sample for the 1955 year class. Also by ob- 

 servation, there is a significant difference 

 between the James River and Santee-Cooper 

 River System samples for the 1955 year class. 



In order to determine the relationship 

 between the Chesapeake Bay and the Albemarle 

 Sound, a comparison was made between the 

 York -Rappahannock sample and the Albemarle 

 Sound sample for the 1955 year class. It was 

 just above the line for the one percent level of 

 significance (table 46A) .At- test of the 

 samples of the 1955 year class from the James 

 River and Albemarle Sound was highly signifi- 

 cant (table 46B). A similar test using the num- 

 ber of gill rakers on the upper arm was 

 significant at the one percent level, but at a 

 lower magnitude (table 46C) . However, in com- 

 paring the Upper Chesapeake Bay subpopulation 

 with the Albemarle Sound sample for the 1955 

 year class, there was no significance (table 47A). 

 In a comparison between Albemarle Sound 

 sample and the Santee-Cooper River System 

 sample for the 1955 year class, t was signifi- 

 cant at the one percent level (table 47B). 



Indications of the relation of the Delaware 

 River population to that of the Chesapeake Bay 

 were determined by comparing three homogene- 

 ous year classes from the Delaware River with 

 the York -Rappahannock sample of 1955; t in 

 this case was significant at the one percent 

 level (table 48A). The same level of signifi- 

 cance resulted also when the Upper Chesapeake 

 Bay subpopulation for the 1955 year class was 

 compared with the homogeneous sample from 

 the Delaware River (table 48B). However, when 

 the James River sample of the 1955 year class 

 was compared with that of the Delaware River 

 sample there was no significance (table 48C). 



A homogeneous sample of six year 

 classes from the Hudson River, when compared 

 with a homogeneous sample from the Delaware 

 River was highly significant (table 49) . 



A few specimens were available from 

 the Gulf of Mexico. Table 42 shows that the 

 means of the total number of gill rakers of 

 striped bass from the Gulf of Mexico fall in the 

 same range as those from the Santee-Cooper 

 River System, South Carolina . When the same 

 fish are considered on the basis of the number 



of gill rakers on the upper arm, the means then 

 fall in line with the Chesapeake population 

 (table 43) . 



DISCUSSION 



Important sources of the striped bass 

 are Albemarle Sound, Chesapeake Bay, Delaware 

 River and Hudson River. Merriman (1941:42) 

 considered the Middle Atlantic area from Cape 

 Hatteras to Cape Cod as the center of abundance 

 for striped bass and tagging experiments in- 

 dicated that there was comparatively little 

 encroachment by this stock on the populations 

 to the north and the south. Merriman (1941:36- 

 38) tagged 2,573 fish at Montauk,Long Island and 

 in the Niantic and Thames Rivers, Connecticut, 

 between April 1936 and June 1938. Returns from 

 fish tagged in this region reached 544 by July 1938 

 and gave abundant proof of a coastwise northern 

 migration in the spring, a relatively stable popula- 

 tion showing no movement of any consequence in 

 the summer and a southern migration in the fall 

 and early winter. Scattered returns, based on 

 the above tagging experiment, from New Jersey, 

 Delaware, the entrance to Chesapeake Bay and 

 North Carolina show that striped bass may travel 

 great distances in their southern migration. 

 Vladykov and Wallace (1952:174-175) showed by 

 tagging experiments in the Chesapeake Bay and 

 Albemarle Sound, North Carolina that there was 

 little exchange between the two areas. However, 

 it is clear that some striped bass migrate out of 

 the mid Chesapeake Bay area . Vladykov and 

 Wallace (1952:174) tagged 1,869 fish during 1936^ 

 and 1937 in the middle Chesapeake Bay, and 28 

 (1.5 percent) were later captured along the 

 Atlantic coast; of the 662 bass marked in the 

 Potomac River, only two (0.3 percent) were 

 taken outside the Bay. The James Rivjfer popula- 

 tion did not contribute to the stragglers along the 

 Atlantic Coast north of the Chesapeake area. 

 Raney, Woolcott and Mehring (1954:395) show 

 that a sample of striped bass taken at Point 

 Saconnet, Rhode Island was probably of Chesa- 

 peake or Delaware rather than Hudson stock. 

 This is in agreement with the results from the 

 above-cited tagging experiments which demon- 

 strated a northward movement from the 

 Chesapeake Bay. 



Evidence of movement within the Chesa- 

 peake Bay was presented by Pearson (1938:843-845) 



11 



