288 



imiuber in the tins separately. In Turkey Lake nearly 37 per cent, have the 

 average number of the fins taken together, while 44 per cent, and 52 per cent, 

 liave the average nninber in the spinous and soft dorsal respectively. In Tippe- 

 canoe Lake 41 per cent. h;ne the average number for l)oth (ins, while 52 per 

 cent, and (U per cent, have the average nninber in the spinous and soft dorsals- 

 respectively. 



TABLE VIL 



Per cent, of specimens having 2(5 rays in 

 Per cent, of specimens having 27 rays in 

 Per cent, of specimens having 28 rays in 

 Per cent, of specimens having 29 rays in 

 Per cent, of specimens having oO rays in 

 Per cent, of specimens having 31 rays in 

 Per cent, of specimens having 32 rays in 

 Per cent, of specimens having 33 rays in 



the dorsals 

 the dorsals 

 the dorsals 

 the dorsals 

 the dorsals 

 the dorsals 

 the dorsals 

 the dorsals 



0.37 



4.07 



28.1& 



41.80 



22.22 



3.33 



SUMMARY. 



1. This species is equally abundant in the two lakes. 



2. The color i)attern of Tippecanoe Lake specimens shows a greater affinity 

 for the primitive, simj)le Wabash River pattern than does that of Turkey Lake 

 specimens. 



3. In Turkey Lake the nape is usually naked ; in Tippecanoe Lake the 

 nape is usually scaled. 



4. Tippecanoe Lake specimens have a smaller number of scales in the lat- 

 eral line. 



5. The anal spines vary but little, and show the same variation in the two 

 lakes. . 



6. The anal fin is somewhat larger in the Tippecanoe Lake specimens. 



7. Turkey Lake specimens have one more dorsal spine. 



8. Tippecanoe Lake specimens have one more dorsal ray, 16 rays is the 

 mean in Tippecanoe Lake and 15 in Turkey Lake. 



9. The combinations of the dorsal spines and rays are determined by the 

 numbers that prevail in the fins separately. 



