114 KENDALL: NEW ENGLAND SALMONS. 



Salmo sebago becomes a synonym. If it differs from Salmo solar by intergrading charac- 

 ters only the Sebago form will receive the trinomial designation Salmo salar sebago. If 

 the Sebago fish exhibits only one constant anatomical, physiological, or embryological 

 difference, it is, or ought to be, entitled to the name Salmo sebago. By constant difference 

 is meant one that persists under whatever natural condition to which the fish may be 

 subjected and continue to exist. Furthermore, unless such a difference exists the lake- 

 inhabiting salmon is no more entitled to the name, 'ouananiche' than is the Atlantic 

 salmon when caught in fresh water. 



While Day mamtained that all of the trout constituted a single species, Prof. Smitt 

 regarded the salmon and sea trout as forms of the same species, although using binomials 

 to designate each of them. In fact Smitt's species seem to be what most ichthyologists 

 regard as genera, but he does not follow the usual system of classification. 



While Jordan may have compared many specimens of the various geographical forms 

 of salmons, it must be remembered that over 40 years ago, systematic ichthyology was 

 engaged at a somewhat different angle from that of more recent years, at least by some 

 workers. In the old days descriptions of species were more or less stereotyped and made 

 up largely of family or generic characters referring to superficial structures as exhibited 

 by individuals designated as types. On account of the lack of material, it was not 

 possible to observe the variations in proportions of body dimensions exhibited by many 

 individuals of various sizes and ages of each sex from different locahties. More obscure 

 anatomical physiological, embryological, and ecological details were lacking. As knowl- 

 edge increased in the next ten or fifteen years it began to dawn upon some ichthyologists 

 that the labels on some of the 'pigeon holes' of classification did not always accurately 

 designate what should be in them and were somewhat wanting in biological significance. 



As has been seen, the lake salmon has been variously regarded as comprising several 

 species distinct from the sea salmon; as one or more subspecies or varieties of the sea 

 salmon, and as specifically identical with the sea salmon. The question here arises 

 concerning what constitutes each of these categories. This has been discussed in pre- 

 ceding pages. As in the case of many other questions, there are two sides to this one. 

 In this instance one side is that of classification or taxonomy, and the other is that of 

 nature. Classification is artificial; to a Umited extent only it conforms to nature. As 

 Jordan has said, it amounts only to a convenient means of arranging and labelUng 

 specimens in collections; and it may be added, of recording them in publication in 

 accordance with structural characters. So far as labelling specimens is concerned, if all 

 lake salmon are specifically identical with the sea salmon, they would properly be 

 labelled Salmo salar. 



Again, according to the rules of nomenclature, if all the lake salmon are one and the 

 same natural species and specifically distinct from the sea salmon, whether from Lake 

 Wenern, Lake Ladoga, or the lakes of North America, they should bear the name of 

 Salmo sebago. If they are all alike and are only of subspecific rank, they must be called 

 Salmo salar sebago and not Salmo salar relictus as Berg calls them. 



Still further, if all the lake salmon independently intergrade structurally with the sea 



