return to the lake, and are never seen until the 10th of October the following year.” In the same journal for December, 1874, Mr. E. S. Merrill says: “Five or six years ago I spent the month of October in the Maine woods, and for the first time saw the Blueback trout, of which I had heard. This was in Androscoggin River, between Indian Rock and the dam. The trout came from the Cupsuptic or Mooselucmaguntic Lakes. They came up from Indian Rock to the dam. In the pool below the dam there were myriads, the water being literally black with them, and under every stone, slab, or log in the stream, scores would shoot out when disturbed; you could scarcely step anywhere in the stream without starting some, and so of the streams emptying into Rangeley Lake.” In American Angler of April 14, 1873, Mr. Rich wrote that they ran up the brook at night and back in the morning. Regarding the run of Bluebacks in Sawmill Brook in the fall of 1887, a corre.spondent of Forest and Stream of December 15, 1887, wrote that one reliable guide, Mr. Oscar Cutting, said that the stream was lined with them for a long distance up into the running water . The Blue- backs were so intent upon breeding or reaching their breeding grounds that they were literally piled up in the shallow water in the little pools and eddies. Captain F. C. Barker, in Forest and Stream, January 12, 1888, writing regarding the disappearance from below Upper Dam and appearance in Sawmill Brook, said that the dis- appearance was plainly due to the fact that the water in the lake below was so high that it backed up over the “rips” where they have usually done their spawning, rendering the whole line of “rips ” as quiet as a mill pond. Their leaving this point altogether is probably the cause of so large a number in Sawmill Brook, but no doubt there has always been more or less of them spawning there. J. Parker Whitney, in a letter to Forest and Stream written in October, 1896, and reprinted in the Report of the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Game of the State of Maine for the year 1896, wrote : “Now the latter part of the month the blueback (Salmo oquassa) are spawning, and swim in large quantities in the shallows below Upper Dam. They are invisible by day, but at night come on in large numbers, and do not appear at any other season of the year. They undoubtedly inhabit the deepest water of the lakes. They remain on the spawning beds during the nights of about a week in the latter part of October, and sometimes in such numbers that barrels full could be taken if nets were used.” The only mention of the food of the Blueback is the statement of J. Parker Whitney {1. c.) who said that their teeth were very fine and plentiful, and that they evidently live on ground 32 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. feed and the variety of Infusoria which are so plentiful in the lakes. Mr. Whitney, in a letter to the same paper in 1900, explained that “ground feed” of the lakes is an important element with all fish, composed of “insectivorous varieties and largely of viscous matter, which settles i profusely.” ^ The stomachs of the Rainbow Lake specimens of Bluebacks, 7s to 9 inches long, were full j of insect larvae of various kinds and a large number of Entomostraca. ! In a letter to Col. Fred Mather, published in Forest and Stream of May 5, 1887, Commis-; sioner Stanley wrote: “They are a very hardy fish and tenacious of life, nearly as much so as the eel or bullhead. I have frequently seen them alive in the morning, when they have lain on the shore all night.” J. Parker WTiitney {1. c.) wrote: “They are much more tenacious of life than the ordinary trout. I have had them out of water an hour, and apparently lifeless, and resuscitated them by putting them in water again, and a number will live in a barrel of water without change for ' weeks, which w'ould be fatal to the ordinary trout.” In his 1900 letter (L c.), Mr. Whitney reiterates this assertion. Capture. George Shepard Page, in 1874, (1. c.) wrote: “Notwithstanding the great number of anglers! who have frequented the ‘Rangeleys’ during the recent years, fishing all portions of the lake^ with all manner of bait on the surface and down in the deep, no one has ever caught a blueback. They have never been at the surface. Among the settlers the ‘ blueback mystery ’ has been an annual subject of discussion at the husking, quilting and fishing parties, and the country store, for over forty years. They never take a fly or bait. I state this as a fact, notwithstanding the possibility of contradiction by as good an authority as our worthy president of the American Fish Culturist Association and my esteemed friend, that expert angler, Hon. Rob’t. B. Roose- velt. When last we met at Rangeley, some four years ago, Mr. R. awaited with deep interest the advent of the bluebacks. They came at the appointed day in millions. Our friend had caught nearly every species of fish that swims in salt or fresh water, and he insisted that these ' beauties could be tempted by the gaudy fly. So day after day he stood on the apron of the old dam and fairly exhausted the treasures of his famous fly book. I shall never forget his over- i I flowing enthusiasm and boundless joy as he entered camp, bearing a single blueback attached to a diminutive fly hook. He loudly declared ‘the beauty bit,’ but we who had watched the angler casting the trio of sharp baited lures among the swimming thousands in the pool, wondered that such exquisite skill in casting had not resulted in hooking out three at a time.” Mr. E. S. Merrill, 1874, (1. c.) said that his party did take a few with bait in Rangeley j Stream. The Maine Commissioners’ Report for 1874 says: “They are rarely seen but in the spawning season. Now and then in deep fishing with bait in the lake one is caught, but rarely BLUEBACK TROUT. 33 or exceptionally as the ordinary sucker; like the latter, they will in the breeding season take a bait but it is the exception and not the rule. The blueback is not considered a biting or game fish, yet I have caught a bushel and a half in a day with a baited hook. They are mostly caught in dip nets.” But the Report for 1878 states that they haunt the deep water in ponds, where they may be freely taken in summer with a baited hook in about forty feet of water. In the Forest and Stream for January 4, 1883, Mr. Rich states that in 1844 they were taken in large quantities by the Rangeley people, mostly the poorer classes. The fish were never fished for with a baited hook but either netted or speared. The method of netting, he states, was usually with “nets” consisting of bags with ash bows and handles which were set at the ends of sluice ways made for the purpose of guiding the fish into the nets. In this way several bushels would be secured by each man in a night. In the American Angler of April 14, 1883, Mr. Rich says that they run up the brooks at night and back in the morning, so that the only time to get them was during the night, and large quantities of them were secured. Fish ways were made through which they had to pass, and improvised hand nets were used, and an equal chance was given all the settlers that went for them. Mr. Rich continued; “These fish are sometimes taken with a baited hook, so I am informed by our Fish Conunissioner, Mr. Stanley; yet I have tried them time and again with fly and bait, but never succeeded in taking one or even attracting their attention.” Mr. H. O. Stanley, writing in Forest and Stream of May 5, 1887, said that they were not biting fish any more than the sucker, but that he had occasionally caught one or two at a time when fishing in deep water in the summer. Captain F. C. Barker {1. c.) stated that the Blueback would sometimes take a bait in deep water, but knew of no case of their taking a fly. Mr. J. Parker Whitney stated (1. c.) that they were caught by wading in the shallows with a lantern and a dip net. The Forest and Stream of August 6, 1898, contained a communication from a Rangeley Lakes correspondent in which it was stated that a Blueback was reported to have been taken recently by trolling. Uses. Referring to a special exemption of the Blueback from protection by the law applying to other trout, the following appeared in Forest and Stream of November 2(5, 1874: “This exemp- tion is properly and wisely made, as it enables the settlers in that section to supply themselves with quantities of superior fish food, which smoked and salted adds very materially to the limited bill of fare for the season.” From the Forest and Stream of November 15, 1877, it seems to have been marketed to some extent. The following report is quoted: “The first of the Rangeley blue-backs have come to the market from Maine and will be as usual at Mr. E. G. Blackford’s stall in Fulton Market.” 34 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. Mr. Rich stated that the settlers prepared those caught on the spawning beds in the fall for their use as food in the following winter and summer. Some were cured by salting, others by drying and still others by smoking. Some dressed them, others cured them whole. He wrote: “It is proverbial of certain families that they lived oh bluebacks and crossbills,” and that the crossbill, a small bird, was cured whole. Quality as food . — Girard (1853) said: “The flesh of this fish is highly flavored, and more delicate than that of the brook trouts in Europe and America. It resembles that of S. umbla, of the Swiss Lakes, both in the peculiarity of its habits and its delicacy. Salmo umbla is a lake trout, an inhabitant of the deep, making its appearance near shores in January and February to spawn, and never ascending the brooks or rivers, tributaries of these lakes.” Mr. E. S. Merrill in the article which has already been quoted, said: “We ate them several times, and found them a nice pan fish — juicy, tender and delicate, but from my little experience I would not give up the brook trout for them.” The Commissioners’ Report for 1874 says regarding it: “As a table fish we can not speak advisedly, never having eaten it except when taken on the spawning bed. To us they are not palatable, but as much so as the trout under the same circumstances.” In the Report for 1875, however, the statement is made that it is an excellent table fish, “most persons deeming it equal in flavor to the brook trout.” The Maine Fish Commissioners’ Report for 1878 said that they were much esteemed as a fine pan fish. A correspondent of Forest and Stream of December 15, 1887, wrote that some captured all that they cared for and tried them cooked, but were not generally pleased with the fla,vor, though they selected the males for the purpose. In Forest and Stream of November 24, 1900, Mr. Whitney said: “For food purposes it is inferior, though claimed by many to equal the ordinary trout, but to my taste it is soft and muddy.” Protection. From the foregoing it has been seen that the principal importance attached to the Blueback was its abundance and consequent availability as a food supply to early settlers. Later it found its way into the markets, or rather some shrewd “settler ” having been prohibited from marketing the Common Trout, apparently saw a way of “ turning an honest penny” by supplying the market with trout when the protected fish was forbidden. The first protective law for trout was enacted in 1869, Chapter 20, Section 18: “There shall be a yearly close time for landlocked salmon, trout and togue, during the months of Octo- ber, November and December, January and February, during which none of the fish mentioned above shall be taken or killed in any manner, under a penalty of not more than thirty or less BLLIEBACK TROUT. 35 than ten dollars for each fish so taken or killed, — providing that this section shall not apply to the taking of ‘blueback trout’ in Franklin or Oxford Counties.” The great abundance of this fish was maintained for many years, notwithstanding the many killed on the “spawning beds” and the lack of regulative laws regarding the methods and time of capture. This fact indicated to many that no protection was needed and its importance in the economy of the “settlers” rendered such protection undesirable. In reference to this exemption Mr. Page wrote in 1874 that he considered it proper and wise. But in the Maine Fish Commissioners’ Report for the same year it is said: “There is a special statute allowing these fishes to be taken in Franklin and Oxford Counties during close time for other fishes. We think it a great mistake to allow these beautiful fishes to be taken at all, as we attribute mainly to them the great size of the Rangeley trout, and we opine that as they diminish in numbers so will those far-famed Mooselucmaguntic trout The blueback is to the Rangeley what the myriads of smelt are to Sebago Lake and Reed’s Pond.” This appears to be the first suggestion of the Blueback’s place in the natural economy of the lake, and the first intimation of the need of protective taws. Writing in Forest and Stream of January 12, 1888, Captain F. C. Barker said: “They are very valuable to any body of water where brook trout are, in the way of food for them. It is a very common occurrence to catch a trout in deep water in the lakes with a blueback in it, partly digested. This was very common when we used to fish in winter in deep water through the ice.” In the nineties a comparatively rapid decrease was noticed in the number of Bluebacks appearing in their accustomed spawning places, and this became so marked that protective legislation was urged, but it was not until 1899 that a law was passed providing that “it be unlawful to fish for, take, catch, or kill any blueback in any waters of the state at any time,” (Chap. 42, Sec. 5, Public Laws, 1899). But the stable door was not locked until after the hor^e had been stolen. In the fall of 1900 the present writer visited Oquos.soc Lake with a letter from Commissioner Stanley to Mr. George Esty, the well known, well informed, efficient and reliable fish and game warden of that region. Air. Esty’s aid in every way possible was requested in the letter. A man in whom Mr. Esty had confidence agreed to watch a certain stream where the fish used to fairly swarm, and, as Mr. Esty said, were dipped and hauled away by the barrel and cartload. This man watched the stream throughout the spawning season without seeing a fish. This was the famous outlet of Dodge and Quimby Ponds. At Kennebago Stream the Oquassoc Angling Association caught one pair of Bluebacks. The