812 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



[May 10, 1888, 



SUNAPEE TROUT. 



SALVELINUS - sunapeus - stagnalis - oquassa - a ureolo- 

 hybrid-bluebackl What is it, gentlemen? You 

 make us skeptical as to what kind of a fish is sulking be- 

 hind all this fine talk and this long Latin patronymic. 

 The authorities in Washington have classed yow fish as 

 a brook trout, and then call it in the same breath Salve- 

 linus aureolas, Good; that means it's a brook trout 

 because it isn't a trout at all and carefully eschews all 

 brooks? But it is a brook trout suffering from yellow 

 jaundice and an acute attack of spotted fever. Aureolus 

 means that, and that's what we make out of your picture 

 in Spalding's window. Now, T know something about 

 your fish. I've seen it in its spring plumage and in its 

 autumn war paint. I've eaten it in midsummer, and 

 know it to have been caught on the surface of the water, 

 too. It is a noble trout, but when I first visited Sunapee 

 it was not found in the lake. The only variety of trout 

 then known was the Salvelinus fontindlis, and I hardly 

 believe that this one sheet of water, deserving as it may 

 be of such consideration, has been favored with a special 

 act of creation at this late day in the Quaternary Age. 

 I don't know what your fish is or who introduced it, or 

 whether a female salmon is likely to fall in love with a 

 good-looking, well-speckled brook trout, about lib. heavier 

 than she, or whether bluebacks brought from Maine will 

 lose, after a brief residence in the waters of Sunapee, 

 two rays to the anal fin. I don't know whether blue- 

 backs lOin. long are adult or baby fish — and I don't care. 

 The only fact I am positive about is, that the new fish 

 (which certainly should be dubbed Salvelin us sunapee out 

 of courtesy to Col. AVebber, of Charlestown, N. H., and 

 Dr. Quackenbos, of New York, who first conferred on it 

 a name, as well as by reason of its association with this 

 single lake) is not aboriginal to this water. Reviewing 

 the articles that have been published on this subject, 

 allow me briefly to collate, for the entertainment of your 

 readers, the statements of those who have felt qualified 

 to advance an opinion. 



Among the number who have expressed themselves 

 upon this question, I find that the views of two only have 

 remained unchanged and that, moreover, in one direc- 

 tion alone. Col. Hodge has contended from the outset 

 that the fish are native to the lake; Dr. Quackenbos as 

 stubbornly maintains that they are not. Col. Hodge 

 sought to establish his point through the testimony of a 

 single witness (Forest and Stream, Aug. S, 1886). Dr. 

 Quackenbos, in reply (Sept. 3, 188(5) demolished the 

 evidence in a masterly manner, and adduced the testi- 

 mony of a score of witnesses, who had fished, speared, 

 and netted in all parts of the lake during a period of from 

 30 to 50 years, to prove that the trout were of foreign 

 origin. Col. Hodge's reply, in a subsequent issue of 

 Forest and Stream, was "a lame attempt to wlntewash 

 the character of his witness, and did not touch upon the 

 point in dispute. The hopes of Col. Hodge and of the 

 Washington men (who, as far as the writer can ascertain, 

 have never visited the lake or seen the living fish) to es- 

 tablish the identity of the Sunapee species with trout 

 inhabiting Dublin Pond and other New Hampshire and 

 Maine lakes, have been irremediably shattered. Like the 

 theory of Darwin, theirs is a preposterous "I guess." "I 

 guess you will find them in the great lakes of the north" 

 —but so far they haven't turned up, and all Maine 

 anglers hold they are not likely to. The derivation of 

 an argument from the portrait of a trout printed in a 

 railway guide is a big stoop for science, and simply re- 

 veals the emptiness of the argument from analogy. 



When the announcement of the discovery of the Suna- 

 pee trout was made, scientists and friends of the lake 

 sought to account for the presence of the unique fish in 

 this single body of water. Coupling their knowledge of 

 an introduction of bluebacks from Maine in 1879 with 

 the sudden appearance of a leaden-hued trout never 

 before seen in the State, ex-Commissioner Webber, of 

 New Hampshire, Livingston Stone and Dr. Quackenbos, 

 of New York, contended that the new fish might be "blue- 

 backs phenomenally developed in consequence of a super- 

 abundance of smelt food" (Forest and Stream, April 8, 

 1886\ Dr. Kingsbury, of Philadelphia, pronounced this 

 "quite improbable, if not absolutely impossible." Col. 

