572 U. S. BUREAU OF FISHERIES 



ductioii accounts for the annual increment to the stock; (2) local 

 reproduction accounts for little or none of the increment to the stock 

 of squetea^ue north of Delaware, the ^YlK)le stock lieinp; maintained 

 by mifiration of fish 2 years or more of a<re fi'om southern waters. 



The first of these hypotheses is supported by the fact that sque- 

 tea<;ue are known to spawn in Delaware Bay, and by the fact that 

 juveniles occur in Delaware Bay, Sandy Hook Bny, Great South 

 Bay, Fort Pond Bay, Narra^ansett Bay, and in the Wareham River 

 at the head of Buzzards Bay. Moreover, the existence of local races 

 is indicated by differences in rate of tjrowth in several localities. 

 If this hypothesis be correct, the absence of fish in their second 

 summer must be ex})lained. It is possible that they remain con- 

 cealed locally or that they spend this period in southern waters or 

 offshore. 



Absence of fish in their second summer is consistent with the sec- 

 ond hypothesis, for fish of this ao;e are abundant in southern waters. 

 In order to account for the differences in rate of arowth of northern 

 and southern fish, it is necessary to assume that mig^ration is a selec- 

 tive process. This hyi^othesis is also in airreement with the facts 

 disclosed by an investijiation of spawning: and nursery <;rounds in 

 Delaware Bay. Results of this investio;ation may be summarized 

 as follows : ^ 



A very intensive spawning' of squeteague occurs in May and early 

 June off the west shore of Cape May, from about 1 mile to 3 or 4 

 miles north of Cape May Point, mainly along- the 3-4 fathom con- 

 tour. Single 20-minute meter-net hauls liave yielded more than half 

 a million squeteague eggs in this locality during the height of the 

 spawning. Squeteague taken here by gill nets during this period 

 were sj)awning freely. Although squeteague eggs were taken else- 

 where in the bay, the quantities were small. 



Intensive observations, however, failed to produce an}^ evidence 

 that these eggs hatched or that larva' from them survived. Meter- 

 net collections were taken at all depths from the surface to the 

 bottom and as far away in all directions fi-om the spawning area 

 as the cruising ranae of the boat permitted. Only negligible num- 

 bers of larvae, usually one or two specimens, were taken in the same 

 nets wdiich collected half a milli(m eggs. 



Later in the summer, in both years, young squeteague appeared 

 in the bay and remained fairly abundant during the summer. The 

 sizes of these juveniles were such that they can not be attributed to 

 the spawning described above. They did not consist of a compact 

 size group as would have been the case had they resulted from the 

 brief and localized s])awning described above, and other facts indi- 

 cate that very small juveniles continued to be added to the stock 

 in the bay long after cessation of intensive spawning there. As the 

 nuijority of the young fish taken in the fall were much smaller than 

 normal, there are grounds for believing that many of them may fail 

 to survive. 



These conditions contrast with those observed by John C. Pearson, 

 who conducted a similar survey in Chesapeake Bay during 1929 and 



- Summarized from a report by Prof. A. E. Parr, curator of the P>insliaiii Oceano^raphic 

 Foundation of Yale University, who has been in charge of the Dehiware Bay survey.- 



