SILVER TROUT. 
61 
a rare variety of trout in Dublin Pond, such as was found nowhere else in the United States, 
excepting in a small lake among the Rocky Mountains, is doubtless a misquotation regarding 
the locality. The statement ascribed to Agassiz; even in current tradition at this lake, is to 
the effect that the fish has its closest relationship with a charr of the mountain lakes of Switzer- 
land. 
In its issue of March 22, 1884, the Boston Journal again notices “The Dublin Trout,” and 
publishes an old letter of Agassiz’s regarding it: — 
“The peculiarities of Dublin trout have caused the speculations of anglers and others, 
during the last half century at least, and as the subject seems to be re\dved by the Dublin fish 
wardens, the following letter from Professor Agassiz, written about twenty-five years ago, will 
be interesting. After some male specimens w^ere sent, as Professor Agassiz requested, he wrote 
that the examination of them only confirmed his previous opinion that the trout were specifi- 
cally distinct, adding that there must be others like them found elsew'here as nature did not 
make a distinct species for one little locality; this last letter cannot now be found. 
“‘Dear Sir: I duly received the two specimens of trout which you have forw^arded to me. 
They reached Cambridge in a perfect state of preservation, and I was not a little surprised on 
examining them to find that they belonged to an undescribed species. I have carefully com- 
pared them to-day wdth all the trout occurring in the United States w'hich I have thus far been 
able to secure, from Lake Superior to Labrador and as far south as they reach, and I find them 
to differ specifically from all. As the specimens are all three females, I should be much obUged 
if you would secure some males for me. 
“ ‘ Should so-called lake herring, or whitefish, as they are also called, be found in your waters, 
which I suppose to be the case, I w^ould be much obliged if you could secure some of them for me. 
“‘Allow me to close by returning my best thanks for the specimens you have sent me, 
which I have at once put up in my museum. — L. Agassiz. 
“‘Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 12.’” 
The Forest and Stream of March 27, 1884, page 170, again, under the caption of a “Pecu- 
liar Fish,” publishes a letter in which the writer indicates that previous identifications of the 
fish as a Common Brook Trout are erroneous as both forms existed there and were easily dis- 
tinguished. The editor again appends a note suggesting that the opinion of an ichthyologist 
was needed to decide the question whether or not it was a distinct species. He w^as e\ddently 
unaware that two of the most eminent and distinguished ichthyologists of the country had 
decided the question, — one, that it appeared to be one of the Lake Trout forms; the other, 
that it was quite positively the Brook Trout but for some unaccountable reason was slender 
and silvery and differed otherwise in coloration from the Brook Trout from other localities. 
The letter is of sufficient importance in showing that two different color forms or varieties 
existed side by side, as it were, to warrant the full quotation, which follows: 