male had been liberated but the writer secured the female, which weighed about one pound. In 1902 a few large Bluebacks were taken by spawntakers, and in 1903, five more, all that were taken, were secured by the writer. In 1904 another visit was made by the writer to Oquossoc Lake. The State Fish Hatchery located on Rangeley Stream was then in operation and the fish culturists were taking trout and salmon in 36 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. Rangeley Stream by means of a weir and in Kennebago Stream by seine. Only three Bluebacks, these ranging as high as 2 or 2j pounds, were secured or observed, although they were looked for at all of their former breeding places. The writer has been unable to learn that even a single specimen has been taken since. It would therefore seem that the Blueback is probably extinct in the Rangeley Lakes. In the Maine Sportsman of February, 1905, referring to the probable cause of the decrease in numbers of Bluebacks, the present writer said: “There is evidently a recent decrease in the numbers of this fish, almost to a complete disappearance from their usual spawning grounds. On the other hand, occasionally fish larger than used to be caught, even up to two or two and one-half pounds, I am told, are caught by anglers, when fishing for other trout and the salmon, both in Mooselucmaguntic and Oquossoc lakes. That these fish are verging on extinction in these waters cannot, I think, be wholly ascribed to excessive fishing. For much more than 50 years such fishing has been carried on with but little appreciable diminu- tion of their numbers. Of course, injurious effects are sooner or later inevitable from such draughts upon them. But in their case it seems as if there must be additional factors at work. Here again our conditions of growth and existence may be brought into consideration. If trout depended largely upon bluebacks for subsistence, salmon rapidly increasing in numbers in these waters would doubtless come in for their share. Recognizing this possibility, the state commis.sion planted smelts in the lakes in 1891. They have also flourished and waxed great in numbers.” The decrease in numbers of Bluebacks was synchronous with the increase in abundance of salmon and coincidently the last Blueback, was taken in the year following the largest catch of salmon up to that date. There can be no doubt but that the Blueback entered largely into the food of the salmon, especially prior to the introduction of smelts, living as it did in the deep waters to which salmon resorted in the summer months, and the introduction of smelts and later legislative action were both too late to save it. On the other hand the large size of the few surviving Bluebacks was very probably due to the smelt. Although the food of the Blue- back was formerly the smaller animal life of the lake, probably largely consisting of Entomos- traca and insect larvae and worms, the smelt afforded it an abundant additional supply of food owing to the fact that while almost in a larval stage young smelts frequent deep water after leaving their birthplaces in the brooks. Descriptions. Girard (1853, p. 262) described the Blueback as follows: “It is from eight to ten inches in total length. The body is subfusiform, slender, and the most graceful in the trout family. The head is proportionally small, conical, coregonoid in shape. The mouth is smaller than in S. fontinalis. Differences are likewise observed in the structure of the opercular apparatus. BLUEBACK TROUT. 37 The fins have the same relative position as in the brook trout, but are proportionally more developed, with the exception of the adipose, which is considerably smaller; their shape is alike, except that of the caudal, the crescentic margin of which is undulated instead of being rectilinear. The scales are somew'hat larger, although they present the same general appear- ance as those of the brook trout. The lateral line is similar in both of these species. A bluish tint extends all along the back from the head to the tail, so that when seen from above, the fish appears entirely blue ; hence the name of Blue Back, given to it by the settlers of that neighbor- hood. ■ The sides and abdomen are silvery white in the female, and of a deep reddish orange in the male, spotted in both sexes with orange of the same hue as the abdomen. The dorsal and caudal fins are brownish blue, bordered with pale orange in the male, the pectorals, ven- trals, and anal of a fiery orange, blackish blue at their base, with their margin of the purest white. When just taken out of the water it is impossible to imagine any thing more beautiful and more delicate in the way of coloration in fishes of the temperate zone.” Mr. Page said of them (1. c.) that they had no bright vermilion spots, the ventral, anal, and pectoral fins bright scarlet but without the black and white lines so conspicuous on the Brook Trout, and the tail more forked. In Forest and Stream of December 10, 1874, p. 277, Mr. C. A. Kingsbury, of Philadelphia, stated that he had received some Bluebacks, a careful, critical examination of which led him to believe them to be an undescribed species, and at the meeting of the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences of the 17th of November, 1874, he had presented the specimens and given a minute description of them under the name of Salmo caeruleidorsus. This communication was referred to the Standing Committee on Ichthyology and at the suggestion of Dr. Leidy the specimen was sent to Professor Baird who advised him that it was the Salmo oquassa of Girard, and in the same paper, on the same page, was published a description of the fish by J ames W. Milner, under date of November 29, 1874, to whom it appears Mr. Blackford had sent specimens. He stated that the form of oquassa was much more slender and with a tendency to prolongation not seen in the Brook Trout; thus in the length of body and of head compared with their lengths, the pectoral fin prolonged to a slender point, the two lobes of the caudal extended in the same way, showing a decided furcation, and the opercular bones prolonged into a more acute angle. On the contrary the maxillary bone extends much less far back of the position of the eye, or toward the hinder end or hinge of the lower jaw in the Oquossoc trout. The interopercular bone, he states, is jnuch larger in S. oquassa and the suboperculum is wider and the tail in Salmo fontinalis is more truncated than in any species it is likely to be confounded with. The Maine Commissioners’ Report for 1874, pp. 17, 18, says: “This beautiful little fish takes its name from a bluish tint on the back, not unlike the bloom of a plum. They are spotted like a trout, and to a casual observer the difference in a basket of fishes would not be noted. But like the togue they have only the yellow and black spots but not the red. Their tints and 38 KENDALL; NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. coloring are very beautiful, particularly in the male, the pectoral fins rivalling in color the au- tumn-tinted maple leaves; like the dying dolphin, their brilliancy of color is lost or fades away with their lives. They are more delicate and symmetrical in shape than the brook trout and have the tail forked.” In his letter to Mr. Mather in 1887 {1. c.), Mr. Stanley says: “The adult fish does not hav'e any white on the fins at all like the brook trout. The fins of the male are bright red, or the color of bright autumn leaves. When taken from the water they are of a dark color, but after death ' turn to a light yellowish cast. The spots are very minute, very thick, very bright yellow and ^ red. Both thicker and brighter than in the brook trout.” ■! 1 Descriptions of Recent Large Salvelinus oquassa from Rangeley Lakes, Maine. s Male. — Head 4 in length without caudal; snout, 3.66; eye, 6.11; upper jaw, 1.98; lower ^ jaw, 1.57. Body robust, symmetrical, fusiform, the depth equaling head, 4 in length of body ; without caudal; dorsal situated midway between tip of snout and middle base of caudal, rays I 11, the longest longer than base, 1.77 in head; base 1.68 in head; distance from posterior end of I dorsal base to adipose fin about equaling the distance from insertion of adipose to middle base * of caudal, 4.4 in length without caudal; distance from tip of snout to base of pectoral 1.20 in distance from dorsal to adipose, just 2 in distance from tip of snout to dorsal; pectoral much longer than ventral, 1.57 in head, the distance from its base to base of ventral 3.66 in length", without caudal; ventral situated under anterior fourth of dorsal, nearer tip of snout than base of caudal, the distance from its base to origin of anal less than length of head and 4.15 in length without caudal; anal rays 9, the longest about equaling in length one half the distance from ventral to anal, slightly less than the length of anal base and slightly greater than the distance from anal to caudal, 2.11 in head; distance from posterior end of anal base to lower base of cau- dal greater than distance from adipose to caudal, containing the least depth of caudal peduncle 1.25 times; 49 pyloric coeca. ' Coloration. — Above dark bluish, irregularly and finely mottled with darker, the blue fading into pale pinkish purple near the middle axis of the body, thence into bright lemon yellow, i becoming a very rich deep yellow on lower part of body; spots orange yellow along sides; head dark bluish, becoming greenish with metallic reflections and faint spots of lemon and golden yellow; dorsal, deep bluish of back becoming greenish and finally yellowish at upper margin; adipose, darker shade of color of back; caudal, blue color of back changing through greenish to greenish yellow at posterior margin; and with a lower margin of yellow of body; pectoral, f ventral, and anal fins yellowish orange at tips deepening to orange pink, then dusky pinkish basally; anterior margins white with slight black line behind. 1 Specimen 13| inches long. BLUEBACK TROUT. 39 Female . — Similar in form to male but somewhat deeper, with shorter head and head parts, excepting larger eye, and smaller fins. Head 4.48 in length without caudal; snout, 3.91; eye, 5.75; upper jaw, 2.3; lower jaw, 3.48. Depth of body 4.03 in length without caudal; the dorsal situated more posteriorly than in male, the distance of its origin from tip of snout about equaling distance from origin to upper base of caudal, the distance from posterior end of dorsal base to middle base of caudal about equaling distance from front of orbit to origin of dorsal; dorsal rays 11, the longest longer than the base of the fin, 1.43 in head; dorsal base 1.28 in longest ray and 1.84 in head; distance from posterior end of dorsal base to adipose fin about equaling the distance from insertion of adipose to middle base of caudal; about 4.84 in length without caudal; distance from tip of snout to base of pectoral about 1.06 in head, and 2.37 in distance from tip of snout to origin of dorsal; pectoral equaling ventral in length, 1.19 in head, the dis- tance from its base to ventral 3.82 in length without caudal; ventral situated under the origin of dorsal nearer tip of snout than middle base of caudal, the distance from its base to origin of anal greater than length of head and 4.11 in length without caudal; anal rays 9, the longest more than one half distance from ventral to anal, slightly longer than base of anal, and greater than distance from anal to caudal, 1.43 in head; distance from posterior end of base of anal to lower base of caudal greater than distance from adipose to caudal, containing the least depth of caudal peduncle 1.42 times. Coloration. — Similar to male but paler; blue of back less decided and with scarcely a trace of mottling; median portion of body paler rose; abdomen lemon yellow; body spots much smaller and of lighter orange. Dorsal similar to male but with a white dot at base of each ray. Pectoral, ventral, and anal fins lighter than in male. Specimen 14| inches long. Description of Salvelinus oquassa, var., from Rainbow Lake, Maine, from Specimens serving as Subjects of the Illustrations in this Paper. Male. — Head 4.06 in length without caudal; snout, 3.42; eye, 6; upper jaw, 2.08; lower jaw, 1.52. Body symmetrically fusiform, the depth 4.87 in length without caudal; dorsal situated midway between tip of snout and middle base of caudal, length of its base about equaling length of longest ray, about 1.80 in head, rays 10; distance from posterior end of dorsal to adipose about equal to distance from insertion of adipose to middle base of caudal, about 4.33 in length of body without caudal; distance from tip of snout to base of pectoral equaling distance from dorsal to adipose; length of pectoral equaling length of ventral, 1.5 in head, the distance from its base to base of ventral, 3.48 in length of body without caudal; ven- tral situated under the anterior third of dorsal nearer tip of snout than middle base of caudal, distance from base to beginning of anal 3.9 in length of body without caudal; anal rays 9, its 40 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. height about equaling one half the distance from ventral to anal, 1.92 in head, and the length of base 2.4 in head; distance from posterior end of anal to lower caudal base, somewhat more than base of anal and about equaling distance from adipose to upper base of caudal, the least depth of caudal peduncle being 1.51 in this distance. Coloration . — Head and back purplish blue fading downward through lighter tones to steel blue, with purplish iridescence on sides, becoming pale rose, thence through deepening shades into deep crimson on under parts; ventral line whitish. Spots on sides dull orange above lateral line, becoming darker with an infusion of crimson below; dorsal like back, purplish brown on upper posterior margin; caudal of lighter purplish blue than back; pectoral, ventral, and anal fins deep crimson with white anterior edges. Specimen 8| inches long. Female , — Head 4.39 in length without caudal; snout, 3.66; eye, 4.88; upper jaw longer than in male (unusual), 2 in head; lower jaw, 1.82. Body somewhat more robust than in male, the depth equaling head; dorsal, situation similar to male, its rays 11, the longest equaling length of base, 1.62 in head; distance from posterior end of dorsal to adipose about equaling the distance from insertion of adipose to middle base of caudal, about 4.1 in length of body without caudal; distance from tip of snout to base of pectoral somewhat less than from dorsal to adipose; length of pectoral greater than that of ventral, 1.41 in head, the distance from its base to base of ventral 3.32 in length without caudal; ventral situated as in male, nearer tip of snout than middle base of caudal, the length 1.57 in head; distance from base of ventral to be- ginning of anal 3.71 in length without caudal; anal rays 9, the longest about equaling one half the distance from base of ventral to anal, and its base 2 in length of head ; distance from posterior end of anal base to lower caudal slightly greater than the distance from adipose to upper base of caudal, the least depth of caudal peduncle being contained about 1.12. Coloration . — Similar to male but much lighter shades and having smaller spots. From specimen 8g inches long. Synonymy. Salmo oquassa Girard, Charles, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 4, p. 262, meeting of October 20, 1852, date of publication March, 1853. — Holmes, Ezekiel, “Catalogue of Synopsis of a Part of the Fishes of Maine, arranged according to Prof. Gill’s Classification,’’ Dr. Holmes Report on the Fishes, of Maine, Part 2, Second Annual Report on the Natural History ami Geology of Maine, p. 62, 1862, (Blueback): and “Familiar and Scientific Description of some of the Maine Fishes named in the foregoing Synopsis,’’ ibid., p. 113, (Blueback Trout), “Lakes at the head of the Androscoggin River, in Franklin County” (after Girard). — Garman, S., “The American Salmon and Trout, including introduced Species,” Nine- teenth Annual Report of the [Mass.] Commissioners of Inland Fisheries, p. 74, fig. 13, 1885, (outline Blueback), “Found only in Maine, in the Rangeley lakes, their tributaries and outlets; Androscoggi'i River.” 