^ 



138 



ROY A L so( • 1 i<:t Y O ]■• ( ' a N a I ) a 



widesprcnd iiccoplarn'o in Kiii;'lisli letters, does it not siivoiif of literary 

 l»arl)urisin to seelv liir a |iliiiiietic I'lni^lisli s|K>lliiii;, by suhstitiitiii;.; for a 

 poi'tically const riietcd wont, a iuoiii>i'el orthography, sueh as is found 

 inclosed lietween |iarentlicses in the pronouneitii^ dictionaries? And the 

 alisiirdily of the seeUiny is found in the variety of the i;rotes(|ue results 

 already indicated. As woll, it weins o ine, iniyhl we ()lijcct to the 

 French form of our Hn^lish word • chainpai^ne." and insist upon writiui; 

 it •shampain" or '-^ihanipane.'' as to persist in the anu'lici/ation of 

 oiiananlclir. 



Tho laki' trout, — f(»rl<cd tail. — luntfc or fniihtdi is fortunato ii' the 

 svlnioat univerHal maintenance for the name of its variety, of the original 

 Fronch ortliojfra|diical illustration of the Indian souud I'cprosontcd hy 

 the pronunciation of nuinai/rns/i. Hut in the case of another North 

 America fish, — cso.r nobiUor, — whose jiopular title in its original form, 

 like thalof tlu^ oiiananicheand namaycush. comes down to us, as correct 1}' 

 <laiiwed hy Mr. Fred. .Mather, from its Indian nomenclature, an ajiparcnt 

 dcsii-e to get away from French ortliograjdiy has produced a somewhat 

 similar coufusion of language to that already dcscrihed in the case of the 

 ouananiche. The original spelling ol' the Indian name was untlouhtedly 

 •• maskinongt'." and sueh it is still called in tlie Statutes of Canada. 

 According to .Mgr. Latlcchc. • iMasUinonge " is derived \'vo\\\ iiiaslih do- 

 forined, and liiiumijv. a pike, and was a])plied to tiie r&ox nohilior hy the 

 Indians because it apjteared to them u dcfoi-med or ditt'cicnt kind 

 of pike from that to which they had been accustomed. Tho river of the 

 same name that flows into Lake St. Peter, which nanu' was subseciuently 

 extended to the town since built at its mouth and to the county of which 

 it is the f/iet' lien, was doubtless so called from the uumlicr of these fish 

 taken in or near its estuary., and after their Indian name, And it is a 

 singular corroboration of the absolute correctness of the French orthog- 

 raphy •• maskinonge," that no less an authority than Dr. .lames A. 

 Ilenshall, the author of the paper on this fish in Ariurican (lame 

 FIskc.s, foHowing the nomenclature of Dr. Mit(diil, and of DeKay in 

 Fishes of JVew Yuri:, suljstilutes for nohilior, as the scientific name of 

 this particular species. — inasqit.iii<in</ij. — which is about as near as it is 

 possible foi' FiUglish orthography to go in representing the correct 

 jtronunciation of 'maskinonge." Yet Dr. lienshall claims that by 

 common consent and custom the name is • mascalonge " amongst the 

 majority of anglers and that nuiscalonge it will be for generations to 

 come ! Nor does this mongrel naiui". whicdi Dr. Ilenshall himself 

 employs foi- the title of his monograph on l.ie Hsh, represent the 'full 

 extent of the de|)artui'e from the original luime. lie gives us himself 

 amongst the various other forms, — nuiscalonge, muskellunge and mus- 

 kallonge, — tlie second of which is the name employed to designate the 

 s|)ecies by Dr. C. Brown floocU' in his American Fishe-'i, and which is 



