SYNOPSIS OF CLASSIFICATION OF LAKE SALMON. 121 



known not structurally different. Saguenay River, Canada (outlet of Lake St. John), 

 and neighboring waters.' 



SL\ years later (1902) the same authors published a popular work on American food 

 and game fishes. In this the New England lake salmon is referred to as 'Salmo sebago 

 Girard,' and its characters are stated as follows (Jordan and Evermann 1902, p. 168- 

 169): 'As a rule it differs from the sea salmon in the smaller size, rather plumper form, 

 much harder skull-bones, larger scales and different colouration.' 



Strange to say, notwithstanding the fact that for years ichthyologists and anglers 

 alike regarded the Grand Lake Stream fish as specifically identical with the Sebago 

 form, the name Salmo sebago was not used for it for a long time, but instead Salmo 

 gloveri was adopted. Later, having assumed that the lake salmon was practicality identi- 

 cal with the anadromous form of the sea, 'differing only in size and color' from Salmo 

 solar, the accepted name for the lake form was attached to Salmo salar thus making it a 

 trinomial designation indicating that the fish is a subspecies of Salmo salar. Thus the 

 name came to be Salmo salar sebago. 



Having caught a fish strange to him, it is the desire of the angler to know what to 

 caU it. But in the case of the fish under discussion, he has not had much help from the 

 systematist. At one time one authority has told him one thing, at another time another 

 authority has told him something else, and again, one or the other authority has some- 

 times reversed his opinion, perhaps more than once. However, it is perfectly proper 

 for one to change his mind, if for good and sufficient reasons. If no one ever changed his 

 mind there would be no progress, even in systematic ichthj'ology. The name does not 

 make the species or subspecies except taxonomically, and this may be a matter of in- 

 dividual opinion. Whatever it is called, the fish remains the same, and whatever number 

 of times its name is changed does not affect its status in its own Httle cosmorama. The 

 ichthyologist may change his mind as many times as there are herring in the sea, but the 

 fish will not change accordingly. So, when one person arbitrarily says the ouananiche 

 and landlocked salmon of Maine are specifically identical with the sea salmon, citing 

 eminent authorities in support of that statement, and ridicules some other one who 

 claims the ouananiche is distinct from the landlocked salmon of Maine and the sea 

 salmon, both of the subjects of discussion or dispute maintain their respective integrity. 

 Citing authorities and counting fin rays do not settle the question. 



The stated desire of the systematist is a stable classification as nearly in accordance 

 with nature as it is possible to make it. To this end from time to time certain rules of 

 nomenclature have been estabUshed. But the rules have not always been strictly ob- 

 served, and even today we find the same author in one publication giving a fish a bi- 

 nomial designation and in another publication designating it trinomialh' without 

 stating any reason for the change. This is clearly not uniformity, and certainly does not 

 make for stability in nomenclature. 



As has previously been remarked, there are other differential characters than those 

 of the conspicuous external structures which should be recognized, although the system- 

 atist attaches little importance to them. They may be far more significant of specific 



