FISHERIES, GAME AND FORESTS. 247 



A, good account of the whitefish was published by Richardson, in 1836, under Le Sueur's name 

 of Coregonus albus, a name published only a few weeks later than that of Mitchill; but, like 

 Mitchill's, unaccompanied by a sufficient description. 



In 1836 Richardson established a new species of Coregonus upon a dried specimen which he 

 received from Musquaw River, that falls into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, near the Mingan 

 Islands, giving it the name Salmo [Coregonus) labradoricus. This has been retained in the 

 literature as a distinct species up to the present time, although its close relationship to the com- 

 mon whitefish has sometimes been observed without recorded comment. 



Systematic ichthyologists have found it difficult to show clearly the differences between the 

 common whitefish and the Labrador whitefish, as may be seen by referring to the monographs 

 upon the whitefishes by Jordan and Gilbert, Bean and Evermann and Smith. They have been 

 forced to rely, finally, upon a single character, the presence of several rows of teeth on the 

 tongue to distinguish the two forms, and this was supposed to be constant and infallible. 



The writer has recently had occasion, while studying the fishes of the State of New York, to 

 examine numerous specimens of the common whitefish from the Great Lakes and interior lakes 

 of New York and of the so-called Labrador whitefish from lakes of New York and New Hamp- 

 shire and from rivers in New Brunswick and Labrador. As a result of these investigations he 

 is forced to the conclusion that Richardson's species, Coregonus labradoricus, is identical with 

 the common whitefish, Coregonus clupeifor?nis, there being no characters by which the two can 

 be distinguished. Every individual of the common whitefish, young and old, was found to have 

 teeth on the tongue and to possess the other characters by which Richardson's species has 

 hitherto been separated. 



This conclusion has an important bearing upon fish-cultural operations by the States and the 

 United States, as it will tend to simplify the work of artificial propagation and, perhaps, extend 

 its scope. 



Washington, D. C. TARLETON H. BEAN. 



The drawings of the whitefish were held up until after a considerable corre- 

 spondence with Dr. Bean, and on the publication of his conclusions it was decided to 

 drop the name Labrador in connection with whitefish from this and future reports 

 of the Commission. 



In explanation of the apparent difference between the two whitefishes represented 

 in the colored figures the fish from Hemlock Lake and used as a model by the artist 

 was a female weighing eleven and one-quarter pounds, and the Canandaigua fish was 

 a male of about three and one-half pounds. 



Hemlock Lake was stocked with whitefish from fry hatched at Caledonia station 

 and planted by the State, and there can be no better illustiation of the value of the 

 work of a State Fish Commission than the results obtained in this instance. The first 

 plant was made December 20, 1870, and the next in 187 1, and from these two 

 plantings the present fine stock of fish in the lake .has resulted. The eggs of the 

 whitefish hatched at Caledonia were procured from Detroit. It is doubtful if any 

 water to-day furnishes so many large whitefish for the number taken as Hemlock Lake. 

 Specimens weighing over twelve pounds have been caught; and, when the men are 