 Hodge, of Plymouth, and, we suspect, the keen-witted 

 superintendent of another fishery, hiding in the feathers 

 of a "Screaming Pelican," laughed the theory to scorn. 

 Washington wavered, then coyly lisped "oquassa" and 

 for iwo years the-new fish has been so called. Now the 

 sponsors have changed its name to aureolus. and in pro- 

 posing their present theory of origin almost precisely 

 repeat the language of Col. Webber and Dr. Quacken- 

 bos. In Forest and Stream, April 22, 1886, Dr. Quack- 

 enboss writes as follows: "It would not surprise me at 

 any time to learn that there are in Rangeiey Lake 

 oquassa trout weighing from six to eight pounds. The 

 bfuebacks swarming in the inlets may be the callow off- 

 spring of astute giants that spawn upon midlake shoals 

 unknown to the genus Homo, and after a few days recede 

 into depths where no lure can reach them. It is as prob- 

 able that such Solomons among Salmouida;- have eluded 

 the vigilance of the Caucasian man for a few decades in 

 Rangeiey, as that they have reproduced their species for 

 a century in Sunapee unmolested by the net and spear." 

 After two years of hesitancy, Dr. Bean has adopted this 

 theory himself. Let us not forget in this connection Dr. 

 Hart Merriam's testimony to the large size of oquassa 

 trout in the tributaries of the lower St. Lawrence. 



Attention is asked to the following vital differences of 

 opinion between Commissioner Hodge and Dr. Bean of 

 the U. S. Nat ional Museum, in regard to the origin of this 

 fish. Commissioner Hodge declares, "it is not the re- 

 sult of the plant of blueback trout made by Col. Web- 

 ber." Dr. Bean states'. "I have all along believed that 

 the Sunapee Lake Salvelinus is identical with the oquas- 

 sa' (Forest and Stream, Jan. 26, 1888). "It belongs to 

 the group including the European saibling and the Maine 

 blueback." Hodge pronouces these fish aboriginal. Bean 

 unhesitatingly declares, "It will be easy to trace their 

 origin to introduction of bluebacks." As ex-Commisioner 

 Webber made the only plant of bluebacks, there is a re- 

 mote possibility, according to Dr. Bean's reasoning, that 

 he is responsible for the presence of the new trout in Suna- 

 pee Lake. In regard to the size attainable by the blue- 

 back, there is as marked a diversity of opinion between 

 the ichthyologist and the Commissioner. Dr. Bean has 

 said: "All the bluebacks in the National Museum, some 

 of which are 10 inches long, have distinct pair marks 

 and are therefore young." Col. Hodge, ignorant, of the 



fact that the fish he was familiar with in Maine were im- 

 mature, proclaimed "the average weight of an adult 

 blueback to be 3 or 4 ounces" (Forest and Stream Aug. 

 5, 1886). The imperturbable Bean quietly disposes of this 

 absxud litotes with the counter-statement that ' 'the blue- 

 back probably grows as large as the Sunapee trout," i. e,, 

 9 or lOlbs. Hodge offsets this by pronouncing a blueback 

 of 81bs. "forty times larger than the average and a phy- 

 siological impossibility under any conditions of food and 

 water" (Forest and Stream Aug. 5, 1886). He is now 

 eating his own words, and apparently glorying in the re- 

 past. The points of difference may be briefly collated as 

 follows: 



Hodge. Bean. 

 The new trout are native to They were introduced from 

 the lake. Maine. 

 They are not hluehacks. They are identical with the 



blueback. 



They are not the result of a Their origin can he traced to 

 plant of hluehacks. an introduction of bluebacks. 



Extreme weight of hluehacks, Probable extreme weight of 

 3 or 4 ounces. bluebacks, 8 or 9 lbs. 



These differences are irreconcilable; when the doctors 

 disagree, the lay reader may be excused for being skep- 

 tical. 