41 Table of Proportional Measurements and other Characters of large Sahelinvs oquassa from Rangeley Lakes, showing Variation in Sexes and Individuals.^ a-l- a b/a m/a n/a o/a p/a q/a s/a t/a v/a x/a y/a yVa z/a z‘‘/a. c,T) e/b h/b k/b c/g y/a‘ z'/a* a'/z a/z' Gr. Br. D. A. Sex m i4i 15 15f 16^ 308 313 326 336 340 375 .243 .242 .251 .250 .229 .229 .435 .460 .447 .431 .458 .466 .126 .121 .116 .130 .120 .112 .139 .146 .159 .141 .129 .133 .155 .159 .159 .163 .147 .144 .288 .290 .285 .279 .305 .304 .133 .127 .134 .142 .117 .117 .224 .223 .223 .199 .241 .229 .107 .121 .110 .113 .105 .101 .116 .115 .125 .125 .120 .116 .237 .255 .263 .241 .264 .258 .016 .012 .012 .014 .016 .013 .097 .095 .092 .107 .100 .104 .120 .121 .101 .110 .117 .122 .160 .157 .146 .142 .153 .139 .320 .276 .317 .309 .269 .290 .613 .513 .573 .583 .500 .523 .693 .631 .658 .642 .602 .616 .461 .486 .444 .428 .444 .400 2.92 2.96 2.96 2.79 3.33 3.34 1.48 1.40 1.13 1.27 1.48 1.58 .833 .900 .966 .805 .794 .743 8.32 8.23 9.87 9.08 8.50 8.15 7-L12 7-K3 7-H2 0 6 10 a 1 0 0 9 10 J 0 B 0 10 11 10 10 11 10 10 11 10 9 11 10 9 cf c? cf o' 9 9 8+15 7+14 7+12 9+12 8+14 9 + 13 8+14 7+13 Proportional Measurements and other Characters of Salvelinus oquassa, var.,from Rainbow Lake, Maine.^ a a+ b/a d/a m/a n/a o/a i/a p/a q/a s/a t/a v/a y/a yVa z/a z‘/a c/b e/b h/b k/b c/g z/sl z'/a' alfz s.'-fz'- Gr. Br. D. A. Sex. 7f 160 .237 .205 .443 .118 .131 .225 .162 .312 .131 .212 .087 .267 .018 .106 .118 .223 .236 .421 .552 .772 1.66 1.58 .600 .631 (8+13 (8+13 10 10 10 cf 8i 185 .243 .216 .470 .118 .151 .230 .167 .329 .129 .237 .086 .248 .021 .108 .129 .244 .244 .466 .600 .814 1.42 1.63 .700 .687 (8+13 (7+13 0 9 10 9 o' 8i 190 .247 .205 .468 .115 .157 .234 .168 .310 .136 .242 .078 .247 .023 .100 .136 .244 .244 .500 .638 .821 1.26 1.73 .789 .576 (7+12 (7+12 1 0 9 10 8 o' 9 195 .235 .205 .461 .123 .148 .220 .169 2 2 2 .089 .251 .030 .097 .138 .239 .239 .456 .586 .814 1.46 2.00 .684 .481 (6+10? (8+12 9 1 0 10 9 o’ 8^ 183 .227 .218 .448 .120 .133 .218 .163 .295 .120 .251 .098 .245 .019 .103 .109 ,240 .240 .457 .602 .909 1.26 1.33 .789 .750 (7+13 (7+13 9 10 12 10 9 8i 185 .225 .194 .446 .118 .128 .225 .169 .312 .123 .230 .097 .251 .028 .102 .123 .222 .222 .454 .568 .909 1.53 1.84 .650 .541 (6+13 (6+13 10 B 10 10 9 8i 195 .237 .194 .448 .124 .129 .221 .162 .318 .124 .232 .097 .248 .021 .097 .097 .223 .223 .431 .590 .714 1.20 1.40 .833 .714 (6+11 (6+11 <» 1 0 11 9 9 'Explanation of symbols used in the tables . — The proportional designated by the letters in the form of algebraic common fractions. a+. Total length in inches from tip of snout to tip of tail. Width of supplementary maxillary. X. a. Length in mm. from tip of snout to end of lateral line. i. Distance from tip of snout to base of pectoral fin. y- o‘. Least depth of caudal peduncle. J- Distance from tip of snout to ventral fin. 2/‘. b. Length of head from tip of snout to gill-opening. fc. Length of lower jaw to junction with the quadrate. z. hK Length of head from tip of snout to nape. 1. Distance from tip of snout to anal fin. b>. Perpendicular diameter of head through middle of eye. m. Distance from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin. z*. c. Length of eye. n. Length of base of dorsal fin d. Greatest depth of body. 0. Height of dorsal fin. Br. e. Distance from tip of snout to front of eye. P- Length of pectoral fin. /• Distance from tip of snout to posterior edge of pre- Q- Distance from base of pectoral to base of ventral fin. Gr. opercle. r. Length of longest upper caudal ray. 9- Width of interorbital space. 8, Length of ventral fin. D. k. Distance from tip of snout to posterior extremity of t. Distance from base of ventral to origin of anal fin. A. maxUlaiy. u. Length of longest caudal ray. o' hK Width of maxillary. V. Length of base of anal fin. 9 h\ Length of supplementary maxillary. w. Length of middle caudal ray. ?. ® Ventral fins absent j distance from tip of snout to ventral divided by a, .538. measurements are expressed by decimal fractions. The parts or structures are indicated by letters and the proportion Thus: 6/a signifies that the proportion is obtained by dividing the measurement of part 6 by the dimension of a. Length of longest ray of anal fin. Distance from posterior end of dorsal to adipose fin. Length of base of adipose fin. Distance from posterior base of adipose to upper base of tail. Distance from posterior base of anal to lower base of tail. Number of branchiostegal rays, upper right, lower left side. Nmnber of gill-rakers on both arms of first branchial arch. Number of fully developed dorsal rays. Number of fuUj developed anal rays. Male. Female. Not determined. ' . . ■ • . ■ Hi? fl*cr ■ '«/tiisnk\?. /i£TOi n^Aio hua -dn^m^invAA knot^.xioA \o aidol I — . ! M in I'.eftd. andthe lejJKlii 1 ’ ’*^t ' «*- ' A\X j »V_ . s\J i >r<,> 1 h '*>!' ’* ■ ' ■ '^* • . - , j- l~’ . ~r~ — i ! — ^ — i . — ~ — — ,! , , ^, . - _ iaxo. 'M. m. II -=^ i ' -4 8 T 3 . e«e, 'M 003 . SS 3 . Li " ^ 1 mt. ifnf. I ; ;so; j dip. t 8'^ j iKX J toi. itx, OXIj 8a^ xo^ ,1 ■ ' -. . Jr ' ' wg. • ^ ;■ -‘ ^ ;v^. i SCO. : it£u\ ajas,, j 5 ji. rf '■',;!, ^ ! m ^ • Its. ' MI,, 'l'- f ■ i : 'I ■ ^ i«s,j osx^ Li.-L! 'I iJli.: i s\I T — * i «\p U\q «\o 1 ! c' n 1 1 ,B\ '•■t^ xas. i wjviicfi^h u-enHiiini? diill or/uige utK!« in rial like hack, pxirplu=^ n ; i -i’Ctmal, vent. 2 T 8 $i« (MS. 1 ,.l ess. jv.v lt..”n»* .fiisisilt V feT^iteciBAO isAio imn tdrt«nwyw!«c'>U Usstoihw^ot'l ^ l ' t •■• - 4 -. .. I ] : dv ixpj «V, 1 »\X I flV» ^\P i~ «4- 1^. { SIO:-' T8^.J Tg^,, SIS,. {8J^ 2X6. ■ * M ! d'v» •ffc. I i»ee. i<|. '■ :«i. I ^. { sio.-r vds.^ T^p, I 1 I - i-i; ']. m . } 1 tvp: - att- j p&). :^w.;| pfd. eso; j » 2 .<. €Tj>^ -m. MS vss,. i 8SI, ess. ac£. I m ji,«x-lK| Of. j m. j W- ; 80X. ‘ , : f$i; I .SOI. SIS. ^ ae. ^ £■ W’ 0».| exo: 820 , ’ r- ' « W.J G - I »2.. i.t 2 ^ at- 2 ,. xes. «% acq. ■rco. • efix, 8 I-& Tea osa est osr. is£l. 018 . SSI. TOI. ( J 5 C 2 . OSS. 80 X. j 182 . eai. ! 022 . 302 . ! S 8 X. i 8 X 2 . I 218 . eor, 622 . ■^l. I 818 . X8I. xex. Tax. 8M. 88 X. 821 . »\n : e\m 2Sr. I X2S 1 021. 8XX. 8IX. aix. 821 . I osx SIX. 12X. 8M. OTl. 801 . X 81 . 811 . 911 . 811 . ; ■ 'S.; . V A 8Sv: ujxper jaw \oug \a-i' 1.1. 'i-t. n. ,H* in raai c\ti ^ “fi* d 602. 1 TM. p, ^ im aostiTia 602 . 812 . 18 X ‘its} (jfi n- ^ T 22 . . 5 «%, 101 . r =m ' a< '.onjicaL p.iua’I’.’i ;i ui'.ojsi' aiiout ctiimliii 001 )ont. ..apXi «e«l ■iff ir. ivngili of lxi«i if 8-1 IhbU froilj dor from ii^uinio, nenii*!- Imlsc ventral lu 1 )<| h'P..^v' ih?^o‘ . if.ialing o'le bnj iraui posteri 'eor ij '-fB -^' to upper )>ase ■ <561 fr>.iiX 881 4.-ao^il a^K-ic^ tHi.iWIi'aeapa ^loinoqoiq ariT — .*»MtiS nfy «t b»8w eioJitiw* \n (I'Wtoitakrea'it ‘ .eaoifowi ;,„a,inoa aiaidasU to mio\ aril d eiaJJal M .... . . ii Utolaaci to) ipri.iijMvwiJa i» ^ ^ ,i .ai(|( prtaiwi».ia,9il aioiV»ttiiJftiCr ' •,ii liiu uj Juooa to qtX nihlWuAi^u ' .1 ' ' ' ' .aft l»«x>b to laOCB h gil ,.*x^ i ■ ■' ia£ lewrib to aaiid'to riiga-id ' ’.a*' ■ •"‘ - ' 4 ^ ' - - -Ca Ip XS^aB .t> t .<■ lui 'LrjaJPtiq to'’ir';!"aj '’,<; ' ** ton* : to ^ .j, . 1 •!. .vda fctdiEfi jeqcyrifeagcol to liJjtoaJ ■'■ .,. to cU^oaJ .» rVJiuic to«iwi -.s-sssl'wv .) ‘ 3 f-. toriJj» 0 ail .M ' •itil.'iai; lo oaijri to rilguaj .4 ■■ ' •: V ..’ X*^ ■ 'wfr.i.dShios toifc^aJ .w iTft' Iffj.'oav ol luryse V. rjii ;;.c.-^ arrictoLf* j-nrevdij .*rri toiJos'r • ?>.'.of.tT 20 . lie! to qii os Strom to qis ojarA s^riaiii fli fUjiTaf l*JpT .+» .I'QilfcriXaltofcaaaj XDoaatoqU.roa'».a .Tj ai riigoaJ .» -alomibaq. tohwaa to riXqaf) JanaJ , /a .giimaqo-1% oJ Xuons to qif xuotI tuoari to riXstoJ .3 .aq«a oJ joone to o jjy Fta-S.!. .▼bod to dJqab is^aaiO .b ,', , t ^r~’^ vr-, to Sacfft oS XH6aa to qir ' ‘”.s -aiq to agba lohaisaq Juooa to qir tsfrA-oohjiiaia, T tbc (oi'',:f'ii*g Sjnopwn .'laflfp IfthdKwailflj to riJliiTir -q ' to Tltoiainta -onsJeoq or laoire to qil oftnl.#st!jWgkl‘''‘’’. 3 -'- County. ■ t . : ; 1 ■ r , j Ui.-od Spcdce , ” .\ 1 .viefli^BpstoriXtiW. ,.M- ,c«- I’ifMllbM.'airreJasmalqcitrjto'dr^/^aJ ‘ ‘ " .■■:.. I .-.iLii'ln: .tndroscf'ttjl WHITE TROUT. 43 Fario f Holmes, Ezekiel, “Synopsis on the Fishes of Maine, in part,” Dr. Holmes Report of the Elementary Prineiples of Ichthyology, Part 1, p. 32, (/. c.). Salmo caeruleidorsus Kingsbury, C. A., Forest and Stream, December 10, 1874, p. 277. • Salvelinm oquassa Bean, Tarleton H., “The Red-spotted Trout of New England,” Shooting and Fishing, January 10, 1889, p. 6, fig. (Blueback Trout), “Rangeley Lakes.”— Kendall, William C., “The Trouts of the Rangeley Lakes,” Maine Sportsman, February, 1905, p. 105, “Rangeley Lakes, Maine,” and ibid., p. 117, “Rainbow Lake, Maine.” — KexNdall, William C., “Fauna of New England, List of the Pisces,” Occasional Papers Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 7, no. 8, p. 47, 1905, (Blueback Trout; Blueback) IMe.— M ooselucmaguntic and Oquassa lakes, Kennebago Stream; Rainbow Lake, Piscataquis County. White Trout. Salvelinus aureolus Bean. Plate 5, Fig. 7 (male); Fig. 8 (female). To the fish culturists, this charr is known as the “Golden Trout” or “aureolus” and some- times as Sunapee Trout or Sunapee-Lake Trout. The latter names are owing to its having been first discovered in Sunapee Lake, New Hampshire. The name Golden Trout is deriv^ed from its technical name, aureolus, which was giv'en to it in reference to the golden sheen of the living fish in the water. It is known as White Trout at Sunapee Lake and it is in this way distinguished from the Common Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) which at Sunapee Lake is called “Native Trout,” owing to the popular impression, doubtless, that the White Trout was introduced. About the time the fish was discovered at Sunapee Lake, there was an animated discussion regarding its identity, some claiming that it was the result of introduction of Saibling (Salvelinus alpinus) from Europe. But it was pretty conclusively shown that none of the lot brought from Europe was placed in Sunapee Lake or into any waters from which it could gain access to that lake. Others claimed, with more basis for their claim, that it w'as a Blueback, which there is no doubt was introduced some five j'^ears before the so called discovery of this fish, which had at- tained a large size owing to favorable conditions in the lake. Some individuals were not wanting who averred that they had known the fish for many years prior to the introduction of Bluebacks. This protracted and animated discussion in various sportsman’s journals and other publica- tions never settled the question nor can it ever be positively determined. All that can be done now is to deduce approximate probabilities from the known facts bearing on the matter. The Reports of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Commissioners indicate that on April 26, 1878, and again on June 13, 1879, 3,000 and 4,000 young Bluebacks w'ere respectively planted in Sunapee Lake, surely a small number from which to expect immediate extensive results. According to Dr. John D. Quackenbos,* so far as is known, the first specimens of this new ‘ “The Sunapee Saibling; a fourth New England variety of Sabelinus." Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 12, p. 140, 1893. 44 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARES. fish to be distinguished from the well known forms were taken in Sunapee Lake during the su mm er of 1881. The fish taken weighed from two to three pounds each. In Forest and Stream, December 18, 1890, p. 435, Dr. T. H. Bean adduces evidence that the White Trout is indigenous to the lake, from information furnished him by Commissioner Hodge. Commissioner Hodge was an earnest advocate of the idea that it was native and the various disputants discredited this evidence. While it has not been admitted in the discussion of the trout in this paper as positively authentic it is in line with what has been stated regarding what usually occurs when a strange fish is discovered. Dr. Bean writes: “During a visit to New Hampshire, in October of this year, the writer first met his friend and correspondent. Col. Elliott B. Hodge, a gentleman whose name is thoroughly identified with fish culture and protection in the State which he loyally serves as Fish and Game Commis- sioner. We were at Plymouth and Sunapee Lake together, and discussed many objects of mutual interest, among them the golden trout, which Col. Hodge first brought to the notice of ichthyologists and which was introduced to the general public through the columns of ‘Forest and Stream.’ From him I learned many interesting things relative to the history and habits of the new trout, and, as they have an important bearing upon the inquiry now being made into the relationship of the golden trout to the introduced saibling, I think this an opportune time for making the information public. “Mr. Pike, who was born and brought up at Sunapee Lake, says that about twenty-five years ago he and his father saw a great school of trout in the lake. They caught a good many of them, but never looked for them again because they supposed it to be a mere chance occurrence. “Mr. Nat. Lear, of Newbury, N. H., told Col. Hodge that when they were building the Concord & Claremont railroad, in 1872, shortly after the introduction of smelt, he and some others were catching smelt at the mouth of Beech Brook one night (this brook is a tributary of Sunapee l^ake), when they saw what they supposed to be a large sucker and dipped it up. It proved to be a white trout of 4 lbs., and looked to him, as he remembers it, just like the aureolus, which he has seen since. It was very white and silvery. “Mr. Moses Gould, of Bradford, N. H., who was one of the earliest trout fishermen on the lake and fished from boyhood, claims that in 1875 he caught two large trout of this kind in Sunapee and showed them to a number of persons as a very peculiar trout. “About 1873 or 1874 Thomas Roach caught two trout through the ice in Sunapee, one of which weighed more than 7 lbs. Up to 1871 Sunapee Lake was practically unknown as a fishing lake for trout, and there were scarcely any boats on the lake. The little fishing that was done was chiefly for pickerel. No one fished in deep water for trout until their accidental discovery in great depths about 1881 or 1882. The aureolus, being a very late spawner, came on to the shoals at a time when there was little or no travel across the lake. “A Mr. Peabody stated that in 1881 or 1882 he saw a big school of suckers on the shoals south of Loon Island, Sunapee Lake. Of course, there is little doubt that these were golden trout.” WHITE TROUT. 45 Dr. Quackenbos states ( 1 . c.) that in the two years following 1881, a sufficient number were taken to excite comment. In October, 1885, Col. Elliott Hodge, then State Fish and Game Commissioner of New Hampshire, had his attention called to the fish, accidentally dis- covered in vast numbers on a “mid-lake rocky shoal.” He wrote to Dr. Quackenbos: “ I can show you an acre of these trout, hundreds of which will weigh from 3 to 8 pounds each. I could never have believed such a sight possible in New Hampshire.” Thus it appears that three years after the first lot of Bluebacks was planted specimens were taken weighing 2 and 3 pounds and still more and larger ones in the next few years. In five or six years at most they occurred in prodigious numbers “hundreds of which would weigh from 3 to 8 pounds each.” Taking into consideration the probable abundance of food in the form of smelts, it would not be surprising that in six years the fish might attain six pounds or more in weight, allowing an average increase of one pound to the year, which is a stated estimate for the Common Trout under favorable conditions. But when the abundance of predaceous fishes like the Common Trout, Land-locked Salmon, Perch, and others is taken into consideration, it might be doubted that in that length of time such a multiplication of the species would result from such a small plant as 7,000, even under the most favorable of other conditions, especially when the extinc- tion of the Blueback in the Rangeley Lakes, as has been pointed out, is doubtless due to Land- locked Salmon. The Rangeley Blueback has been planted in various other lakes of Maine and New Hamp- shire where the conditions were apparently fully as favorable for it as in Sunapee Lake, and none has since been reported. This, however, does not prove that Sunapee is not an exception, but is collateral evidence. Furthermore, the same White Trout has been discovered in other New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont waters where no red, white, or blue trout has ev^er been planted and where they could not gain access from their native waters save through the instrumentality of man; and it is not impossible that it may yet be found in waters where it is not at present recognized. The later discoveries just referred to do not prove that the Sunapee White Trout did not result from the Blueback introduction but it is also evidence to the contrary showing that it is not necessary to account for its presence in Sunapee Lake by man s intervention. There is no record of the introduction of any other fish than the Blueback which could possibly account for its presence. It has been absolutely proved that none of the products of European Saibling eggs ever reached Sunapee Lake. If not a Blueback or a Saibling and not indigenous, where did it come from? The fact that it was “never observed” prior to this time may be a matter of not recognizing it as distinct from the Common Trout or as Dr. Quackenbos suggests ( 1 . c.), in the ignorance of the few who in old times may ever have seen it, and who cared for nothing beyond the fact that it was good to eat.” 46 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARES. It is quite possible that the Sunapee White Trout was once, before the smelts were intro- duced, small like the Blueback of Rangeley Lakes and on that account never took the hook and was never observed as it did not ascend the brooks to spawn, and like the Rangeley Blueback it did not attain a large size until after the introduction of smelts; yet there is no way to prove it. That a fish may exist in a body of water for many years without becoming generally known is not so strange as, at first thought, it seems. Many resident fishermen and even non-resident anglers have caught at times fishes that were more or less strange in appearance. In such cases they discuss its identity among themselves and perhaps come to the conclusion that it is a freak form of some other fish which it to some extent resembles. When not accounted for in that way it is usually ascribed to hybridization, or if a fish with which they are not familiar has been introduced it is likely to be considered that form. But seldom is it suggested that it is a hitherto unrecognized species, and usually instead of sending it to some competent authority for identifi- cation it is taken home and eaten or given to the cat or hens. But when some more observing person detects a hitherto unrecognized fish, many others remember that they have caught the same thing at one time or another. Of course, there are instances of forgotten or accidental introductions of fish which when discovered cannot be definitely accounted for, but in most instances such can be determined. The White Trout, for instance, was at first thought by some to be the result of a plant of some fish from the St. John’s River, an account of which is given by Dr. Quackenbos {1. c.). But it is well known that no such fish occurs in the St. John’s River and it was finally decided that the supposed St. John’s River fish were Land-locked Salmon from Grand Lake Stream, Maine. The White Trout has been found also in Dan Hole Pond, N. H., Flood’s Pond, Me., and Averill Pond, Vt. Its discovery in these ponds precludes the necessity of going to Europe to account for its presence in Sunapee Lake. It seems unaccountable to many that the fish could have existed always in Sunapee, fi.shed so much as it was, and not be detected before. As a mat- ter of fact, it is not an unknown phenomenon. While the ponds subsequently found to contain Wliite Trout were perhaps not fished quite as generally as Sunapee, yet they were probably fished as much by the inhabitants about its shores and they doubtless did not distinguish the fish from the Common Trout, at least only to the extent of considering it a peculiar form of the latter. The White Trout is a rich and savory fish for the table, being fat in season, to which its flavor is apparently due. It is caught mainly by “plug fishing” with live bait and cut bait and very occasionally with worms. Not infrequently it is taken by trolling, but with a deep line as a rule. The best bait seems to be the smelt which was introduced into Sunapee Lake, and has always existed in Flood’s Pond. It is “ still ” or “plug” fished for, in about 80 or 90 feet of water in Sunapee Lake, and about 30 to 40 feet in Flood’s Pond (in June). The fact that it is a deep-water species would in part account for its being seldom observed by the old inhabitants. It is said to attain a weight of 10 pounds in Sunapee Lake, but a fish of 5 or 6 pounds in recent years is a monster. WHITE TROUT. 47 The White Trout of Sunapee Lake, during the warmer months, resides in depths of from 60 to 90 or 100 feet, where the temperature is in the neighborhood of 50° F. or less. In the spring it occurs in shallow water about the shores and is often caught from the wharves and piers. In the early part or middle of October it appears on a shoal near the entrance to Sunapee Harbor , to spawn, and the run continues approximately one month. This seems to be the only spawning place in the lake. At least, in the search that has been made for other grounds none has been found. The shoal consists of coarse gravel and sand thickly interspersed with bowlders of various sizes, and is contiguous to deep water. The water on the shoal varies, of course, with the level of the lake, but it averages from a foot to 6 or 8 feet in depth in places. A phenomenon was noticed on the shoal which may account for the peculiar suitability of the place as a spawning ground of the fish. That is, whenever a light breeze is blowing from any quarter, even from the side most protected from the wind, there is always a perceptible current across the reef, and at times quite strong, in the same general direction as the wind. The temperature of the water at the beginning of the breeding season, is from 40° to 45 and later about 33 . In the spawning runs males at first predominate. The action of the fish on the ground has not been fully obseiA’ed, or, if observed, has not been described. Such observations, however. are difficult owing to the fact that the runs occur at night. In Forest and Stream of December 18, 1890, quoting Commissioner Hodge, Dr. Bean says; “The golden trout have sometimes come on the spawning shoals by the ton at a time. They do not pair to any noticeable extent, and a female is sometimes attended by five or six males. They make no nest, but move around continuously like lake trout. The lake trout voids the eggs by rubbing the belly over the coarse rocks, and the males sometimes lean down on top of the females. At Loon Island shoals the fish have spawned in waters so shallow that their backs were not covered. The usual depth ranges from six inches to four or five feet, but some of the large ones doubtless spawn in deep water.” The following table shows catches by night on “The Reef ” during 1910, showing the proportion of males to females. Date. Total. Males. Females. October 21 7 6 1 “ 23 12 11 1 “ 24 49 37 12 “ 26 40 30 10 " 27 ] gg 51 45 28 ) “ 29 — — — “ 30 46 6 40 “ 31 1 30 2 28 November 1 j 280 143 137 48 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. Up to the 29th females were in the minority but during the latter part of the month greatly predominated. This may be due to the fact that the males running first were nearly all caught. A female is stated to average about 1200 ova to the pound of fish. From fish-cultural operations it is observable that the eggs are not always deposited at once, more than one and sometimes several strippings being required to get all of the eggs. While this may possibly be due to the abnormal conditions incident to the retention of the fish in live cars, it is probably a natural condition. It is not known how long the young remain upon the shoal after hatching, but young White Trout of only a few inches in length are taken on the same grounds as the large fish in summer. The following observations upon young White Trout were made by the present writer in 1910 and 1911. April 23, 1910. Along the shore of Soo-nipi Park, principally over coarse gravel and over sand beach near the gravel, several young White Trout were seen and four of them caught, each about one inch long. When disturbed they would swim and dart about, hesitating to go far into deep water. But if they went toward shore they would not conceal themselves under the gravel but seemed to depend for protection upon darting and dodging, at which they were quite adept. Apparently becoming tired, however, they swam more slowly and were easily caught. Their stomachs contained larval Diptera (Chironomus) and some minute crustaceans (Ento- mostraca). April 28. At the head of Pike Brook deadwater eight specimens from 1 to 1^ inches long were caught. Their stomachs also contained principally Chironomus larvae. August 13. Three White Trout from 5s to 7| inches long were caught at the Hedgehog fishing ground in about 90 feet of water. Characterization. The Blueback advocates would have rejoiced had they foreseen that the Blueback in its native waters would reach the size of an average Sunapee White Trout, as the main argument against the Blueback theory was the small size attained by the Blueback. As a matter of fact, the small size was the chief difference. Dr. Bean mentions one additional character, viz., the difference in the gill-rakers, which in the Blueback were always straight and in the Sunapee fish usually more or less curled and distorted. But this character does not obtain in the small Sunapee fish and in the large Blueback they are frequently as distorted as in the Sunapee fish. Indeed, it is a difficult matter to distinguish a large Blueback from a White Trout after it has been preserved in alcohol for some time and even when fresh. While it is comparatively easy to distinguish the Common Trout from the Saiblings, it is a rather difficult matter to distinguish the species of the latter. If they were not so closely related WHITE TROUT. 49 it would have been easy to have decided whether the Sunapee White Trout was a Rangeley Blueback or not. Dr. Bean distinguished Salvelinus aureolus from S. oquassa by the following • differences : Sunapee Trout. 1. Anal III 8. 2. Immature 9 inches in length. 3. Color of back in young, numerous dark blotches. 4. Embryo with white lines at the upper and lower edges of caudal. 5. Spawns in lake on shoals. 