80 "fliirl //-First Annual Meeting 



IIktc Avill l»e no sei-ious ditfieiiltv in future years if the fish estab- 

 lishes itself in ^[iehigan, as I hope it will, in its being identified 

 without any ditficulty, when compared with the native species. 



As to the steelhead trout (for it is a trout rather than a sal- 

 mon) it is a s])ring spaAvner, and care ought to be taken in the 

 introduction of the fish. I need scarcely remind fish commis- 

 sioners of that fact, l)ut I think it is liable to be overlooked in 

 some circumstances. It is a fish more adapted to large bodies of 

 water than to smaller streams. If it can find its way to the 

 grt-at lakes or to the ocean it will grow very large — even to 

 ihii'ty pounds. You know a fish that will approximate thirty 

 pounds or even fifteen ])ounds, is a pretty dangerous customer to 

 have associated Avith 1n"ook trout and other small species, be- 

 cause it is a gTcat feeder and feeds at the time the brook trout 

 are spawning. I merely mention these facts, because I think 

 they ought to be kept in mind in the distribution of the fish. 



The President: \n distribution you would distribute them 

 in lakes rather than in streams ? 



Dr. Bean: Yes, sir. They run up in the streams to S})awn, 

 but prefer to live in the great bodies of water where there is 

 plenty of food and where they can have sea room. 



There was a, dispute for many years about the relation of the 

 steelbead trout to the rainbow trout, this dispute Avas upheld on 

 one side by my friend Dr. Jordan and on the other side by my- 

 self and I could not quite understand Avhy there seemed to be so 

 much difficulty on the part of the Pacific coast ichthyologist in 

 recognizing the difference between the steelhead and the rainbow 

 trout. There was no trouble in my mind about it; but I learned, 

 miuli to my astonishment, a few years later that they had never 

 seen a steelhead; the fish they called the steelhead was simply the 

 sea-run rainbow. When the steelhead at last was found it was 

 described as a new fish. 



^Ir. Clark: I hate to come up against scientists like Dr. 

 Bean on this question, for I am not able to get down to the 

 1-1, 000 part of a pound, as the scientists are, on these things, 

 l)ul the .Michigan grayling, as hatched l»y myself in 1876, and 

 again in 1880 or 1881, certainly did not bear the parr-marks. 

 There is another distinguishing feature or difference in the two 

 graylings, which anybody that remembers the Michigan gray- 



