THE G^ME PISH OF NORTH AMERICA. 27 



of egress. I understand that this Sebago Trout has access to the sea ; 

 there is no reason, therefore, why, if originally a true Salmon, it should 

 have lost its true characteristics in waters having their exit through 

 the Saco, more than in those which discharge via. the Kennebec, or 

 why it should continue to run up a smaller river, when it has deserted 

 all the larger rivers westward of the Penobscot, with the exception of 

 a very few which are, perhaps, still taken in the Androscoggin and 

 the Kennebec, where, a few years ago, they absolutely swarmed. 



With regard to this fish, however, I hope, before concluding this 

 work, to receive more decided information from some of my obliging 

 correspondents in that quarter ; and perhaps even a specimen by which 

 to compare with the other varieties of this genus. 



Again, of the Sea Trout, or White Trout, I have my doubts, 

 whether it be not a grilse, or Salmon of the third year. It is as yetj 

 so far as I know, unfigured and undescribed ; but my information con- 

 cerning it from excellent fishermen on the waters where it abounds, 

 the rivers, mainly, which fall into the Bay of Gaspe and the Gulf of 

 St. Lawrence, is so clear and strong, that I prefer noting it as a ques- 

 tionable variety, in the hopes- of calling to it the attention of older 

 naturalists than myself, and of those who have better opportunities of 

 obtaining and examining specimens. 



Lastly, the Red-beUied Trout, Salmo Erythrogaster, 6i Dr. DeKay, 

 I dpcline to insert on his authority, being entirely unconvinced as to its 

 being anything more than a mere accidental variety. The whole of 

 that region of lakes and rivers, in the Northeastern angle of New York, 

 in which this variety is said to exist, teems with accidental varieties of 

 the Brook Trout, of almost every size, as well as shade and color, both 

 of flesh and external tints. The Trout of no two of these lakes or 

 rivers are precisely identical. The same may be said of Brook Trout 

 from various 'waters in Long Island. These differences, however, are 

 not deemed sufficient, consisting, mainly, in variations of hue, not of 

 form, bony configuration, scales, or fins, whereon to found generic . 

 distinctions. 



The same remarks apply to a small fish, which Dr. DeKay has 

 described at length, and figured under a new name, as the Troutlet, 

 in his fauna of New York ; and which is unquestionably nothing more 

 than the young fry of the common Brook Trout, while it is so small as 