6. Gill-rakers shorter and usually less num- erous and almost always curled. Blueback. Anal III 10. Mature 9 inches in length. Back uniform steel blue. No such white lines. Spawns in streams. More numerous and not curled. The first difference will not serve to distinguish them, as S. aureolus sometimes has 10 anal rays, but in general it is of significance especially when taken with other apparent differences that the usual anal fin formula in S. aureolus is 9, that of S. oquassa is 10 or 1 1. The second does not now obtain for mature 9-inch aureolus have been observed and oquassa IS known to reach the size of the average aureolus. The third is of no value as it is comparing an immature or young fish with a mature adult. The fourth is of little value as it refers to a character that was observed in S. aureolus but its absence in S. oquassa was conjectured. Fifth, the place of spawning is obviously not a specific distinction. Sixth, the gill-rakers of the large specimens of S. oquassa do not differ in number, length, or m curling and other distortions, from those of the Sunapee White Trout. Having weighed and found most of these supposed differences wanting, it remains to point out the differences, if any exist. The most conspicuous external difference is that of color and that is not very pronounced. The spots are more numerous and smaller, and the under side of the pectoral fin has a narrower margin of white, in oquassa. While as before stated the oquassa occasionally has as few as 9 rays in the anal, it more often has 10 or 11 and aureolus never has been found to have 11 and only rarely 10. Comparing two male specimens each of the two species, the oquassa apparently has a somewhat longer head and snout. More careful examina- tion of a larger number of specimens each might either reveal more differences or reduce the foregoing to naught. The young even in the fry stage are usually easily distinguished from the Common Trout by fewer parr marks. I y I 50 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARES. Descriptions. 1 Breeding male . — Head about 4.5 in length without caudal; eye 7.9 in head; snout, 3.32; upper jaw, 1.76; lower jaw, 1.4; branchiostegals, 10/10; gill-rakers 7 + 13 on each side. Body ■comparatively slender, the depth 3.76 in length without caudal; caudal peduncle slender, 1.22 in the distance from anal to caudal; dorsal somewhat nearer tip of snout than base of caudal; dorsal rays III 9, the longest longer than anal base and 1.84 in head; distance from adipose to base of caudal equal to base of dorsal and somewhat greater than least depth of caudal peduncle; length of pectoral 1 .4 in head, the distance of its base from tip of snout about equaling length of head; distance from base of pectoral to ventral 3.28 in length of body without caudal; length of ventral 1.69 in head; distance from base of ventral to base of caudal 1.18 in distance from tip of snout to ventral; anal rays III 9, the longest 2. 12 in head. From a specimen I65 inches long taken in Sunapee Lake, N. H., October 24, 1910. Coloration . — Body light grayish olive above, indistinctly and irregularly spotted with darker tones of the same color, becoming paler and showing purplish and rose tints, these passing below the lateral line into a golden yellow which constantly deepens toward the ventral line of the body into golden orange; spots on sides dull orange yellow; dorsal same color as back, fading to dull brownish orange at tips, lightest posteriorly; adipose same color but slightly darker than back; caudal same color as back, darker basally, having three indistinct dusky spots at outer edge of both upper and lower lobes; lower edge shading into orange brown; pec- toral, ventral, and anal fins bright crimson with white line on anterior edge; pectoral having blackish line behind the white edge and becoming somewhat dusky basally. Head, color of body, becoming lighter on side, with metallic luster of yellow and light green and mottlings of dusky; lower jaw mottled with dusky, tip of lower jaw and end of snout of duller tones of the orange of the body; iris bright yellow. Breeding female . — Head 4.90 in length without caudal; eye 6.41 in head; snout, 4.05; upper jaw, 2.08; lower jaw, 1.60; branchiostegals 10/10; gill-rakers 7 + 13 on each side. Body moderately slender, the depth 4.34 in length without caudal; caudal peduncle slender, its least depth 1.82 in distance from anal to caudal; origin of dorsal nearer tip of snout than base of caudal; dorsal rays III IO5; the longest shorter than anal base and 2.26 in head; distance from adipose to base of caudal less than base of dorsal and nearly one half greater than least depth of caudal peduncle; length of pectoral 1.57 in head, the distance of its base from tip of snout about equaling length of head; distance from base of pectoral to ventral 3.09 in length of body without caudal; length of ventral 1.92 in head; distance from base of ventral to base of caudal ‘ From specimens other than those of the illustrations. Illustrations from a male 18f inches long and a female 19 inches long, respectively. WHITE TROUT. 55 1.15 in distance from tip of snout to ventral; anal rays III 9j, the longest 2.26 in head; verte- brae 64. From a specimen 16? inches long taken at Sunapee Lake, N. H., October 30, 1910. Coloration — As in male but paler and much less brilliant, lower part of body rather more yellow than orange; pectoral, ventral, and anal pinkish orange, growing darker, dusky purplish at tip, white edges anteriorly. Table of Proportional Measurements and other Characters of Salvelinus aureolas, two Localities compared showing Individual, Size, Sex, and Locality Variations} Locality. a+ a b/a o/a p/a x/a c/b e/b h/b k/b Gr. Br. D. A. Sex Flood’s Pond 7 152 .244 .137 .145 .114 .218 .218 .421 .546 ( 6-1-12 \ 64-14 11 id 9? G G 167 .251 .131 .140 .101 .202 .214 .440 .559 1 54-12 -L2 11 9 9 (( G 00 182 .258 .120 .142 .104 .191 .223 .446 .531 ( 7-H12 ( 84-13 8 9 10 9 cf G G 9^ 235 .214 .114 .129 .100 .183 .244 .469 .571 < 64-12 ( 84-14 1 1 10 10 9 & Sunapee Lake 13th 315 .198 .166 .240 .496 .604 ) 84-14 \ 84-14 1 0 10 10 9 cf? G G 14i 330 .230 .142 .162 .144 .289 .578 .690 U04-13 ho4-ll 1 1 10 9 9 cf (( G 331 .223 .132 .158 .135 .270 .527 .641 ) 94-13 \ 84-14 9 9 10 9 cT “ G 20f 470 .234 .157 .168 M18 .336 .645 .790 \ 74-14 1 74-12 9 1 1 9 9 (j’ G G 15| 362 .204 .104 .127 .148 .270 .479 .635 5 84-13 ( 84-14 1 0 1 0 9 8 9? G G 19| 450 .210 .126 .275 .529 .671 ) 74-15 ( 84-15 9 8 9 (( (( 20| 468 .221 .106 .141 .229 .531 .623 i 74-13 ( 74-13 9 10 10 9 9 (( G 20f 470 .225 .127 .126 .127 .273 .518 .650 ) 104-13 ( 84-13 8 10 9 7 9 Synonymy. Salmo fontinalis var. Carman, S., “The American Salmon and Trout, including introduced Species,” Nine- teenth Annual Report of the [Mass.] Commissioners of Inland Fisheries, fig. Ifi, 18.S.5. Slalvelinus] agassizii Goode, G. Brown, American Fishes, p. 499, 1888, Sunapee Lake, (name and locality only). Salvelinus aureolas Bean, Tarleton H., “Description of a supposed new species of charr {Salvelinus aurcolus), from Sunapee Rake, New Hampshire,” Proo. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 10, p. 028, 1887, Sunapee Lake, N. H.; Shooting and Fishing, vol. 5, no. 11, p. 6, fig. 2, January 10, 1889, (adult male and young).— Kendall, W. C., “Fauna of New England, List of the Pisces,” Occasional Papers Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 7, no. 8, p. 47, 1908, (Golden Trout, White Trout, Silver Trout). Salvelinus sunapee Qciackenbos, John D., Shooting and Fishing, hebruary 28, 1889, p. 7 ( The Fish of Suna- pee Lake”). Salvelinus alpinus aurcolus Jordan, David Starr, and Evermann, Barton Warren, “The Fishes of North and Middle America,” Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., no. 47, part 1, p. 511, 1896, (Sunapee Trout), Sunapee Lake, New Hampshire; Dan Hole Pond, Carroll County, New Hampshire; Flood’s Pond, Maine. ‘ For explanation of symbols used see page 53. 56 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARES. The Silveb Trout of Monadnock Lake. Salvelinus agassizii (Garman). Plate 6, Fig. 9 (male); Fig. 10 (female). Attention seems first to have been attracted to the habits of this trout, in that they differed so radically in some respects from those of the Common Trout (S. fontinalis), which this fish was once thought to be. An early article entitled “Observations on some of the habits of Salmo Fontinalis” by Samuel L. Bigelow, M. D., (Boston Journ. Nat. Hist., vol. 6, p. 49, 1850) follows verbatim. Dr. Bigelow does not definitely name Monadnock Lake but the description and location suffi- ciently indicate it. The habits of the fish also, as described, agree exactly with the known habits of the Monadnock-Lake Trout. Dr. Bigelow said: “The following observations on the habits and peculiarities of a species of Salmo, were made in a comparatively short space of time, without any reference to science but merely as a source of pleasure to myself, and to gratify a natural curiosity. “The pond in which these trout are found, is situated at the base of the north-east ridge of the Monadnock mountain. It covers an area I should think, of seventy-five or one hundred acres, and is so deep about the centre, that soundings have not been found, though a line has been sunk two hundred feet. It is supplied entirely by springs at the bottom, which is com- posed of red and white sand and rocks, so far as the depth of the water will permit of an examina- tion. The water is always very cold, and so clear that the bottom may be seen, in a bright day, to the depth of twenty-five or thirty feet; and although there are neither inlets nor out- lets, its height is nearly the same at all seasons. Its depth increases from the shore, where it is only a few inches, in some parts gradually, and in others rather abruptly. The form of the pond is quite irregular, and has been fancied by some to correspond very exactly to that of the base of the mountain, which is close beside it. From this circumstance, together with its great central depth, has arisen a legend of its having been once filled by this mass, now a moun- tain, which was heaved out by some convulsion of nature. “The south-west shore is more stony, and less exposed than almost any other, and here it is that the trout form their beds and come up to spawn. Another natural advantage which this point possesses over others is, that here the change from shallow to deep water is quite abrupt, affording the trout a better chance for escape in case of fright or danger. “ Their beds, as they are called, are merely small cavities formed by the accidental posi- tion of three or four stones, sunk to their upper surface in sand. Their capacity is generally from a pint to a quart, and their forms are various; sometimes conical, with the base upward SILVER TROUT. 57 sometimes flat and shallow. They are most numerous within ten feet of the shore, and in not more than ten or twelve inches of water. The trout having selected these little cavities, clean them out with great care, removing the finer particles of dirt by fanning with their tails, and the larger with their mouths; this done, they have a bed which they visit for a successive series of years, which will be longer or shorter, as they are more or less disturbed. An old fisherman pointed out to me abandoned beds, on which he had in former years taken great numbers. They were on the south side of the pond, whence the fish had gradually followed the shore, till year before last, when they came up on the extreme south-west shore, where I found them. They remain in the deep water about the centre of the pond, during the entire year except the spawn- ing season, which commences about the first of October. So precise are they in their time of appearing, that this fisherman has for the last six or eight successive years taken fifty or seventy- five pounds, on the first day of October, when even the day before he could neither see a trout nor get a bite. They failed, however to be thus regular last season. The first four days of October were quite warm and rainy, and with almost constant fishing we caught only ten or fifteen pounds during that time, and those in water of twenty or twenty-five feet in depth. This proximity to the shore, however, showed them to be approaching their beds, and a few cold nights brought them up. The unusual mildness of the season, causing too great a differ- ence in the temperature between the deep water they inhabit and the shallows on the border, may be the cause of their late appearance. But it was no easy matter to make a convert of the old fisherman to this doctrine; he held firmly to his old notion, that ‘they had a wonderful sight of almanack learning,’ — they had only ‘missed their reckoning.’ Having reached their beds they lose almost entirely their natural cautiousness and shyness, and seem wholly absorbed in the object of their visit, endea\mring in turn, to reach a bed, which they remain upon till their ova are deposited. If frightened by a .sudden or violent motion of one standing on the shore, over them as it were, they reluctantly retire a little distance, but almost immediately return. The males follow the females closely at this time. They are, I should think about in the proportion of one male to four or five females. I was in the habit of disturbing them daily, from sunrise till dark; and prevented them to a great extent from remaining quiet long enough to spawn ; so they were compelled to come up in the night, in order to go through with their labor undisturbed. In the females which I took the day before they began to spawn at night, I found the membranes enclosing the mass of ova, ruptured, and a continuous line of single ova extending from the mass, through the passage, and stopping directly within the exter- nal organs, wliich were very red and much swollen. The spawning season lasts, I think, for two or three weeks; after which they retire again to the deep water, where they can be taken only in the winter, through the ice. Generally in spawning-time there is no difficulty in taking them with a baited hook ; but last season, perhaps owing to their being late, and pressed to the performance of their functions, they passed all kinds of bait and hook untouched. In the 58 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. winter, the only bait used is the minnow ; but in October it is various, as the grasshopper, angle- worm and artificial fly. These are most used; but I found that when they passed all these, they would often take readily their own spawn, dried a little in the sun. Another means of taking them at this time, is by a slip-noose of strong wire attached to the end of a short pole. This is passed over the tail or head, it matters little wliich, they are so careless at this time, and carried to the centre of the body ; when a strong and sudden pull will bring them to the shore. Another mode of catching them is by means of a large hook attached to a short pole and line. This is carried under the fish, and secured in the body by a sudden jerk, which lands the fish on shore. Four hogks are sometimes used, bound together by the shanks in such a manner that the points are presented at right angles to each other. If these are dropped among a num- ber there is a chance of securing more than one; and if a single fish is the object, his chance of escape is made le.ss. These are both easy methods. At this time they do not seize the bait with the suddenness of the common brook trout; they take it calmly and retire deliberately, like the perch. They vary in size from one quarter of a pound to five pounds; but those taken are seldom less than one quarter or more than three pounds. The larger ones are taken almost exclusively in the deep water, through the ice. The males are of a very brilliant and shining dark brown or olive color on the back. The sides are brilliant and silvery, and are traversed by a longitudinal line, and covered with very bright red and yellow spots. The belly is perfectly white. There are some spots on the fins, but I cannot say on which, nor if all are spotted; nor do I know the precise number of spots. The females are less brilliant than the males ; the back is lighter and more dingy, the sides are less silvery, and the spots are fewer and less bright. Several females which I took were of a yellow brown color, darker on the back than on the sides, with a yellowish white belly. They were mottled and looked as if water-soaked. These trout, as a whole, were much more silvery and brilliant, and had more and brighter spots than most brook trout. Their flesh is red, but not so dark as that of the salmon. There is but one other kind of fish found in tliis pond, viz., the perch. They live in an entirely distinct part from that occupied by the trout, and I think they are never seen or taken together. The perch are only aBout the north-east shore, wliich is quite rocky. The trout have been taken in this pond, as far as I could learn, from time immemorial, and form- erly in so great numbers, to use the language of the old fisherman, as to ‘hav^e been fed by bushels to the hogs.’ This is by no means the case at the present day.” The next published reference to this fish consists of the letter of transmittal and Professor S. F. Baird’s conclusion regarding some specimens sent to him for identification. In his iden- tification, Professor Baird was misled by the slenderness, forked tail, and general silvery coloration of the fish (see synonymy). As will be seen later some local fishermen regarded it as a “lake trout” and a controversy arose between them and the fishwardens. This com- munication is quoted in full as follows: SILVER TROUT. 59 “Keene, N. H., October 30, 1872. “Dear Sir: I send you by express to-day a few specimens of the ‘silver-trout,’ or ‘Dublin trout,’ as they are called here. They were caught in Center Pond, in Dublin, yesterday, and are fair specimens of the variety found there. “The pond lies at the foot of Monadnock Mountain, and is sometimes called Monadnock Lake. The shores and bottom are covered with a fine white sand. The water is always much colder than that in the neighboring ponds, as it is fed only by deep springs, there being no stream running into the pond. The water is also very clear. In the pond are a few dace, perch, and eels, which are not in any way peculiar. I believe the flesh of these trout is a fine salmon-color, and they have a great local reputation for the angler and for the table since the settlement of the country. They are caught only in May or June and in October, when they seek their spawning-beds in the shallows of the pond. Great numbers were formerly taken from the spawning-beds, but they are now protected by law at that season. They are thought by our anglers to be a different species from the brook-trout of our New Hampshire streams, and by some are claimed to be ‘land-locked salmon.’ I hope these specimens may enable you to decide these questions. As the colors will be damaged by the alcohol in which I send them, I give you the notes of the coloring of a female, measuring nine inches in length and weighing four ounces: iris, dark-brown; upper part of head, black; gill-covers, silvery wliite, with pris- matic reflections; lower jaw, white, with a dark line near the mouth; back, light olive-green; sides, light-green to lateral line, and then much lighter, shading rapidly to white of belly, the whole gleaming like silver in the sun-light, even under water; belly, white, tinged with bright vermilion. Sides covered with golden spots, rather faint in color, from one-eighth to three- sixteenths of an inch in diameter; lateral line very distinct; the pectoral, ventral, anal, and caudal fins bright vermilion, with the larger rays in each white; the dorsal and adipose fins olive-green, mottled with brown; the scales are small, but very distinct. The male is darker colored, with much more red upon the belly, and has small red spots in many of the yellow spots, resembling much more some of our brook-trout. I may add that no other pond, as far as I have learned, has trout marked like these. “Hoping these specimens may arrive safely and in a satisfactory condition, I remain, yours, truly, “Thos. E. Hatch, “Com. on Fisheries for New Hampshire. “Professor S. F. Baird. “[These fish proved to belong to the group of lake-trout, probably closely related to what Dr. Prescott called Salmo symmetrica . — S. F. B.]” In Forest and Stream, vol. 10, page 196, April 18, 1878, appeared an article by Dr. D. S. Jordan entitled “Prof. Jordan on Characteristics of Trout,” from which the following brief comment on the Silver Trout is extracted : 60 KEiNDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. “By the way, the silver trout of Dublin Pond or Monadnock Lake, New Hampshire, somewhat noted among anglers, seems to be a silver gray variety of common fontinalis, not visibly different except in color. The statement in the report of the U. S. Fish Commissioners for 1872-73 (p. 372), that it belongs' to the group of lake trout, probably closely related to what Dr. Prescott called Salmo symmetrica, is erroneous. The so-called species of lake trout, namay- cush, amethystus, pallidus, confinis, adirondacus, symmetricus and toma, are, beyond any reasonable doubt, forms or varieties of Salmo namaycush, differing in some trifling respects in the different waters.” In 1884, a controversy regarding the identity of this fish and a point of fish-protective law depending upon its identity, arose among the inhabitants and fish wardens in the vicinity of Dublin Pond. A notice regarding the fish and the controversy appeared in the Boston Journal ' as a published letter which was copied by Forest and Stream, vol. 22, page 130, March 13, 1884, and which is here quoted: “A pecuhar fish.— Concord, N. H., March 5. An exceedingly interesting question has arisen in Dublin, N. H., in relation to the subject of fish protection. It appears that of late persons have been catching a certain kind of trout from Dublin Pond and claiming that it is a peculiar species and is not protected by the state law. The local wardens refrained from making arrests under the circumstances, but caught some of the fish and forwarded them to the State Commissioners, who are Col. .George W. Riddle, of Manchester, Hon. Luther Hayes, of Milton, and Col. E. B. Hodge, of Plymouth. Those gentlemen sent specimens to Harvard University for examination, and an answer has been received from Prof. F. W. Putnam, Curator of the Peabody Museum. Prof. Putnam, assisted by Prof. Garmon [sic = Garman] head of the Zoo- logical Museum, has made a preliminary inspection of the fish and says the variety is one they do not yet make out. At present they are inclined to believe them a variety of the Salmo fontinalis, or brook trout, but add that further study may change their views. In the mean- time the Commissioners have instructed the Dublin wardens to prohibit the catching of the fish under discussion, and to prosecute all persons found taking them. This action is based on the belief that they are a variety of brook trout. They are small in size and fine eating, and their general appearance is such that if few of them were mixed with accepted brook trout it would require an effort to separate them. There is a rumor that Agassiz once stated that he discovered a rare variety of trout in Dublin Pond, such as was found nowhere else in the United States, excepting in a small lake among the Rocky Mountains. — Boston J ournal. “ [We have seen the singular trout from Dublin Pond and think it merely a white form of the common brook trout. These silver fish, which are the rule there, occasionally occur in Caledonia Creek, N. Y.].” The last reference by the Journal to a rumored statement by Agassiz that he had discovered ' This is the daily paper and should not be confused with the Journal of the Boston Society of Natural History. SILVER TROUT. 61 a rare variety of trout in Dublin Pond, such as was found nowhere else in the United States, excepting in a small lake among the Rocky Mountains, is doubtless a misquotation regarding the locality. The statement ascribed to Agassiz; even in current tradition at this lake, is to the effect that the fish has its closest relationship with a charr of the mountain lakes of Switzer- land. In its issue of March 22, 1884, the Boston Journal again notices “The Dublin Trout,” and publishes an old letter of Agassiz’s regarding it: — “The peculiarities of Dublin trout have caused the speculations of anglers and others, during the last half century at least, and as the subject seems to be re\dved by the Dublin fish wardens, the following letter from Professor Agassiz, written about twenty-five years ago, will be interesting. After some male specimens w^ere sent, as Professor Agassiz requested, he wrote that the examination of them only confirmed his previous opinion that the trout were specifi- cally distinct, adding that there must be others like them found elsew'here as nature did not make a distinct species for one little locality; this last letter cannot now be found. “‘Dear Sir: I duly received the two specimens of trout which you have forw^arded to me. They reached Cambridge in a perfect state of preservation, and I was not a little surprised on examining them to find that they belonged to an undescribed species. I have carefully com- pared them to-day wdth all the trout occurring in the United States w'hich I have thus far been able to secure, from Lake Superior to Labrador and as far south as they reach, and I find them to differ specifically from all. As the specimens are all three females, I should be much obUged if you would secure some males for me. “ ‘ Should so-called lake herring, or whitefish, as they are also called, be found in your waters, which I suppose to be the case, I w^ould be much obliged if you could secure some of them for me. “‘Allow me to close by returning my best thanks for the specimens you have sent me, which I have at once put up in my museum. — L. Agassiz. “‘Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 12.’” The Forest and Stream of March 27, 1884, page 170, again, under the caption of a “Pecu- liar Fish,” publishes a letter in which the writer indicates that previous identifications of the fish as a Common Brook Trout are erroneous as both forms existed there and were easily dis- tinguished. The editor again appends a note suggesting that the opinion of an ichthyologist was needed to decide the question whether or not it was a distinct species. He w^as e\ddently unaware that two of the most eminent and distinguished ichthyologists of the country had decided the question, — one, that it appeared to be one of the Lake Trout forms; the other, that it was quite positively the Brook Trout but for some unaccountable reason was slender and silvery and differed otherwise in coloration from the Brook Trout from other localities. The letter is of sufficient importance in showing that two different color forms or varieties existed side by side, as it were, to warrant the full quotation, which follows: 62 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. “I see in your issue of March 13 a piece headed ‘A Peculiar Fish,’ and, as there has been much discussion as regards it, I want to add my mite. I have for years lived near and fished these waters, and think the description of the fish far from right. Last fall I obtained permis- sion from the State Conunissioners to take fifty of these fish for the purpose of stocking Stone Pond. I caught two distinct varieties of trout; one very light-colored, slim and silvery, the other, to all appearances, was a common brook trout, being dark, with very bright spots, and much the heavier in proportion to. the length, the same length of the latter weighing one-third more than the former. There is no stream, how'ever small, flowing into this lake, as it is entirely fed by springs. Only the common brook trout are found in the outlet of the lake. The right to fish this lake is claimed on the ground that it is a lake, and the strange fish is a lake trout for this reason. It is called in the Dublin history Monadnock Lake, and also Monadnock Lake on the county maps. It is called by many here Dublin Pond. The question is, is it a lake or a pond? Last fall both kinds of trout spawned on the same bed, but what I term brook trout were about fourteen days later than the others, and did not come until the others had left» 'Fish Warden.’ “Marlboro, N. H., March 17. “[The differences mentioned are not of themselves sufficient to establish two species. Shape and color amount to little or nothing in the salmon family We cannot say that the fish in question is not a distinct species, but evidence from an ichthyologist is first needed to prove it ]” Pursuant of the advice of the Forest and Stream, an appeal for a decision, accompanied by specimens, was submitted to Professor Baird who referred them to Dr. T. H. Bean, at that time Cxirator of Fishes in the United States National Museum. Dr. Bean reported to Professor Baird as follows: “After a careful examination of the individuals received from Mr. Greenwood, I arrived at the conclusion that they are the common brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, differing in no respects, so far as I can see, from the usual type of the species, excepting in their pale coloration and few vermilion spots — variations which I have frequently observed in trout from widely different localities.” This report was accompanied by a brief enumeration of the anatomical characters and proportions most commonly used in fish descriptions. This description is quoted later in this paper. In the Report of the Fish and Game Commissioners of New Hampshire for the year 1884, at page 7, the following article on the “Dublin Trout” appears. “Quite an interest has been taken in this trout, whose home is in Monadnock Lake. They differ somewhat from any other trout in the waters of this state. By some it is claimed that they are a lake trout, and can be taken by single hook and line in the months of January, Feb- SILVER TROUT. 63 ruary and IVIarch. Othors say they are brook trout, and cannot be taken in the closed season, from the 30th of September to the 30th of April next following. “So anxious are parties to take the fish that in the months of January, Febiaiaiy, March and April they are, in their opinion, ‘lake trout.’ As the close season begins then on lake trout, the same parties call them brook trout after April 30 to Sept. 30 (open season for brook trout). This is quite an ingenious contrivance for the fishermen, but destructive to the fish. The com- missioners, finding such a diversity of local opinion, caused several of this species of trout to be taken and sent to the Agassiz Museum at Cambridge, Mass., for investigation, and they were reported ‘as a w’ell-marked variety of brook trout.’ Several were also sent to Prof. Baird, U. S. Fish Commissioner, Washington, D. C., and were pronounced by him to be a variety of brook trout.’ Hereafter there will be no mistake in regard to the variety, as that question has been settled, and they will not be taken as lake trout without encountering trouble with the local fish wardens and commissioners.’’ Although at a' late date, it remained for Mr. Samuel Carman, of the Museum of Compara- tive Zoology, in 1885, to concur with Agassiz regarding the fish and he accordingly described it as new to science, under the name of Salmo agassizii (see synonymy). After giving it this specific name and describing it technically. Carman adds: “A variety of the brook trout; apparently restricted to the small lakes in the neighborhood of Dublin, Jvew Hamp.shire. Com- pared with those of S. foniinalis, the young are rather more slender, the caudal notch slightly deeper, and the sides more silvery. The young are much darker colored than the adults; on both the red spots of the flanks are large and numerous. On the adult figured, fig. 18, the brown color has become so much bleached that the specimen is nearly uniform silvery , \ery faint indications of the red spots remain. The differences between the young of S. foniinalis and those of this variety are even more marked than those between adults; side by side, the clouded parr-marks or bands at once distinguish the young of S. agassizii. Apparently it is later in attaining sexual development, and has the appearance of a deep water species Dublin Pond; Lake Monadnock, Keene, N. H.; Center Pond.’’ The localities mentioned by Carman indicate three separate places, one of which, at least, is supposed to be in Keene. As a matter of fact, the three names are synonymous and the lake is in Dublin, somewhat remote from Keene. Carman apparently hastily inferred from Baird’s mention of the locality that Center Pond was different from Dublin Pond and for some other reason that the latter was different from Monadnock Lake. Carman’s description of the fish appears later in the present paper, together with other descriptive matter. The next published reference to the fish appears to be that by David S. Jordan as “Note on Mr. Carman’s Paper on ‘The American Salmon and Trout”’ in the Proceedings of the United States National Museum for 1885 (see synonymy). 64 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. In this note Dr. Jordan briefly but quite positively reiterates his former conclusion that the fish is a mere color variety of S. fontinalis. “9. Salmo agassizi. The trout of Dublin Pond has been known to me for many years. It is obviou.sly a local color-variation of S. fontinalis. It may be called, in current nomenclature, Salvelinus fontinalis agassizi.” Regarding the fish, nothing further appears to have been printed until 1889, when an article or supplement on “The Red Trout of New England,” by Dr. Bean was published in Shooting and Fishing, and later in the New Hampshire Fish and Game Commission Report (see synonymy). In this article he recognizes it, by name at least, as a distinct species. This was the first recognition of it after Garman described it and even Garman himself stated that it was a variety of the Common Brook Trout. Dr. Bean’s decision, however, seems to have left no impression on the minds of ichthy- ologists subsequently referring to or cataloguing the fish. It continued to be considered a variety or subspecies of Salvelinus fontinalis until Jordan and Evermann accepted it as a dis- tinct species in their Food and Game Fishes of North America. Descriptions. 1849. — Bigelow (1. c.) : The description is evidently, at least partly, from memory, but, although in some respects vague, it applies in general to this species. It has already been quoted and need not be repeated here. 1872. — Hatch: The color description already quoted is very exact in most respects. 1884. — Bean (1. c.): “It is a Salvelinus without hyoid teeth. The gill-rakers are fifteen to sixteen in number; there are about 115 tubes in the lateral line, the number of rows of scales, of course, being much greater. The eye equals the snout in length, and is contained four and one-half times in the length of the head. The maxilla reaches a little beyond the vertical from the posterior margin of the orbit, and is nearly one-half as long as the head. The origin of the dorsal is nearly midway between the tip of the snout and the root of the upper caudal lobe. The length of the pectoral is one-sixth of the total without caudal. Dorsal ten; anal ten. Coloration silvery-gray on the upper parts, whitish below; pectorals, ventrals, and anal, largely vermilion; vermilion spots on the sides few in number.” In this description there is little given besides color to distinguish the fish from the Common Trout. The first statement, that it is a Salvelinus “without hyoid teeth” would seem to establish it as S. fontinalis, so far as that character is concerned. 1885. — Garman (1. c.): “B., 11 to 13; D., 12 to 13; A., 10 to 12; V., 8 to 9; P., 14 to 15; pores, 109 to 119; scales, 38 to 42, 217 to 237, 38 to 42; second dorsal to lateral line, 28. “Snout longer than eye; maxillary extending behind orbit; in young (fig. 17) the diameter SILVER TROUT. 65 of the eye equals the length of the snout, and the length of the head is one-fourth of the total, without caudal; the length of the head of a twelve and a half inch specimen (fig. 18) equals the depth of the body, and is contained four and three-fourths times in the length of the body and head.” This is the original description but conveys practically nothing distinctive. The princi- pal characteristic differences noted by Garman have already been quoted. 1889. — Bean ( 1 . c.): “This handsome little trout is found in some small lakes of New Hampshire. Garman, who was the first to describe it, considers it a variety of the brook trout. In coloration it has considerable resemblance to this species in its banded back fin and tail fin, but it never has vermiculations, or mottlings, on the back. The tail is forked and there are teeth on the root of the tongue. The stomach is stout and the number of appendages at its pyloric end in some examples is forty-nine. The scales are about as large as in the brook trout and the shape is similar in specimens of equal size of the two kinds. Garman observed that the young are more slender, with deeper fork of the tail and the sides more silvery than in the brook trout, and ornamented with clouded parr marks. Fresh specimens seen in the national collection in 1884 were silvery gray on the upper parts, whitish below. The fins on the breast, belly and beliind the vent were chiefly vermilion. A few vermilion spots on the sides. “The Dublin pond trout is generally designated as a light-colored, slim, and silvery fish. It is said to spawn on the same bed but about two w’ceks earlier than the brook trout, the latter not making its appearance until the smaller and more graceful relative has disappeared to its reputed abode in deep water. Garman’s largest individuals were about a foot long.” In this general, rather than in his technical discus.sion. Bean gives some of the essential diagnostic characteristics. Here the former assertion that it is a Salvelinus “without hyoid teeth” is modified by the statement that there are “teeth on the root of the tongue.” He refers also to the distinctive coloration, which is one of the marked peculiarities of the species. In Forest and Stream, March 10, 1900, p. 191, A. N. Cheney referred to the Dublin Pond Trout as observed by him at the Sportsman’s Show. Contrasting it with the Brook Trout, he described it as follows: “There are no vermiculations on the back, which is a solid greenish color, with silvery glints in certain lights; caudal fins more forward; fins paler, general pinkish hue; the black stripes in fins fainter, and the white border ^ dirty white; spots lemon color, no halo. Fish generally more slender than the brook trout. “While looking at the Dublin Pond trout I was fortunate enough to meet Mrs. Dwight and her daughter, of Boston, who reside in summer at Dublin Pond, and they very graciously went back to the tanks to give me such information as they could. When the fish were netted from the water. Miss Dwight w'as very enthusiastic about the fish, and said they were very fair types of the trout as she knew them at the pond, but there she had observed that the spots were orange rather than lemon, but the colors fade quickly.” 66 / KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. In Salmon and Trout, by Dean Sage and others, published in 1902, William C. Harris wrote that the Dublin Pond Trout of New England waters {“ Salvelinus fontinalis agassizii”) is similar in structure to the Brook Trout {“ fonlinalis”) but differs in coloration, being pale grayish and almost without red spots, thus resembling the Lake Trout or togue. It is found mainly in Dublin and Center Ponds in New Hampshire. He further stated that Mr. A. H. Thayer, a resident angler, writes that the young fish are “as beautiful as a bar of mother-of- pearl. The adult fish living in deep water are much darker with more brilliant red spots.” During the last part of October, 1912, the present writer made a visit to Monadnock Lake. Mr. James DeRocher, of the Nashua Fisheries Station was detailed to assist in the effort to secure specimens of the trout and Mr. Walter H. Rich accompanied the party in order to make a colored drawing of the fish from life should any be secured. Expectations were not very high, however, owing to the lateness of the season, the stated spawning time being about October 20. Mr. DeRocher was supplied with two gill-nets, each 100 feet long, of different-sized mesh, the larger perhaps two inches and the smaller of one inch, stretched. On the night of the 29th, these nets were set on “the reef,” said to be the spawning grounds of the fish, and in about two to four feet of water. Previous to setting the net some small fish were observed close to shore which from their shape were thought to be trout. In the small-meshed net ten small trout were caught, one and two at a time at intervals, and in the large-meshed net which permitted the small fish to pass through one large trout was taken. These were kept in an extemporized live car until the next morning when Mr. Rich made color sketches of the large specimen and two of the smaller ones. During the fishing the party was favored by some visitors, one of whom was Mrs. Grenville Clark, formerly Miss Dwight, to whom in the foregoing quotation Mr. A. Nelson Cheney referred as one very familiar with the trout of this lake. The present writer is also indebted to Mrs. Clark for much interesting and valuable information concerning the trout. Mr. A. D. Mason, of Dublin, who from boyhood has had an intimate acquaintance with the trout and its habits and possesses a traditional knowledge of the lake and its early conditions, furnished much valuable information. The descriptions inunediately following are from specimens secured at the time of this visit to Monadnock Lake. « Descriptions of Recent Specimens of Salvelinus agassizii. Male. — Head, 4.13 in length without caudal; eye, 7 in head; snout, 3.25; upper jaw, 1.54; lower jaw, 1.30, somewhat hooked; branchiostegals, 11/11; gill-rakers 5-|-8 and 5-f9; no bran- chiostegal teeth. Body moderately deep, the greatest depth 3.52 in length without caudal; cau- dal peduncle slender, as in S. aureolus; dorsal slightly nearer tip of snout than base of caudal; dorsal rays II, 10, the longest 1.15 in its base and 2.27 in head; distance from adipose to base of SILVER TROUT. 