HOMING INSTINCT OF PINK SALMON 
37 
Table 1 . — Returns from the pink-salmon marking experiment at McClinton Creek, British Columbia 
[As reported by A. L. Pritchard (1932)] 
Locality of recovery 
Num- 
ber of 
recov- 
eries 1 
Approxi- 
mate 
distanco 
from 
McClin- 
ton Creek 
Locality of recovery 
Num- 
ber of 
recov- 
eries 1 
Approx- 
mate 
distance 
from 
McClin- 
ton Creek 
English 
English 
Alaska: 
miles 
Southern Birtish Columbia, Johnstone 
miles 
8 
1,000 
Strait 
24 
400 
Snake Creek, Olive Cove 3 
10 
180 
Queen Charlotte Islands area: 
Anan Creek 3 
1 
180 
Naden Harbour 
14 
40 
Northern British Columbia (exclusive of 
( Hard Bav-- 
2 
no 
Queen Charlotte Islands): 
Massett Inlet. 
22 
10 
1 
120 
McClinton Creek - 
95 
0 
Naas River area.. . . . ... . 
1 
140 
Skeena River. . 
4 
130 
Chatham Sound 
1 
110 
1 Pritchard assumed that pink salmon with only adipose fin scars recovered in the summer and fall of 1932 originated from the 
McClinton Creek marking experiment. 
2 The data from Karluk Beach were reported by J. T. Barnaby of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. 
3 The data from Snake Creek at Olive Cove and Anan Creek were reported by F. A. Davidson of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. 
One of the causes of error in the earliest marking experiments was the use of 
single fin marks for the future indentification of the salmon. Rich and Holmes 
(1928, p. 217) in reviewing these experiments make the following statements: 
The greatest cause of error in the earlier experiments was the failure of the investigators to 
realize that salmon occasionally lose one or more of their fins in other ways, and that as a result, 
if only one fin is removed experimentally, the mark may be duplicated accidently. For example, 
Hubbard removed the adipose fin from Chinook fingerlings at the Clackamas hatchery in Oregon 
in 1895. The reported returns from this marking are so greatly opposed to the known facts of the 
life history and growth of Chinook salmon that they are obviously in error, and there can be no 
question that they included fish not marked by Hubbard. 
That the adipose fins of pink salmon are likewise missing due to natural causes 
was pointed out by the author in discussing the returns from the Duckabush River 
marking experiment. (See pp. 29-31 of text.) 
In reporting the 10 pink salmon with only adipose fin scars from Snake Creek 
in Olive Cove, Pritchard failed to mention the fact that 50,000 pink-salmon fry were 
marked in this stream at the same time the fry were marked in McClinton Creek. 
Since the fry in Snake Creek were marked by the removal of both their dorsal and 
adipose fins, these 10 salmon were probably native to Snake Creek and consisted of 
salmon whose adipose fins were naturally missing or marked salmon whose dorsal fins 
had regenerated. (See discussion on p. 31 of the text.) The 8 pink salmon with 
only adipose fin scars reported by Barnaby from Karluk Beach were found during a 
2-day examination of approximately 45,000 pink salmon composing part of the run 
into the Karluk River. Had Barnaby examined the entire run of 3,500,000 pink 
salmon in the Karluk River it is conceivably possible that, if the above proportion 
prevailed, he would have found in the neighborhood of 600 pink salmon with deformed 
or missing adipose fins. This together with the great distance that separates these 
2 streams makes it highly improbable that these 8 pink salmon were of McClinton 
Creek origin. Furthermore if all the pink salmon with only adipose fin scars recovered 
in the Alaskan streams were of McClinton Creek origin, then it is conceivably possible 
that pink salmon with both dorsal and adipose fin scars, those of Snake Creek origin, 
should likewise have been found in the British Columbia streams. However no pink 
salmon bearing both dorsal and adipose fin scars were reported from Canadian waters. 
