FISHES AND FlSIIIXii IN SUNAFEE l.AKE. 67 



Mr. De Rocher states that when he iii-st took up his work there 

 the fish would run 2 and 3 pounds on the avera<?e and hir<;er ones 

 up to 7 pounds were often cauj^ht, but now tliey tlo not averajj:e over 

 1] l)ounds, ahlioujj^h some hirj::er ones are still taken. 



An increase in nuni])ers is i)ossil)le throu<j:h the l!ir<]:er numbers 

 planted and the decrease in the numl)er of landlocked salmon. But 

 the chinook salmon is a menace. A inimber of instances are reported 

 where small white trout have been found in cliinooks' stomachs. 

 That this salmon has had no very apparent effect upon the trout is 

 probably due to the comparatively recent increase in numbers and 

 size of the chinook. The \vriter ventures to predict that if the chinook 

 continues to increase in numbers the white trout will again decrease. 

 The same may be said of an increase in the number of landlocked 

 salmon. This has been discussed in another })lace and need not be 

 repeated here. 



Characteristics. — All of the saibling gi-oup are readily distinguished 

 superficially from the common or "native" trout b}- the absence of 

 rivulation on the back and usually by the more slender form. The 

 common trout at all ages possess the ovulations. The presence of 

 basibranchial or so-called ''hyoid" teeth also is a distinguishing 

 characteristic in New England, but farther north, as in Labrador, a 

 fish supposed to be S.fontinalis, havhig the rivulations or wavy bars 

 on the dorsal and caudal fins, at least has been found to have teeth 

 on the ''root of the tongue" or basibranchials. This is the case \vith 

 the type specimens of S. hudsonicus, and this form (S. hudsonicus 

 Suckley or perhaps more correctly S. canadensis Hamilton Smith) on 

 that account, perhaps, should stand as a good species or, if inter- 

 gradations are found, at least as a subspecies. 



While it is comparatively easy to distinguish the common trout 

 from the saibUngs, it is rather a difficult matter to distinguish the 

 species of the group. If they were not so closely related, it would 

 have been easy to decide whether the Sunapee w-hite trout was a 

 Rangeley blueback or not. Dr. Bean distinguished Salvelinus'aure- 

 olus from S. oquassa by the following differences: 



SUNAPEK TROUT. BLUEB.\CK. 



1 . Anal HI, 8 Anal iii, 10. 



2. Immature 9 inches in length Mature 'J inches in length. 



3. Color of back in young, numerous dark blotches Back uniform steel blue. 



4. Embryo with white lines at the upper and lower edges No such white line.s. 



of caudal. 



5. Spawns in lake on shoals Spawns in streams. 



6. Gill rakers shorter and usually less mimerous and almost More numennis and not 



always curled. curled. 



The first difference will not serve to (Hstingnisli. as S. aureolns some- 

 times has 10 anal rays, but in general it is of signilicauce, es])ecially 



