peduncle depth. It is seen from table 12 that 

 the Y -value for body depth of the Delaware 

 samples approaches that of the Hudson closer 

 than any of the other collections studied. On 

 the basis of this visual observation, it may be 

 said that the Hudson population is significantly 

 different from all other areas studied, when 

 body depth is used for the comparisons. It is 

 concluded, on the basis of morphometric data, 

 that the Hudson River contains a distinct popula- 

 tion of striped bass . 



This is in agreement with the findings of 

 other workers. Raney and de Sylva (1953), 

 studying dorsal, pectoral, and anal soft rays, 

 conclude that the Hudson River striped bass per- 

 haps constitute a separate race. Lewis (1957), 

 on the basis of gill -raker counts, found that the 

 Hudson River contains a homogeneous population 

 of striped bass. Raney, Woolcott, and Mehring 

 (1954, p. 394) studied the results of a tagging 

 program and found that part of the Hudson River 

 population moves in lae spring to the western 

 end of Long Island Sound, seldom going east 

 farther than Fairport, Conn., or North Port, 

 Long Island. Other individuals were found to 

 move along the south shore of Long Island but 

 not farther than Jones Beach . In the fall, the 

 bass were found to migrate from the Sound into 

 the Hudson River and as far upstream as Stony 

 Point. Raney (1957) found significant differences 

 between the Hudson population and samples se- 

 cured in the Chesapeake Bay region. He assumed 

 that only one population was present in the Hud- 

 son for the following reasons: the first-dorsal- 

 spine counts remained rather constant in 

 individuals taken througjiout the Hudson River; 

 the soft-dorsal and anal-ray counts were sig- 

 nificantly different when upstream and down- 

 stream samples were compared, but the 

 differences were not great enough to consider 

 the possibility of two populations. The past 

 stuiiies and the results obtained using morpho- 

 metric data are in agreement as all denote the 

 Hudson River striped bass as a distinct 

 population . 



Within Chesapeake Bay, tagging studies 

 have been carried out in an attempt to determine 

 movements which in turn help solve the popula- 

 tion problem. Pearson (1938, p. 842) tagged 305 

 striped bass in upper Chesapeake Bay at Annapo- 



lis, Md. A total of 29. 1 percent (89 specimens) 

 of the number tagged were recaptured and of 

 these only 9 returns were south of Annapolis. 

 The majority of the tagged fish were taken in the 

 area that extends from the Magothy River and 

 Love Point north to the Susquehanna and Elk 

 Rivers, with the greatest number centering 

 around Rock Hall near the entrance co the Chester 

 River. Over a 2 -year period, the most distant 

 points of recapture were off Maryland Point in 

 the Potomac River and near Salisbury in the 

 Wicomico River. The results of Pearson's ex- 

 periment show that there is little movement of 

 striped bass from the upper portion of Chesapeake 

 Bay into the lower . 



Vladykov and Wallace (1952, pp. 163-170) 

 tagged bass in the middle Chesapeake Bay area. 

 Fish tagged at Galesville, Flag Pond, and Tilgh- 

 man were found to remain relatively static during 

 the summer and slowly migrate southward in the 

 late fall. The Choptank and the Susquehanna 

 Rivers were believed to be the main spawning 

 grounds for these bass. They concluded that the 

 bass of the upper Chesapeake Bay region com- 

 prised one population and they supported this 

 finding with fin-ray counts. Vladykov and Wallace 

 (1952, pp. 170-175) tagged striped bass in the 

 Potomac and James Rivers and the returns in- 

 dicated that both rivers may have local populations . 

 The rather stationary James population led them 

 to believe that little intermixing occurs between 

 the fish of this system with those of Albemarle 

 Sound. 



Raney believes that there are at least 

 three subpopulations in Chesapeake Bay and its 

 tributaries. These subpopulations are found in 

 the James River, in the York and Rappahannock 

 Rivers, and in the Upper Bay. His conclusions 

 resulted from a study of first -dorsal -spine counts 

 and soft-dorsal and anal-ray counts. Lewis (1957)^ 

 working with gill rakers, supported the findings 

 of Raney. The use of morphometric data to dis- 

 tinguish the populations of striped bass within 

 Chesapeake Bay showed that samples taken from 

 the Potomac, York, Rappahannock, and James 

 Rivers may all have been drawn from different 

 populations. The only finding contrary to the re- 

 sults of other workers is that the York and 

 Rappahannock Rivers do not appear to have one 

 homogeneous population of striped bass. The 



