samples from these two rivers were found to 

 differ from one another in all characters other 

 than prepelvic distance. With the exception of 

 the James River samples, the regression of 

 prepelvic distance on standard length was found 

 to remain constant in specimens taken from the 

 tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. Morphometric 

 characters appear to be more acute indicators 

 of differences in populations. It seems reason- 

 able to believe that the environment would only 

 have an influence on meristic characters during 

 embryonic development, whereas body form 

 (Martin 1949) is indirectly affected by the en- 

 vironment over a longer period of time . It 

 therefore seems likely that the environments in 

 the York and Rappahanqock Rivers may not be 

 diverse enough to cause differences in meristic 

 characters but would cause differences in mor- 

 phometric characters. On the basis of this 

 study, the York and Rappahannock Rivers do not 

 appear to have one homogeneous population of 

 striped bass. 



The James River population was found 

 similar to the Rappahannock population in body 

 depth and to the Potomac samples in prepelvic 

 distance; all other characters differed signif- 

 icantly. It is concluded that the James River 

 population is separable from all other samples 

 studied within the Chesapeake Bay. This is in 

 agreement with the finding of Raney (1957). 



Vladykov and Wallace (1952) believed 

 that the striped bass in the Potomac River were 

 a distinct population. This study supports that 

 view. In all characters other than prepelvic 

 distance, the Potomac River samples were found 

 to differ significantly from samples collected 

 in the Rappahannock River, the nearest geo- 

 graphic area studied. 



Chesapeake Bay on the basis of morpho- 

 metric characters seems to be composed of at 

 least four populations of striped bass; the James 

 River, York River, Rappahannock River and 

 Potomac River. 



When James River samples were com- 

 pared with samples from Albemarle Sound, the 

 nearest area outside the Bay, the samples dif- 

 fered significantly in body depth and caudal - 

 peduncle depth but were similar in predorsal 

 distance, prepelvic distance, and head length . 



Vladykov and Wallace (1952, p. 172) tagged 

 striped bass in the James River and found very 

 little intermixing with the fish from Albemarle 

 Sound. Merriman (1941, p. 45-46) ran a tagging 

 experiment in Albemarle Sound and found that the 

 population tends to remain in the Sound all year 

 round. Raney (1957) found that the number of 

 first-dorsal spines in the James River samples 

 were much higher and statistically different 

 from collections in Albemarle Sound. The two 

 characters, body and caudal -peduncle depths, 

 show that the James and Albemarle Sound samples 

 do not belong to the same population . The 

 similarity in the other morphometric characters 

 could indicate that the Albemarle population is 

 more closely related to that of the James than 

 the latter is to the York, the population which is 

 closest geographically to the James. 



Scruggs and Fuller (1955) indicate that 

 perhaps two populations of striped bass exist in 

 the Santee -Cooper System in South Carolina; 

 one is located in the Cooper River below Pinopolis 

 Dam and the other is a freshwater population 

 living in the impounded waters . They base their 

 postulation on the following evidence: below the 

 dam, suitable spawning grounds are available 

 and utilized, and therefore the downstream popula- 

 tion need not migrate through the navigation locks 

 to spawn; trammel -net catches taken to deter- 

 mine fish movement through the navigation locks 

 yielded little positive evidence of migration; 

 preliminary returns from a tagging study showed 

 a limited intermingling of the two populations . 

 Raney and Woolcott (1955) also presented evidence 

 that two populations of striped bass may be pres- 

 ent in the Santee -Cooper System. Their con- 

 clusions resulted from a study based on anal, 

 dorsal, and jjectoral soft -ray counts and also 

 lateral-line scales. Samples collected from, 

 these areas were subjected to statistical tests 

 in an attempt to separate these populations on 

 the basis of morphometric characters. 



In this study, a factor that may have 

 biased the results is that the range of fish sizes 

 (standard length) from the two areas have very 

 little overlap (table 57). The samples taken 

 from below Pinopolis Dam ranged from 107 to 

 350 mm. while those collected above were in the 

 range of 41 to 171 mm., with only 18 specimens 

 longer than 100 mm. It is believed that the com- 

 parisons are valid, since in both populations the 



