FISHES OF CHESAPEAKE BAY 
9 
(' b ) A mention of the chief diagnostic characters, naming those, so far as possible, 
that are readily noticed in the field. 
(c) Variations among individuals; variations with age; also sexual differences. 
(d) Food and feeding habits. 
(< e ) Spawning, embryology, larval development. 
(/) Rate of growth. 
( ; g ) Relative and seasonal abundance in Chesapeake Bay; how taken. 
(h) Commercial importance. 
(i) Size attained. 
( j ) Habitat — i. e., general range of distribution. 
(k) Previous Chesapeake Bay records. 
(l ) Specimens in collection; individuals observed in the field; where, when, and 
how taken. 
It is understood, of course, that for many species nothing is known relative to 
some of the subheads, and in others they do not apply. In such cases the subject 
or subjects are not mentioned or are passed over with the remark that little or nothing 
is known about them. 
The scope of the work was fixed arbitrarily to include all fishes taken in the salt 
water of the bay as well as those taken in the mouths of streams, where the water 
was brackish to only slightly brackish. This arbitrary division resulted in bringing 
several species of “fresh-water” fishes within the limits of this report. Species not 
taken during the present investigation, but previously recorded from the bay or 
reliably reported by fishermen, also have been included. 
In the arrangement of the orders and families Dr. David Starr Jordan’s recent 
work, “A Classification of Fishes, ” has been followed. Jordan’s “Genera of Fishes, ” 
too, has been consulted freely. 
The collection of the specimens and data and the preparation of the report have 
extended over a long time, and so many persons have helped at one time or 
another to further the work that it will be impossible to give a complete list of all 
who have made contributions of one kind or another. The authors are particularly 
grateful to the former officers of the Bureau of Fisheries — namely, Dr. Hugh M. 
Smith, former commissioner, Dr. H. F. Moore, former deputy commissioner, and 
Dr. R. E. Coker, formerly in charge of scientific research, as well as to the officers 
succeeding them in the same positions. These gentlemen, of course, made the 
undertaking possible, have rendered advice and encouragement, and have been 
patient with us, as the preparation of the report (the writers claim because of other 
duties) appeared to progress very slowly. 
The work was undertaken originally by Messrs. Radcliffe and Welsh, as stated 
elsewhere. We have had the collections and the notes of these workers, of which 
we have made use freely. Mr. Radcliffe had already prepared an indexed card 
catalogue of the various species of fishes known from the vicinity of Maryland and 
Virginia when the work of preparing the report was assigned to us, and this catalogue 
has been of great convenience. During the later stages of the work we also received 
specimens and helpful data from Dr. R. P. Cowles, of Johns Hopkins University. 
We are especially indebted to the Buchanan brothers — John, Roland, and Rich- 
ard — of Norfolk, Va., who allowed us full freedom of their fishery at James Siding, 
