[chambers] the philology OF THE OUANANICHE 133 



many I'onns of the wonl that van elaiin to hava» been used hy authoritie.s 

 of resjieetability is ■• winninish." which ap])ears at page 445 of Dr. 

 Goode's American Fishes and in the scientific paper upon the Fishes 

 of Ontario by Dr. Eajnsay Wrig-ht. F.E.S.C.. professor in the Uni- 

 versity of Toronto, published in 1892. with the report of the Ontario 

 Fish and G-ame Commission. Of more importance still to oi-thograph- 

 ers is the fact that ''winninish" is the spelling adopted ii\ Webster's 

 Dictionary, where the name of the fish tirst figured in the edition of 1892, 

 and also in the Century. One, at least, of the propiietors of the first- 

 mentioned of these two eminent philological authorities — Mr. X. G. 

 Merriam of Springfield — is an accomplished angler who has cultivated 

 the accjuaintance of the ouananiche in la grande décharge of Lake St. 

 John. Webster gives the definition of ■■ winninish " as follows: ■• The 

 land-locked variety of the common salmon (Canada)." It may appear 

 presumptuous to criticise the professional work of so justly recognized 

 an authority upon his favourite branch of science as Professor Addison E. 

 Verrill of Yale University, who conducted the revision of the zoological 

 terms in the 1892 edition of Webster ; but I have no hesitation in declar- 

 ing that neither the ortliograjdiy ■• winninish " nor his definition of the 

 name is the best obtainable. Nor yet is eitlier of the other forms for 

 whose use I have thus far cited authorities. The tish to which these 

 various names have been apjilied is not a "land-locked salmon" at all. 



A brief consideration of the oiutnaniehe itself and of its habits is 

 neces.sary to a correct a})])reciation of the definition of its name in 

 Webster s, and this, it is lio]»ed. will not be considered foreign to the 

 subject matter of the jjresent pa])er. First then, a few words as to the 

 identity of the fish whose philology is under consideration. Professor 

 Samuel Garman of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambi'idge, 

 Mass.. to whom I sent specimens for examination in September, 1893. 

 wrote in reply : " I see nothing bv which to distinguish the fish of Lake 

 St. John from Salmo salar as represented by specimens from Kew 

 Brunswick and Maine, or other New England States. It may prevent 

 misunder.standingif itis explained that I take the fresh water individuals, 

 including of course those truly land-locked as commonly ilesignated. to 

 be tlie better representatives of the species S. salar." He further states. 

 that the fact that some individuals leave fresh water, where propagation 

 occurs, for a time, being somewhat modified by so doing, neither gives 

 rise to a different species n'/r even a 'different variety. The italics are 

 mine and show the result of Professor Garman's examination of the fish 

 to be in confiict with Professor Verrill's definition of its name. Not only 

 is the ouananiche not a distinct variety from the salmon that goes out to 

 sea but it is not land-locked either. In all waters tributary to Lake St. 

 John it has free access to the sea. Of this opportunity it is probable 

 that it seldom avails itself, but intlividuals have been caught at the 



