GREAT LAKES COREGONIDS 



523 



despite the great increase in quantity and effectiveness of the fishing apparatus and in- 

 crease in value of the fish taken. It is noteworthy, also, that the areas that produced 

 the whitefish of 1880 are not those that yielded the bulk of the 1922 catch. Many 

 millions of fry have been planted in the lake since 1880 and the fish have been pro- 

 tected more carefully, but the effectiveness of propagation and protection has been 

 reduced by the pollution of the lake from the industrial cities that have sprung up 

 along its shores and by other abuses. It may be pointed out here that the success of 

 propagation of the species in the Great Lakes has not yet been demonstrated. It is 

 true that there has been reported from time to time in various areas increases in 

 abundance, which have been ascribed to artificial propagation; but there may have 

 been other causes for these phenomena, among which may be mentioned the indis- 

 putable decrease of suckers (which possibly compete with the whitefish, as Clemens 

 has found in Lake Nipigon) and of predatory species that may feed on the young. 

 Certainly if the increase could be credited positively to propagation acitvities, it is 

 a result of chance and not of careful and intelligent disposition of the fry. Hatching 

 methods reached the climax of perfection many years ago, and despite the fact that 

 it has been apparent that by far the greatest percentage of the fry planted never were 

 heard from, no investigations have been made to determine why plants were not 

 more successful. Almost nothing is known of the life of the whitefish up to the time 

 it is taken in the commercial nets. 



Coregonus clupeaformis of Lake Huron 



The Lake Huron whitefish has the general appearance of the Michigan form. 

 The systematic characters capable of numerical expression are given below: 



H/S: 



Michigan, (3.2) 3.4-3.7 (4.1). 

 Huron, (3.2) 3.4-4 (4.4). 

 Pv/P: 



Michigan, (1.5) 1.7-2 (2.3). 

 Huron, (1.5) 1.7-2 (2.2). 

 Av/V: 



Michigan, (1.3) 1.5-1.8 (2). 

 Huron, (1.4) 1.5-1.8 (2). 

 L/D: . 



Michigan, (3.3) 3.9-4.3 (4.8). 

 Huron, (3.3) 3.7-4.3 (4.9). 



The figures show no conspicuous differences between the two forms. The 

 indication of a tendency on the part of Huron specimens to have deeper bodies and 

 shorter snouts may well be due to the preponderance in the Huron collection of local 

 races exhibiting these tendencies. 



t9 Figures for Lake Michigan, except those for gill rakers, lateral-line scales, and H/E, are based on an examination of 126 

 specimens ranging in length from 179 to 483 millimeters. The H/E figures are given for 74 specimens 300 millimeters or less in length, 

 those for gill rakers for 151 specimens, and those for scales for 191. 



70 These and succeeding figures for Lake Huron, except those for H/E, are based on an examination of 195 specimens ranging in 

 length from 192 to 512 millimeters. The H/E figures are given for 80 specimens 300 millimeters or less in length. 



Gill rakers on the first branchial arch 

 Michigan, (24) 26-28 (30) . 69 



' Huron, (24) 26-28 (31). 70 



Lateral-line scales: 



Michigan, (74) 81-88 (93). 

 Huron, (73) 80-88 (91). 



L/H: 



Michigan, (4.2) 4.4-4.8 (5.3). 

 Huron, (4) 4.5-5 (5.1). 

 H/E: 



Michigan, (3.8) 4-4.4 (4.8). 

 Huron, (3.8) 4.1-4.5 (4.6). 

 H/M: 



Michigan, (3) 3.2-3.4 (3.8). 

 Huron, (2.9) 3.1-3.5 (3.8). 



