40) FISHES OF THE CONNECTICUT LAKES. 
In the Great Lakes whitefish corresponding measurements vary somewhat 
and the color is decidedly different, this usually being “ satiny white all over; 
back with faint olive-green shade; fins all white, except the caudal, which is 
usually slightly dark-edged.” 
The points of difference between this species and the billfish have been given 
under the Jatter species. Irom its allied form, the common whitefish of Maine 
(Coregonus labradoricus), it is difficult to distinguish it. A slight difference, 
but one that appears to be constant, is in the upper profile of the head. In 
C. clupeiformis this profile is slightly concave in outline, the posterior part of 
the head (occipital region) sloping up in conformity to the arch of the back. 
In ©. labradoricus this profile is straight, the arch of the back if present be- 
ginning abruptly from the upper outline of the occipital portion of the head. 
There is also an average difference in the number and length of the gillrakers. 
The small toothless mouth separates it from all other fishes having the gristly or 
adipose fin on the back behind the rayed fin, and from all the other species it 
is distinguished by the presence of this fin. 
Other names for this fish, used chiefly in the Great Lakes neighbor- 
hood, are “humpback whitefish,” ‘“ bowback whitefish,” “ highback 
whitefish,” and ‘ Otsego bass,” the latter being restricted to Otsego 
ualce, aNa Ve 
The general range as given by Evermann and Smith is through- 
out the Great Lakes region from Lake Champlain to Lake Superior 
and Lake Winnipeg, but its presence in the latter lake is doubtful. 
It has been introduced into several bodies of water in New Hamp- 
shire, including the Connecticut Lakes, but the only waters from 
which it has been recorded are Lake Umbagog and perhaps Winni- 
pesaukee. There is no evidence that this species or its related form 
Coregonus labradoricus* is indigenous to any of the Connecticut 
Lakes. The reasons are not apparent, since the waters seem to be 
well suited to it. There is, moreover, no authentic report of any hav- 
ing been seen since its introduction. The records of the plants, brought 
from Michigan, are as follows: 1897, 50,000 fry ; 1899, 40,000 fry. The 
latter record does not state definitely that the fish were put into the 
Connecticut Lakes, but this is to be inferred from the fact that they 
were delivered at Pittsburg. In 1901, 75,000 or 80,000 fry were 
planted, making a total of 170,000. 
The whitefish has been observed to feed chiefly upon small animals, 
such as shrimp, water-fleas, small mollusks, worms, insect larvee, and 
small fis’ The Maine whitefish has been known to eat its own 
eggs upon the spawning ground. 
The whitefish reaches maturity, according to Evermann and Smith, 
at the age of 3 or 4 years, and deposits from 10,000 to 75,000 eggs, the 
number depending upon the size of the fish. The spawning time is 
in the late fall, chiefly in November. In the summer it retires to the 
deeper portions of the lakes, but as the time for spawning approaches 
2 Dr. Bean claims that these two forms are specifically identical. See Science, 
N. S. vol. 1x, no. 220, pp. 416-417, March 17, 1899. 
