Fishes of BrooJxhaven^ L. I. 273 



three or four pounds are not uncommon ; and eight or ten 

 years since a trout was caught at Fireplace, whicli weighed 

 fifteen pounds. It must, I suppose, have been this species. 

 It was called by many who saw it a salmon trout, on account 

 of its great size or perhaps some peculiarity in the coloring, 

 but the most experienced fisherman who was engaged in taking 

 it (it was caught with a seine) considered it only a very large 

 individual of the common hrook trout. I may here remark, 

 that on that stream, and possibly in other parts of the island, 

 the name sahnoii trout is often applied to any specimen very 

 strongly tinged with red on the abdomen, and it may have 

 been so in this instance. 



I am unable to perceive any necessity for the genus Baione 

 which Dr. Dekay has separated. Even if I had never seen 

 the fish, and judged merely from his description, the genus 

 would appear to me not needed. His characters are as fol- 

 low : " A range of even teeth on the maxillaries ; a shorter 

 range on the intermaxillaries and the anterior part of the 

 vomer. A series of long recurved teeth around the margin 

 of the tongue. Branchial rays ten. Adipose fin posterior to 

 the anal. Scales microscopic." Now the whole of this so 

 far as ^' margin of the tongue," that is, all which relates to 

 the teeth, applies in the most minute particular to salmo. 

 " Branchial rays ten ; " but in salmo we find the branchial 

 rays " more thaneight," which certainly may mean " ten," 

 without any violence to the language. The number of rays, 

 however, here given by Dr. Dekay, seems peculiarly unfortu- 

 nate, for in his own specific description, he says, '' branchial 

 rays ten and eleven on opposite sides." With what propriety, 

 then, does he introduce " ten " as a generic character ? Again, 

 "adipose fin posterior to the anal;" surely this is of small 

 importance in marking a genus, but such as it is, we may 

 afford to give it its full value, for it is the only difference to 

 be found. " Scales microscopic ; " this is true, but it is of no 

 weight, for scarcely one of our American trout and salmon can 

 be mentioned, in which, when the specimens are of no greater 

 size than this little fish, (two inches in length), the scales are 

 not microscopic. 