In conclusion, neither Col. Hodge nor Dr. Bean has 

 proved, or can prove, that this new trout is a native to 

 Sunapee Lake. Dr. Bean frankly admits this. As the 

 day of Pythagoras, withits golden thigh and Autos Epha 

 is past, the ipse dixit of Col, Hodge will not be regarded 

 as a valid argument even by his most ardent admirers, 



Rahway, n. .t. James Colquhoun. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



I do not wish to bore you or your readers with too 

 many discussions of the question of the origin of the 

 "new trout," discovered a few years since l4 in Sunapee 

 Lake, but simply wish to make public such information 

 as I can get about it, and therefore send you the follow- 

 ing copy of a letter I have received from Mr. A, O. Wood- 

 bury, of Newport, N. H.. who has always lived near the 

 lake, and fished it constantly for many years. He says: 



"In relation to the fish of Sunapee Lake, I must say 

 that I think they are a hybrid between the Salmo solar 

 and the Sahno fontinalis. I have been acquainted with 

 Sunapee Lake for the last forty years, and cannot learn 

 that any trout, except native trout, have ever been taken 

 from its waters previous to the spring of 1881, when one 

 Thomas Roach exhibited three live trout in Newport, two 

 native and one of the new variety, which I thought at 

 the time to be a sea trout, deposited in the lake by some 

 one unknown to us. In after years I began to see and 

 take them quite often, and notice their markings, which 

 were widely different in color and spots, which you have 

 probably seen described in the publications of the day. 

 In the year 1869, one Moses Gould of Bradford put into 

 Sunapee Lake some fifty fish which he supposed were 

 Salmo salar. The next Salmo plant was made by Fish 

 Commissioners Webber and Powers in 1879. Now you 

 bam plainly see that the last plant could not have pro- 

 duced a fish which I caught in the year 1883, weighing 

 lHlbs. For we all know that it takes four or more years 

 for a salmon to pass through the three different stages of 

 parr, smolt and grilse, before they arrive to a perfect 

 salmon, which may weigh from 31bs. to 41bs. Therefore, 

 this large fish must surely.be the offspring of Gould's 

 plant. Some have supposed that the new fish was an 

 overgrown oquassa. Now, I think that is an impossibility , 

 for the oquassa trout is a small fish when full grown, and 

 it keeps its markings through all stages of its growth, 

 and seldom weighs 21bs. I have seen and taken the new 

 fish of all sizes from £lb. to 61bs., and have never seen 

 any parr marks on them such as we see on the oquassa. 

 Now, if these fish are not hybrids, why have we not some 

 record when they were put into the lake? There are 

 other proofs to me that they are hybrids, that is, the 

 difference in their markings. Some are very white, some 

 are quite gray, with dark spots, some have pink spots, 

 and some are very liable to be taken, if not closely 

 inspected, for the Salmo fontinalis. All of the salmon 

 that I have taken from the lake were females heavy with 

 spawn, and in two instances I have taken a male Salmo 

 sunapee soon after capturing the salmon, which seemed 

 to be its attendant. I do not think we shall know posi- 

 tively in relation to the origin of the new fish, unless 

 some one has interest enough in them to breed them to- 

 gether, and when that is done I think we will discover 

 the origin of the Salmo sunapee. Yours truly, A. O. 

 Woodbury." 



I have copied Mr. Woodbury's letter as written, but 

 must correct the dates. The plant of landlocked salmon 

 by Messrs. Powers and Webber was made in 1877, not 

 1879, and a plant was made at the same date in Squam 

 Lake, and a 151b. fish was reported to have been 

 taken from the lake in either 1883 or 1884. I have 

 never been able to procure all the reports of the 

 JSew Hampshire Fish Commission, but I have the first 

 one of 1866, in which Judge Bellows, then Com- 

 missioner, said: "We have accordingly succeeded 

 this spring in introducing into Newfound Lake 

 nearly thirty young landlocked salmon; they were 

 brought from the St. Croix River, or the lakes through 

 which that river passes, in the Province of New Bruns- 

 wick, under the immediate charge of Mr. N, S. Batch- 

 elder of Concord, to whose great perseverance, and the 

 valuable services of Arthur Fletcher, Esq., we are much 

 indebted." 



