538 BULLETIN OP THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



it by the settlers of that neighborhood. The sides and abdomen are silvery white in the female and of a 

 deep reddish orange in the male, spotted in both sexes with orange of the same hue as the abdomen. 

 The dorsal and caudal fins are brownish blue bordered with pale orange in the male; the pectorals, ven- 

 trals, and anal of a fiery orange, blackish blue at the base, with their margin of purest white. When first 

 taken out of the water, it is impossible to imagine anything more beautiful and more delicate in the way 

 of coloration in fishes of the temperate zone. 



Mr. Page said of them (loc. cit.) that they had no bright vermilion spots; the 

 ventral, anal, and pectoral fins bright scarlet, but without the black and white lines so 

 conspicuous on the brook trout; and the tail more forked. 



In Forest and Stream, December lo, 1874, page 277, C. A. ICingsbury, of Philadelphia, 

 stated that he had received some bluebacks, a careful, critical examination of which led 

 him to believe them to be an undescribed species, and at the meeting of the Philadelphia 

 Academy of Sciences, November 17, 1874, he had presented the specimens and given a 

 minute description of the species under the name of Salmo caeruleidorsus. This com- 

 munication was referred to the standing committee on ichthyology, and at the sugges- 

 tion of Dr. Leidy a specimen \vas sent to Prof. Baird, who advised him that it was the 

 Salmo oquassa of Girard. In the same paper, on the same page, was published a 

 description of the fish by James W. Milner, under date of November 29, 1874, to whom 

 it appears Mr. Blaclcford had sent specimens. He stated that the form of oquassa was 

 much more slender and with a tendency to prolongation not seen in the brook trout. 

 Thus, in the depth of body and of head compared with their lengths, the pectoral fin 

 prolonged to a slender point, the two lobes of the caudal extended in the same way, show- 

 ing a decided furcation, and the opercular bones prolonged into a more acute angle. On 

 the contrary, the maxillary bone did not extend as far back of the eye, in 5. oquassa 

 trout. The interopercular bone is much larger in 5. oquassa and the suboperculum is 

 wider. The tail in Salmo jontinalis is more truncated than in any species it is likely to 

 be confounded with. The following is taken from the Maine commissioners' report for 

 1874, pages 17 to 18: 



This beautiful little fisli takes its name from a bluish tint on the back, not unlike the bloom of a plum. 

 They are spotted like a trout, and to a casual observer the difference in a basket of fishes would not be 

 noted. But like the togue they have only the yellow and black spots but not the red. Their tints and 

 colorings are very beautiful, particularly in the male, the pectoral fins rivaling in color the autumn-tinted 

 maple leaves. Like the dying dolphin, their brilliancy of color is lost or fades away with their lives. 

 They are more delicate and symmetrical in shape than the brook trout and have the tail forked. 



In his letter to Fred Mather in 1887 (loc. cit.) Mr. Stanley wrote: 



The adulf fish does not have any white on the fins at all like the brook trout. The fins of the male are 

 bright red or the color of bright autumn leaves. When taken from the water they are of a dark color, 

 but after death turn to a light yellowish cast. The spots are very minute, very thick, very bright yellow 

 and red; both thicker and brighter than on the brook trout. 



Protection. — It has already been mentioned that under the general trout law the 

 blueback was afforded no protection. The first protective law for trout seems to have 

 been enacted in 1S69, chapter 20, section 18, in which the blueback trout in Franklin 

 and Oxford Counties was specifically exempted. 



The great abundance of this fish having been maintained for so many years in the 

 face of the great slaughter on the spawning beds and the importance of the fish in the 

 winter food supply of the settlers indiQ0.ted that protection was not needed or desirable. 

 However, as early as 1874 the Maine fish commissioners' report for that year stated that 



