CHARACTERISTICS AND IDENTITY OF LAKE SALMON. 115 



salmon of the respective regions in a taxonomic sense, they become separate subspecies. 

 If they all differ from each other and each from the sea salmon they must be regarded 

 as distinct species. 



According to the rules of zoological nomenclature, if they are all entitled to the bi- 

 nomial Salmo solar, they should show no permanent structural differences from the 

 sea salmon or from each other. 



Before discussing this subject further, attention should be called to one striking fact. 

 That is, according to the authors cited, that at no time in the history of the fish has 

 any one failed to recognize the lake salmon, when caught in the same waters and at the 

 same time, as the anadromous salmon from the sea. Chambers (1896, p. 40) stated that 

 the Montagnais Indians' name for the salmon of the sea is ouchachoumac, or ou-sha- 

 shu-mak, although he adds, that the Indians even now apply this name to particularly 

 dark-colored and extra large specimens of the ouananiche found in certain lakes. Even 

 here, according to Chambers, while the Indian recognized the relationship to the salmon, 

 his statement implies that the large fish were recognizable as ouananiche. There evident- 

 ly is a distinction. The evidence is that the characters associated with the sea salmon 

 by the Indians were those of size and color. The question then arises, what are the 

 distinctions other than size and color which makes a large, and similarly colored ouan- 

 aniche recognizable as such? It cannot be perennial habitat alone, for, while those fish 

 occurring in waters inaccessible from the sea could be recognized by that fact, large 

 fish in accessible water also appear to be at all times recognizable. 



Some of the previously mentioned authors claim to have recognized the fish even 

 when caught where salmon and grilse were present. Creighton claimed that his guide 

 recognized it as distinct from the grilse, whUe native Labrador fishermen saw the 

 difference but still recognized it as a salmon. Still it is claimed by some that there are 

 no tangible structural characters by which they can be distinguished. It cannot be color 

 alone, for Chambers stated that a fish from Labrador examined by him, was silvery and 

 had the X-marks, which are characteristic of the salmon. There appears to be a dividing 

 line or fine of demarcation of some sort between the lake salmon and the sea salmon, 

 which apparently enables one to say, 'This is a landlocked sahnon' or 'That is a sea 

 salmon.' 



Of course the two forms are aUke in family and generic characters. Several of the 

 authors mentioned have indicated ways in which the two forms differ and no one has 

 shown that those differences do not always exist. In other words so far as observations 

 go, they are constant. According to the rules of taxonomy, as has been repeatedly said, 

 constant differences are specific. No one has ever shown that they intergrade in these 

 characters in which they differ, therefore they cannot be regarded as subspecies. The 

 fact is, as will be seen later, in almost all structural characters, if a sufficient number of 

 individuals are studied, there is scarcely any differential character in which they do not 

 overlap. But such overlapping does not constitute intergradation, for it occurs in fish 

 of different size or age. The differences, such as there are, are constant in fish of the 

 same size, age and sex. 



