Table 10. — Estimated number of marked fall chinook salmon of 1961 brood in catches, tributary spawning populations, and 

 hatchery returns by type of mark, region of recovery, type of fishery, and year of capture, 1963-66 — Continued 



•Not sampled. 



1 Primarily tioll fisheries. 



- Primarily gill net. 



z Twelve hatcheries participating in the marking program. 



* Toutle, Abernathy, Speelyai, Sandy, and Klaskanine Hatcheries. 



Table 10. — Estimated number of marked fall chinook salmon of 1931 brood in catches, tribidary spaivning populations, and 

 hatchery returns by type of mark, region of recovery, type of fishery, and year of capture, 1963-66 — Continued 



•Not sampled. 



1 Primarily troll fisheries. 



- Primarily izill net. 



3 Twelve hatcheries participating in the marking program. 



^ Toutle, Abernathy, Speelyai, Sandy, and Klaskanine Hatcheries. 



Ad-RV were combined as were tlieir correspond- 

 ing full marks Ad-LV-RM and Ad-RV-RM). 

 Under the hypothesis that the partial marks are 

 primarily from maxillary regeneration, each entry 

 is an estimate of percentage regeneration of the 

 maxillary. For the i-eturns to the hatcheries nnder 

 study, the percentages of adii^ose-ventral and adi- 

 pose-only marks (10.9 and 16.1) were similar to 

 the expected magnitude of maxillary regeneration 



from the fin regeneration experiments. It is likely, 

 therefore, that these partial marks in the hatchery 

 returns were from maxillary regeneration. The 

 same cause is not indicated for the ventral-only 

 marks, which, in the hatchery returns, were about 

 twice as munerous as expected. 



If the percentage of jiartial marks in the ocean 

 fisheries (compared with tliat observed for the 

 hatcheiy returns) is generally high, then we 



378 



U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



