.NOVEMBER, 1920 
FOREST AND STREAM 
591 
HYBRIDS FROM PIKE AND PICKEREL 
THE OVERLAPPING SPAWNING TIME AND SPAWNING BEHAVIOR OF 
THESE TWO SPECIES PERMIT THE POSSIBILITY OF A NATURAL CROSS 
By 0. W. SMITH 
E VERY angler who has given any 
thought to the matter cannot have 
failed to be impressed with the 
great likeness between the pickerel and 
pike; for, as has been pointed out in 
these pages, were it not for the squama- 
tion of the cheek and gillcover, not al- 
ways could the. observer be sure of the 
identity of a given specimen. This be- 
ing true, the possibility of a cross, or 
hybrid, has undoubtedly suggested itself 
to the thoughtful angler. It is a matter 
of record that supposed crosses have 
been discovered in nature, fish showing 
in one or more characters, a condition 
intermediate between the pikes and pick- 
erels. Of course when those specimens 
have been taken, the question has arisen 
as to whether or not such fish are mere 
“sports”, a mutation, or the actual re- 
sult of cross-fertilization. Undoubtedly 
few crosses, comparatively speaking, oc- 
cur in nature, for nature is more careful 
in such things than is man. 
There would seem to be no good rea- 
sons why cross-fertilization might not 
quite frequently occur between the pick- 
erels and pikes, unless nature has en- 
dowed them with a great and insur- 
mountable antipathy for each other, for 
structurally and in habits they are es- 
sentially alike. At the time of spawn- 
ing, a ripe female, companioned by one 
or more males, swims about erratically 
over the shallows or inundated marshes. 
Eggs and milt are ejected from time to 
time, here and there, each ejection being 
accorripanied with violent tail-lashings 
and body contortions, effectually distrib- 
uting both milt and eggs over a consid- 
erable area. Now, as pike and pickerel 
spawn at practically the same time, in- 
deed spawning pickerel have been ob- 
served crossing the path of spawning 
pike more than once; suppose this cross- 
ing should take place at the proper mo- 
ment, it is inconceivable but that some 
of the eggs from both species would be 
impregnated by the milt from the other 
species. Would such accidently impreg- 
nated eggs “hatch” and develop into fish? 
It was to answer the question satisfac- 
torily that Mr. G. C. Embody, of Cor- 
nell University, conducted a careful and 
lengthy series of experiments, reported 
in The Journal of Heredity for October, 
1918. I quote from his article: 
“On March 30, 1917, the eggs from a 
30.5 cm. pickerel having typical charac- 
ters were artificially pressed into a 
moistened pan and covered with milt 
from a male pike likewise typical of its 
Adult pike, adult pickerel and young pike 
species. The reciprocal cross was not 
attempted. About 70 per cent of these 
eggs developed normally, and those not 
preserved for future study, hatched in 
from six to ten days. A few of the 
young were reared in an aquarium to 
lengths varying from 3.8 cm. to 6.4 cm., 
after which they were transferred to a 
small newly made artificial pond of stag- 
nant water. When six months old three 
specimens were captured and gave 
lengths of 15.2, 13.8, and 9.1 cm., re- 
spectively.” 
Adult pike, adult pickerel and hybrid 
T HIS is of utmost interest, for it 
proves that the cross fertilization 
is possible, at least artificially. 
Furthermore, in the artificially pro- 
duced hybrids, the scaling of the gill- 
cover is extended down on the portion 
joining the cheek, as never occurs in 
true pike. (Study the illustration taken 
from The Journal of Heredity.) In 
other words, the squamatio n of the hy- 
brid partakes both of the nature of the 
pike and pickerel. The : 'pposed wild 
hybrids have exactly the i rre squama- 
tion. Therefore, it seems a rost safe 
to conclude that if the anglei should be 
so fortunate as to take a fish with the 
peculiar scalation given in the illustra- 
tions, he would be justified in concluding 
that he- had a hybrid pickerel. It 
would be exceedingly interesting to know 
if the hybrid would reproduce, a matter 
I deem exceedingly doubtful, for the 
chances are it would prove a “mule”, in- 
fertile. A friend of mine who is a trout 
breeder, has carefully selected albino 
trout, strong and vigorous fish, hoping 
to reproduce them, but he insists that 
they are infertile, a matter which I 
am inclined to doubt. 
In coloration the hybrid, which is of 
course an immature fish, resembles the 
immature pike much more closely than 
it does the immature pickerel; the diag- 
onal light bars with dark areas between 
them being very distinct in the first 
two, and totally lacking in the last, the 
markings being those of the “chain pick- 
erel”. If these markings are constant, 
the fisherman should have little difficulty 
in differentiating between the pike min- 
now and the pickerel minnow, though he 
might easily be confused if given a pike 
and hybrid. The author, upon whose 
findings I am basing this paper, holds 
that the chances are in favor of the ma- 
ture hybrid resembling quite closely the 
mature pike, the resemblance being so 
striking in the immature specimens. 
One examining the illustrations accom- 
panying this article cannot help being 
impressed with the similarity of the 
head of the artificially produced hybrid 
with that of our well-known wall-eye, 
mis-called “wall-eyed pike”. I have 
shown the picture referred to to several 
anglers and all have asserted that it 
was a “wall-eye, certainly.” Of course 
it may be the fault of the photographer, 
the head undoubtedly having been placed 
much nearer the camera than was that 
of the adult pickerel. 
(continued on page 610) 
