[CUAMBHRS] 



THE PHILOLOGY OF THE OUANANICHE 



133 



) 



many lorinsof tlu- word tliat can -laini to liavi' Ih'imi usimI l»y autlidfitii's 

 of vi'spcctahility is • wiiniiiiisli." wliicli a|)]H'ars at ])au;t' 44.") of Di-. 

 fr()()(K''s Aiiicricdii Fishes and in the scii-ntitic ])a]»or upon llic Fislics 

 of Oiitario l>v l)i'. Ifanisay Wi"iii;lit. F.R.S.C. prot'ussor in the I'ni- 

 vcrsity of Toronto, pnldislu'il in 1S!»2. with tiic report of tlic Ontario 

 Fish and (ramo Conmiission. ()t nioro importance still to oi-thon'rajjl'- 

 ers is the tact that " winninish " is the spellini!; ado)>ted in [Vcl»<tcr's 

 J)icti')iiiirij. whi'W tlu- name of thetish Hrsi tly-nred in thee(lilion of LS!t2, 

 and also in the ('nifurf/. ()i\e. at least, of the proprii'tors of the tii-sl- 

 inentioni'd of these two eminent philoloijieal anthorities — Mr. A. (J. 

 Merriam of S)»ringtield — is an aeeomplished angler who has cultivated 

 the ae(|uaintance of the ouananiche in la ijriiiuh' ilvrluinjc n\' hake St. 

 John. WVhstei" i!,-ives the derinition of •■ winninish " as follows; "The 

 hmd-locked variety ol tlu' common salmon (Canada)." It may ap|»ear 

 presnmptuons to critic isi' the professional work of so justly i-ecognized 

 sin authority upon his tavourite bramdi of science as Professor A<ldison K. 

 Vei-rill of Yale I'liiversity. who conducted the revision of the /.oiilogical 

 terms in the lS!>l! edition of Wfhster : hut I have no hesitation in deidar- 

 ingthat neither the orthoiiraphy "winninish" nor his detinition of the 

 name is the best ohtainahlc. Xor yet is either of the other forms for 

 whose ust' I have thus tai' cited autiiorities. The tish to wliich tliese 

 various names have heen a]»plied is not a "laud-locked salnnm '" at all. 



A hriet considei'ation of the onanani(die itself and of its hahits is 

 necessary to a correct a|)i>reciation of the detinition of its name in 

 Welistfr's, and this, it is hoi)ed. will not he considered foreign to the 

 subject matter of the ]ireseut papei". First tiien. a few words as to the 

 identity o\' tlu' tish whose philoloii'v i^ under consideration. Professor 

 Samuel (iarman of the Museum of Comparative Zoiilogy. Cambridge. 

 Ma.ss.. to whom 1 sent speeinu'us for examination in Sei)tember. LSDH. 

 wrote in reply : " 1 see nothing by which to distinguish the tish of Lake 

 St. John tVom Suhii'i siihtr as represented by specimens from New 

 Brunswick and Maim', or other New Kngland States. It may prevent 

 misunderstan<lingif it is e.\'i)lained tliat I takethe fresh water individuals, 

 inchuliug of course thosi' truly land-locked as commonly (h'signate<l. to 

 be the better representatives of tlu' species S. salar." lie further states, 

 that the fact that some individuals leave fresh water, where propagation 

 occurs, for a time, being somewhat moditied by so doing, neither gives 

 rise to a ditjerent species nor even n (liffcrcnt vuricti/. The italics'' tii'e 

 mine and sliow the result of Professor (farman's e.\amiiuiti(m ot the tish 

 to be in coutlict with Professor Verrill's <letiuitionof its name. Xot only 

 is the ouananiche not a distinct variety from the salmon that goes out to 

 sea but it is not laud-locked either. In all wati'rs ti'il)Utarv to Lake St. 

 John it has free access to the sea. Of this ojiportunity it is probable 

 that it sel(h)m avails itself, but individuals have been caught at the 



•♦•«• I" 



