interchange between the James River and 

 Albemarle Sound. Meristic data, especially 

 first dorsal fin spine counts, support this find- 

 ing. A large tagging program by the U. S. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service now underway on 

 Albemarle Sound and its tributaries may provide 

 data to further clarify this facet. 



The detailed tagging results reported by 

 Raney, Woolcott, and Mehring (1954) which 

 gave further evidence of the racial separateness 

 of the Hudson and Chesapeake populations are 

 supported by the differences in the meristic 

 characters reported herein (table 13) . 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 



dorsal rays and soft anal rays . 



7. The York -Rappahannock subpopula- 

 tion differs from the Upper Bay subpopulation in 

 second dorsal soft rays (table 12) but these sub- 

 populations are not as highly differentiated as 

 are those of the James and York -Rappahannock. 



8 . Both the Hudson and James populations 

 approach and differ from other Chesapeake Bay 

 tributaries in having a high dorsal spine count 

 and low dorsal soft and low anal soft ray counts 

 (table 12), but they are significantly different. 

 This supports the former meristic and tagging 

 studies which regarded the Hudson and Chesa- 

 peake populations as separate races . 



1 . It is concluded on the basis of meristic 

 studies which are supported by findings of 

 earlier tagging experiments that three subpopula 

 tions are present within the tributaries of 

 Chesapeake Bay. The James subpopulation is 

 best defined. The other two are the York- 

 Rappahannock subpopulation and the Upper Bay 

 subpopulation . 



2 . The number of first dorsal spines is 

 fairly constant in samples from two year classes 

 taken throughout a wide geographic range in both 

 the James and Hudson Rivers and this appears 

 to indicate little effect by environmental 

 fluctuations . 



3. The James subpopulation has high 

 values for the dorsal spines and is statistically 

 different from other populations in Chesapeake 

 Bay and elsewhere along the Atlantic Coast in 

 eluding the population in Albemarle Sound, 

 North Carolina . 



4. Soft dorsal and anal rays show a slight 

 but significant increase in downstream samples 

 in the Hudson River. This may be a reflection 

 of temperature and/or salinity differences. 



5. In the James River downstream in- 

 creases in dorsal and anal rays are not 

 statistically significant. 



6. The James subpopulation is significant- 

 ly different from the adjacent York -Rappahan- 

 nock subpopulation and from the Upper Bay 

 subpopulation in having lower values for soft 



9. Where several characters are cor- 

 related the meristic or character index continues 

 to be a useful technique in separating populations 

 (tables 21-22). 



Ginsburg, 

 1938. 



LITERATURE CITED 



Arithmetric definition of the 

 species, subspecies and race 

 concept, with a proposal for a 

 modified nomenclature. Zoologica, 

 vol. 23, pp. 253-286. 



Hubbs, C. L. andK. F. Lagler. 



1949. Fishes of the Great Lakes region. 

 Cranbrook Inst. Sci . , Bull. No. 26, 

 186 pp. 



Merriman, D. 



1937. Notes on the life history of the 

 striped bass ( Roccus lineatus) . 

 Copeia , No. 1, pp. 15-36. 



1941 . Studies on the striped bass 



(Roccus saxatilis) of the Atlantic 

 Coast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Fish. Bull., vol. 50, 

 No. 35, pp. 1-77. 



Pearson, J. 

 1938. 



The life history of the striped bass, 

 or rockfish, Roccus saxatilis 

 (Walbaum). Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish, 

 vol. 49, No. 28, pp. 825-851. 



94 