I have never been able to get the reports of 1867 and 

 1868, but the report of 1869 says, referring to the aforesaid 

 plant: "And in 1867 he obtained about 200 more, as it was 

 understood, though hatched out only the spring before. 

 These were placed in Lake Winnipiseogee, Squam Lake 

 and Sunapee Lake, and will be sufficient, we expect, to 

 stock those waters. This excellent variety of fish was 

 obtained from Grand Lake stream, in the neighborhood 

 of Calais, Maine." Now, whatever these may have been, 

 the eggs were not obtained from a female salmon. Dr. 

 Fletcher afterward admitted at a meeting of the Fish and 

 Game League, in Manchester, that they were raked up 

 from the bed of the river, and that he did not know what 

 they were, and that some which were kept at the hatch- 

 ing house of Robinson and Hoyt at Meridith village had 

 turned out to be not B&Jliiau, but trout. Judge Bellows, 

 Dr. Fletcher and Mr. Batcjaelder are all dead, and I do 

 not suppose we shall ever kjiow more about that matter. 



In regard to the later seeking, my records show that 

 Mr. Powers and myself left the Massachusetts hatching 

 house, at Winchester, May 8, 1877, with two or three 



thousand young landlocked salmon, -presented to us by 

 the Massachusetts Commissioners; that wtr" separated at 

 Concord, I taking 1,000 fish to Squam Lake, and Mr. 

 Powers, with the others, going to Sunapee and one or two 

 other ponds in that vicinity. My report for 1879 shows 

 that on April 26, 1878 we placed 6,000 landlocked salmon 

 and 3,000 "blue-backed" trout in Sunapee Lake, and June 

 3, 1879, 10,000 land locked salmon, 4,000 "blue-backed" or 

 oquassa trout, and 2,500 of the regular Rangeiey trout 

 were also placed in the same lake. The stocking with 

 landlocked salmon has been kept up continuously since, 

 and through the kindness of Dr. J. D. Quackenbos, 10,000 

 rainbow or California trout, and 30,000 Scotch or Loch 

 Leven trout were introduced in 1887, so that if the salmon 

 family are inclined to hybridize, there is every oppor- 

 tunity for them to do so. The official records show that 

 both the landlocked salmon and the unknown trout were 

 put in the lake two years earlier than Mr. Woodbury sup- 

 poses 



f wrote you in January, 1887, in regard to the habitat 

 of the Winninish or landlocked salmon, and quoted an 

 article from Orvis and Cheney's "Fishing with the Fly," 

 written by Mr. W. Thomson, of whose address I am ignor* 

 ant, to show that the "red trout" of Lake Superior was 

 the same fish. In that article he speaks of numerous 

 natural "cross-bred" trout in that lake, one, a cross 

 between the "red" and the common trout. Can he, or 

 any one else who may see this letter, give us any light 

 on, or proof of, such hybrids? 



There seems to me a very stt'ong probability that Mr, 

 Woodbury is right in referring these new trout to Dr. 

 Fletcher's' plant of 1867, but at the same time, gathered 

 as those eggs were from their spawning beds, they may 

 have been hybrids from the start. The plant of 1877 

 would produce spawn in three years, and as they were of 

 the- eggs of 1879, some return from them might be ex- 

 pected by 1881, when Mr. Woodbury reports the first one 

 to have been seen. 



I heard of a " new trout," from my former colleague, 

 ex-Commissioner Powers, in '83 or '84, 1 forget which, 

 and he and Mr. Hodge discovered them on the spawning 

 beds in '85. I wrote to Mr. Hodge, some time since, sug- 

 gesting to him to try a cross between the female salmon 

 and the male trout, which would harmonize with Mr. 

 Woodbury's suggestion and recollections exactly, but I 

 do nor, think Mr. Hodge understood me, for he writes me. 