67 caudal a little more than two fifths greater than the least depth of the caudal peduncle ; length of pectoral about 1.65 in head, the distance of its base from tip of snout equaling length of head; distance from base of pectoral to base of ventral slightly over 3 in length of body without caudal; the ventral length about 2 in head; distance from base of ventral to base of caudal about 1.24 in distance from tip of snout to base of ventral; anal rays II, 8, the longest about 1.9 in head. Coloration — Dark grajdsh green on upper part of back, becoming lighter and yellowish toward the lateral line; below decidedly yellow, paling into pearl gray, and suffused with light Saturn-red, deepening toward the abdomen, where from the ventral fins forward the color stops abruptly against the clear white of the abdomen and throat; light red appearing more or less along the lower edge of the body behind the ventrals, excepting on a sharply defined clear white patch in front of and at the base of the anal fin. Dull orange-yellow spots scattered over middle of body and five ocelli of pale lilac with crimson centers. Head, color of body on top, fading to the lighter greens and numerous metallic colors of rose, pearl, yellow, purple and reddish; lower jaw whitish, mottled with dusky, the tip slightly tinged with flesh color or dull orange. Iris, straw yellow; dorsal, dull yellow, crossed by several irregular dusky bars, the dark color mainly between the rays; a small dusky spot on body at the base of each ray; adipose dull purplish, somewhat lighter on upper edge, with a narrow sub- marginal dusky line; pectoral, ventral, and anal fins pale purplish pink, deepening basally, anterior edges white with black line behind, the pectorals growing somewhat dusky basally; caudal, dull purplish pink becoming somewhat orange centrally and dusky basally, with pur- plish black band at tip and several incomplete and somewhat indistinct dusky bars across it; the upper edge dull orange yellow, the lower white and both with irregular narrow line of dusky behind the light color. Description from a specimen 16.5 inches long taken on the night of October 29, 1912. Female — Read 4.47 in length without caudal; eye, 4 in head; snout, 4; upper jaw, 1.80; lower jaw, 1.50; branchiostegals, 11/11; gill-rakers, III-4-I-9 and 11-54-8 (three rudiments, a space and 4 developed and 9 fully developed, and 2 rudiments, a space and 5 fully developed and 8 fully developed). Body slender, the greatest depth 5.19 in length without caudal; caudal peduncle slender, 1.53 in the distance from anal to base of caudal; dorsal origin nearer tip of snout than base of caudal; dorsal rays, i, 10; the longest ray longer than base of fin and 1.56 in head; distance from adipose to base of caudal about one fourth greater than least depth of caudal peduncle; length of pectoral about 1.63 in head, the distance of its base from tip of snout equaling head; distance from base of pectoral to ventral slightly over 3 in length of body without caudal; the ventral length about 1.89 in length of head; distance from base of ventral to base of caudal 1.23 in distance from tip of snout to base of ventral; anal rays, i, 8, the longest about 1.63 in head. 68 KENDALL; NEW ENGLAND CHARES. The colors are generally olive green above shading into the silvery opalescent of the side and white of the belly; the dorsal is somewhat barred but the caudal shows scarcely any bars but merely dark marginal shades. The spots of the side are fewer than in the large specimen, usually wholly absent or only one or two present. Compared with S. fontinalis of about the same size, aside from the coloration and the more slender form, the diagnostic differences are few. The vertical fins are lower and the base of the dorsal somewhat shorter; the eye is considerably larger and the maxillary longer. The gill-rakers are degenerated to a greater degree than in S. oquassa, in which the same tendency has been observed. Description drawn from a specimen 7^ inches long taken on the night of October 29, 1912. Diagnosis. — Head shorter than in S. fontinalis, longer than in S. aureolus, much like S. oquassa but somewhat longer. Dorsal lower than in S. fontinalis, higher than in S. aureolus, close to S. oquassa. Pectoral much shorter than in S. fontinalis, a little shorter than in S. aureolus, close to S. oquassa. Ventral much shorter than in S. fontinalis, shorter than in S. aureolus, close to S. oquassa. Longest anal ray much shorter than in S. fontinalis, longer than in S. aureolus, close to S. oquassa. Distance from adipose fin to base of caudal greater than in 8. fontinalis, exactly as in S. aureolus, little greater than in S. oquassa. Distance from anal fin to caudal much greater than in S. fontinalis, less than in N. aureolus, ittle greater than in S. oquassa. Eye compared with head about the same as in S. fontinalis, larger than in S. aureolus, somewhat larger but near S. oquassa. Snout a little shorter than in S. fontinalis, close to *S. aureolus, longer than in S. oquassa. Length of maxillary close to S. fontinalis, longer than in S. aureolus, and much longer than in S. oquassa. Mandible shorter than in S. fontinalis, somewhat longer than in S. aureolus and much longer than in S. oquassa. Dark markings on dorsal and caudal much like S. fontinalis, ocellated red spots on sides much like S. fontinalis but very much fewer. Rest of coloration much like S. aureolus but lighter. Notwithstanding the absence of prominent structural differences, it is a question if it is not well to recognize as specific slight differences of that kind in connection with size, shape, color, and habits, at least locally constant and fixed. In this case there are no intergrading forms and while it shows relationship to S. fontinalis its most pronounced affinities seem to be with the Saibling group otherwise than in the apparent absence of basibranchial teeth. Table of Proportional Measurements and other Characters of Salvclinvs agassizii from. Monadnock Lake, N. H., showing Size, Sex, and Individual Variation. SILVER TROUT, 0) c; X O) 'b 'b bi b b O O cn o3 02 ^ u u> < 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO :§ D- T o Q o o o 03 o o o rH -rF 43 S imIco •HfP) H[H fhIh HlH ■g £ m fh|^ h{h h|t^ fHIfH fH|fH h|h h|h o o xi ^ o o a 43 iO t>» CO CO 03 03 03 03 03 03 X X g o ++++++++++++++ 43 00 00 03 03 '*t- ■«f '•i* WO wo r>- CO 1-. 93 fO 43 bD o3 CO 00 CO O 00 00 wo *3 a CO WO CO p p ,2 T3 N f-4 § 'E o wo o CO X IM o o 03 03 ” >> S3 fH .. "O bC 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 t: c o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1^ a WO *o O CO CO a o CO u- wo CO CO i'. CO CD CO CO CO •e. 00 o o wo rf’ lO . o wo o I'* CO Tf wo x: 1 cs (N «N 03 03 03 SI i a § 43 1'* 00 o 00 o s 03 o S X o g s l>. (>, t'- wo •Ft' 03 03 P 43 o (N 03 oa -fs “5? toko HH CO L-. H .2 6q t: FM O Q* ^ S 5 s C tn C a: hJ O J Q "2 C O* • OJ -fi ^ ^ s “ a 1 -2 i 3 «3 3 3 « g J?; 5?; S tv OJ Q 'si "b Of , o o OJ ■£ “ c M "So ^ C C w OJ 'JT 5^ JS W 4.' 4^ 'J? "C •«* 8 6 ^ O' i.1 <0 -.J S S + a> 70 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARES. Habitat. Garman (1885) said it had the appearance of a deep-water species, and such it proved to be. Bigelow stated that they remain in deep water about the center of the pond during the entire year except in spawning season. Miss Dwight informed Mr. Cheney (1. c.) that when the ice left the lake the trout were caught in water from 80 to 100 feet deep, but two or three weeks after the ice goes out the trout come to the surface. Mr. Thayer told Mr. Harris (1. c.) that they came to the surface and into shallow water from May 20 to June 10. “This early summer rise to the surface,” Mr. Harris wTote, “and their sudden disappearance on or about the tenth day of June is strikingly similar to the habit shown by the cisco, or lake herring, which is also one of the salmonoids.” In a letter to Dr. B. W. Evermann, of the Bureau of Fisheries, Mr. W. 0. Robinson wrote, under recent date, that for a period of about ten days in the spring, generally commencing with the 10th of May, the trout leave the deep water and come to the surface, rising freely in the morning till nine o’clock and again from five o’clock till dark. In the fall of 1912, and in a recent letter to the present writer, Mr. A. D. Mason, of Dublin, N. H., of many years’ familiarity with the trout, said that they evidently frequented deep water most of the time except in the month of May when they rise to the surface for the little black fly. At this time, early in the morning and toward night they are jumping all the time. But after warm weather comes on and the black flies depart the fish retire to deep water. Breeding Habits. Bigelow stated (1. c.) that the breeding time, which lasted about two or three weeks, began about the first of October when the fish congregated on shoals, formerly on the south but at the time of his visit, on the southwest shore, where they spawned at night. Having reached the beds, he said, they lose their natural shyness and seem wholly absorbed in the object of their visit. If frightened they did not go far away and soon returned. The males followed the females very closely in about the proportion of one male to four females. Mr. Hatch {1. c.) stated that they sought the shoals for spawning in October. In Forest and Stream, (1. c.) a person signing himself “Fishwarden” wrote that both kinds of trout spawned on the same beds, but that the Brook Trout were about fourteen days later than the others, and did not come until the others had left. Mr. Robinson wrote (Z. c.) that they gather on the spawning bed at the same time as the other trout. SILVER TROUT. 71 Food. There are no early notes regarding the food excepting that implied in the mention of baits used in catching the trout. Miss Dwight told Mr. Cheney (1. c.) that she had observed that the fish generally were growing deeper in the body since the introduction of the freshwater shrimp, and that the fish then caught were found to be filled with the introduced food. Mr. Robinson’s letter to Dr. Evermann stated that the stomachs contained two kinds of food; one was a shrimp about one inch long and the other apparently a dark greenish-brown vegetable material. He said, however, that in the spring they appeared to be feeding upon larval mosquitoes or some other dipterous insect. Mr. Mason (1. c.) stated that they were feeding upon “the small black flies.” Abundance. Mr. Mason said (1. c.) that some eighty years ago persons living on the lake used to send their boys out to catch a pailful for their hogs, which could be done in a very short time. Within thirty years there were large numbers caught through the ice, but this was prohibited later on. He said that up to perhaps thirty years ago he had seen cartloads on the “spawning bed,” where trout were taken in large numbers and of good size; in recent years, however, they had decreased greatly in numbers and that former State Commissioners had advanced the opinion that the small perch which abounded there were destroying the trout. Size. Bigelow stated that they varied in size from one quarter of a pound to five pounds, but those taken were seldom less than one quarter or over three pounds. The two specimens figured by Carman were, respectively, “young” 7^ adult 12j inches long. The fish on exhibition at a sportsmen’s show previously referred to were stated by Mr. Cheney to have been from two to four ounces in weight, but he was informed that fish netted for spawning purposes have weighed between two and three pounds each, and once one was taken weighing seven pounds. Mr. Robinson informed Dr. Evermann (1. c.) that the fish caught in 1912 averaged a little over 9 inches in length, the largest being 11 and 12 inches, and there was one caught which he did not see that was reported to weigh one and a quarter pounds; also that larger specimens had been seen on the spawning grounds. Mr. Mason says that the size at present is much smaller than it was years ago, and it is seldom that one is caught weighing over one and one half pounds. The average is from one 72 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND CHARRS. eighth to one quarter of a pound, and they seem to grow smaller each year, but it is certain that there are larger ones in the lake for the skeleton of a large one was washed up on the shore. Mrs. Clark told the present writer that only a few years ago she had caught fish of one and a half, and even two pounds, as they were making their way on to the spawning grounds, but in late years no large fish had been seen and that the fish were growing smaller and scarcer. Fishing Season and Method of Capture. Bigelow stated that in deep water they could be taken only in winter through the ice but generally in spawning time they could be taken on baited hook. In winter the only bait used was said to be minnows but in October they were caught with grasshoppers, angleworms, and artificial flies, and when those failed they would often take their own spawn, dried a little in the sun. Another means mentioned by Bigelow was by snare or grapple, methods now prohibited. Mr. Cheney stated {1. c.) that Miss Dwight informed him that in the spring only deep-water fishing was possible, until about two or three weeks after the ice left the lake, when they could be taken on very small flies, with drawn gut leaders. Mr. Robinson wrote Dr. Evermann (1. c.) that for only about ten days, usually beginning about May 10th, they could be caught and that the only successful bait was the angleworm. He stated that he never heard of their taking the fly. Mr. Mason wrote {1. c.) that the present open season was from May 20th to the 1st of August and added that if the season opened a month earlier he had no doubt but that more trout would be caught. He stated that worms are the most usual bait but some use flies and others shiners. Mrs. Clark said that she used to catch the larger fish on flies. Mr. Mason said that after the fish had departed to deep water, following the advent of warm weather and the departure of the black flies, one could fish from that time on to the begin- ning of close season with no catch at all. Origin. In the American Angler, July 30, 1887, J. D. Q. (Dr. John D. Quackenbos) writing of the possible origin of the “white trout” of Sunapee Lake said: “Dr. Bean has recently advanced other theories of its origin, which may be interesting to your readers. The one is that the so- called Oquassa may prove to be the same as the little Dublin Pond Trout, which, perhaps, is more widely distributed than has been supposed; but the Dubhn Pond Trout, like the Blue- back in Maine, always remains little, and the arguments that are adverse to the one theory of origin must be equally antagonistic to the other.” SILVER TROUT. 73 In reference to the theory mentioned in the foregoing quotation, Dr. Bean wrote (American Angler, February 4, 1888): “It seemed to me at one time that the Dublin Pond trout of New Hampshire might be identical with the new Sunapee species. The fine specimens secured through the instrumentality of Dr. Quackenbos enabled me to explode this fallacy very quickly. The Dublin Pond (Lake Monadnock) form is more nearly allied to fontinalis, the common brook trout, than to the Sunapee species; it is the Salvelinus agassizi of Garman, a trout with mottled fins, a forked tail and hyoid teeth.” The first impression given by a large fresh specimen is that it might be a cross between S. fontinalis and S. aureolus. But such disposal of it is forbidden by the facts presented by its structure and its habitat. If it were a cross of these two species it could come about only by the later advent of one or the other. From present conditions it is obvious that