270 Fortieth Annual Meeting 



belongs to a different genus of fish from the English trout; 

 nevertheless, it is so nearly like that it was quite reasonable 

 to name it as such; but when we go southward, the case is 

 very different. The trout of that section, 1 repeat, is by no 

 means the same as the trout of New England nor that of old 

 England. Such is the first method. 



A second method is to apply some name distinctive of 

 quality. The method has been followed in the case of the 

 common fish called in New York the weakfish. Inasmuch 

 as that name is used by a population numbering in round 

 numbers 6,000,000, or nearer 7,000,000 now — that is, in 

 the city of New York and in the immediate vicinity, New 

 Jersey and Long Island — weakfish is the name in most 

 general use. 



A third mode of nomenclature is manifest to a more 

 limited extent. It is exemplified by squeteague, supposed 

 to be of Indian derivation and formerly used, it has been 

 claimed, by the Indians of Narragansett Bay, but there is 

 not complete justification for that belief. The derivation 

 appears plausible, but J. Hammond Trumbull, an authority 

 of first rank on Indian philology, was unable to find any in- 

 stance of the word as an Indian name in any book that he 

 ■examined. So, therefore, we do not positively know what 

 the origin is. The name squeteague, nevertheless, is at 

 present in most general literary use. It was declared by 

 Goode and others, for example, that squeteague was the 

 best term applicable; consequently, it has been accepted in 

 most of the books on fishes and has been quite generally 

 adopted. 



The name "trout" is used universally in the southern 

 Atlantic States, and is practically the only name known 

 there. 



Now as to the reasons for these names : " Weakfish " 

 you will find given .in sporting books, in the Century Dic- 

 tionary, and other works, as meaning weak in the mouth. 

 That is, it was apparently applied to the fish because it had 