 "In regard to crossing landlocked salmon with trout, and 

 especially Salvelinus aureolus of Sunapee Lake, is almost 

 an impossibility, there is not vitality enough in the life 

 principle of the milt of the trout to come to maturity. 1 

 have no doubt but what it might be done with trout like 

 the Loch Leven, as the eggs sent me from there last win- 

 ter were about the same size as our Penobscot salmon 

 eggs. The eggs of the aureolus, of Sunapee, are smaller 

 than those of the brook trout." 



Now I meant the old trout, not the new one, and I 

 wrote Mr. Hodge that the very facts that he had given 

 me in regard to the milt and spawn of the new variety 

 were the strongest evidences of its hybridity of any thing 

 that I had yet seen. 



I do not propose in any way to controvert Dr. Bean's 1 

 anatomical analysis of the new trout, but when the ques- 

 tion of its history in Sunapee Lake is concerned, I think 

 my fifty years' knowledge of the lake gives as much 

 weight to my opinion as to that of any one, and I am as 

 sure as one can well be of anything, that this trout has 

 appeared in Lake Sunapee within twenty years certainly, 

 and from any evidence that can be got worth having, 

 within ten. I have "no axe to grind" in this matter, 

 "no friends to reward, or enemies to punish," but am 

 simply seeking to throw all the light I can get on an 

 interesting physiological question. A new trout has been 

 discovered, the question is, Where did it come from? and 

 this I am trying to solve. Saml. Webber. 



Charlestown, N. H„ April 16. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



There is an old saying that "dreams go by contraries," 

 and the angler, of all men, generally finds it so. Visions 

 of big baskets, sunny skies, fragrant hemlocks, etc. , precede 

 the realities of rain, slush, and a few fingerlings. But 

 Mr. Hutchinson's sleep-fancy is a phenomenal exception 

 to this psychological rule; and now that the dream has 

 been dragged into the Sunapee controversy, the Wash- 

 ington authorities must be metamorphosed into oneiropo- 

 loi to interpret the visions that will forthwith be re- 

 ported. 



Mr. Hutchinson's argument in regard to deep-water 

 fishing in Sunapee Lake may seem illogical to some of 

 your readers. He dreamed in 1882 that if he would 

 anchor in 70ft. of water he would catch trout. He acted 

 accordingly and caught a few. Therefore, he is the in- 

 ventor of deep-water fishing ! Is this inductive or de- 

 ductive reasoning? It is certainly a posteriori to the 

 fact; for it is well known that anglers of repute fished in 

 deep water before 1882 — but, strange to relate, never 

 hooked a Salvelinus sunapee. In 1883, I dreamed I took 

 a steamer and crossed to Liverpool. Accordingly, on 

 April 25, I shipped on the Bothnia, and in ten da) s was in 

 the Mersey. Ergo: I am the inventor of steam navigation! 



Hutchinson's logic is obnoxious to the same general 

 criticism as Col. Hodge's sophistry — it is one big dream. 



I trust that the reader will not infer from the raid Mr. 

 Hutchinson represents was made, on his rods, that the 

 purlieus of Sunapee are infested with thieves. In the old 

 days, parties from a distance poached ad libitum with 

 mesh and barb. Violence was the rule, and anarchy pre- 

 vailed. I have heard stories of fish stolen from fish 

 thieves, and of heads swollen and aching from stone 

 wounds and bad rum, but all this was a quarter century 

 ago. Even in those rough times two fellows from a 

 neighboring town who found it convenient to appropriate 

 a boat, were hounded down by the people and narrowly 

 escaped Haverhill jail by the payment of a large fine. 

 Since that time, property has been safe at'Sunapee .Lake, 

 except from possible damage by dare-devils from abroad, 

 confused with alcohol. Such persons, however, scrupu- 

 lously confine themselves to one or two localities con- 

 genial to then tastes. Of the thirty-three miles of shore 

 line, at least thirty-two are free from their visits, while 

 the whole neighborhood has set the stamp of condign 

 disapproval upon all kinds of lawlessness. Ladies and 

 children are everywhere safe from molestation, and as 

 for the native population, it has never been my fortune 

 to meet with a more honest, manly, frank, »:>nsiderate 

 and obliging people. Eight or ten rods, some of them 

 bamboos worth $30 to §40, belonging to myself and 



