The Pike Family 123 



tained it, inasmuch as it was discarded, I think, 

 for a very insufficient reason. 



The specific name masquinongy, which has re- 

 cently been given to this species in the books, is 

 supposed to have been given to the mascalonge 

 by Dr. Mitchill in 1824. His description, how- 

 ever, cannot now be found. It is alluded to by 

 De Kay in his " Fishes of New York," in 1842, 

 who gives its reference as "Mirror, 1824, page 

 297 " ; but I have searched for it in vain, as have 

 others. De Kay merely says: "According to 

 Mitchill, who describes a specimen 47.0 long and 

 weighing thirty pounds, the fin rays are as follows : 

 'D. 21; P. 14; V. 11; A. 17; C. 26.' But this 

 radial formula is just as applicable to Richard- 

 son's E. lucitis : ' D. 20; P. 16; A. 18,' also 

 given by De Kay. The size and weight of 

 the alleged specimen of Mitchill would seem to 

 indicate the mascalonge, but the great northern 

 pickerel, Esox lucitis, occasionally reaches a like 

 size and weight. I once caught one weighing 

 twenty-five pounds in northern Wisconsin, and 

 saw several a little heavier, one of fully twenty- 

 eight pounds. 



Dr. Kirtland, in 1838, had, previous to De Kay, 

 applied Mitchill's name masquinojigy to a speci- 



