nursery areas (table 1). Fifty specimens were 

 sampled at random from each collection, 

 covering the size range in each, for the analysis. 



Table 1. — Juvenile American shad collections, from 10 Atlantic 

 coast rivers, examined in meristlc studies 



Area and 

 river 



Collect- 

 ing gear 



Loca- 

 tions 



Collec- 

 tions 



Speci- 

 mens 



Size range 

 fork length 



North Atlantic: 

 Connecticut. . . 



Chesapeake Bay: 

 Susquehanna. . . 

 Rappahannock. . 

 York 



South Atlantic: 



Seine 

 Seine 



Seine 

 Trawl 

 Trawl 

 Trawl 



Seine 

 Trawl 

 Trawl 

 Trawl 



Number 



2 

 3 



1 

 2 

 2 

 2 



2 

 1 

 2 

 3 



Number 



6 

 9 



1 

 2 

 6 

 3 



5 

 4 

 4 

 5 



Number 



300 



450 



50 

 100 

 300 



150 



250 

 200 

 200 



250 



(ta. 



55-146 



45- 82 



48- 70 

 64- 89 



54- 90 



55- 88 



43-110 



56- 83 

 54- 84 



46- 74 





Total... 45 2,250 





In the North Atlantic area, collections of 

 juvenile shad were taken from the Connecticut 

 and Hudson Rivers. From the Connecticut, 

 collections were taken above South Hadley Falls 

 Dam at Holyoke, Mass., about 85 miles from 

 the river mouth, and at Enfield, Conn., about 

 15 miles downstream of South Hadley Falls 

 Dam, in the fall of 1954, 1957, and 1958. 

 The collections taken above South Hadley Falls 

 Dam were considered as an introduced popu- 

 lation, because the dam blocked upstream 

 migrating fish from this area for more than 

 100 years until a fish-passage facility was 

 installed in 1952. In the Hudson, collections 

 were taken at Piermont, N.Y., in the brackish 

 water section about 30 miles from the river 

 mouth; at Kingston Point, N.Y., in the fresh- 

 water section about 50 miles upstream from 

 Piermont; and at Catskill, N.Y., about 25 miles 

 upstream from Kingston Point, in the autumn 

 of 1950 and 1951. Additional collections were 

 taken at Kingston Point in 1954, 1957, and 1958. 



In the Chesapeake Bay area, collections of 

 juvenile shad were taken from the Susquehanna, 

 Rappahannock, York, and James Rivers. From 

 the Susquehanna River, collections were taken 

 below the Conowingo Dam in 1958; from the 

 Rappahannock River, at Long Point in 1954 

 and in Batchelors Bay in 1958; from the 

 York River, at the Pamunkey Indian Reserva- 

 tion in 1953, 1954, 1956, and 1958 and at 

 the Mattaponi Indian Reservation in 1954 and 

 1958; and from the James River, at Walcot 

 Wharf, Va., in 1954 and at Claremont Beach, 

 Va„ in 1954 and 1958. 



In the South Atlantic area, collections of 

 juvenile shad were taken from the Neuse, 

 Edisto, Ogeechee, and St. Johns Rivers. From 

 the Neuse River, collections were taken at 

 Bridgeton, N.C., in 1950, 1954, 1957, and 1958 



and at Streets Ferry, N.C., in 1954; collec- 

 tions from the Edisto River at Crosby Land- 

 ing, S.C., were available for 1938 and 1939 

 and. were taken in 1957 and 1958; collections 

 from the Ogeechee River were available for 

 1938 and 1939 from Kings Ferry, Ga„ and 

 were taken in 1957 and 1958 at the State Park, 

 near Richmond Hill, Ga.; and collections 

 from the St. Johns River were taken at 

 Mandarin, Fla., in 1954, in Lake Harney in 

 1954, and at Palatka, Fla., in 1954, 1957, 

 and 1958. 



Using a binocular microscope, counts were 

 made of left pectoral, dorsal, and anal fin 

 rays and total scutes. Fin ray counts included 

 all rudiments, and the last elements in anal 

 and dorsal fins, originating from the same 

 base, were counted as one ray. The dorsal 

 fin origin often required dissection to expose 

 embedded rays. Scales occasionally had to 

 be removed to expose enveloped scutes and 

 anal fin rays. No attempt was made to separate 

 scutes into anterior and posterior counts. Not 

 a single abnormal fin or scute was encountered 

 out of the 2,250 specimens examined. 



Analysis of variance (Snedecor, 1956; Steel 

 and Torrie, I960) was used to test if meristic 

 count means of specimens were statistically 

 different at the 1 percent level (indicated by 

 two asterisks in the tables) between rivers, 

 locations within rivers, and years within 

 rivers. Before comparing the means, group 

 variances were tested for homogeneity. 



ANALYSES OF MERISTIC COUNTS 



Differences and similarities in meristic 

 counts for samples of shad from within in- 

 dividual rivers and between rivers are dis- 

 cussed in the following sections by geographical 

 area. 



North Atlantic Area 



Meristic counts were made of juvenile 

 shad taken at each location in the Connecticut 

 and Hudson Rivers (tables 2 and 3). 



Connecticut River . --Mean meristic counts 

 for the Holyoke samples (above Hadley Falls 

 Dam) in most instances were slightly higher 

 than those for Enfield samples (below Hadley 

 Falls Dam). The difference in pectoral fin 

 ray counts was significant between locations 

 (table 4). The difference in each mean meristic 

 count was nonsignificant between years for 

 the Enfield samples. No analysis was made 

 for differences between years in the meristic 

 counts from above Hadley Falls Dam. 



Hudson River . --Differences in meristic 

 counts were not significant between locations 

 (Piermont-Kingston-Catskill) for the years 

 1950 and 1951. Since Kingston Point was the 



