NOTES ON TWO AMERICAN WHITEFISHES. 
5 
examples, was forwarded by Mr. John S. Wilson, of Wilson, Y., on April 20; the 
other, containing 6 specimens, came to hand on June 12, and was sent by Mr. George 
M. Schwartz, of Eochester, H. Y., at the solicitation of Mr. Frank J. Amsden, of the 
same place. I also to refer to three examples now in the collection of the Fisli Com- 
mission obtained by Dr. E. E. Gurley at Yine-Mile Point, Hew York, in June 1893. 
This species is quite different from any other whiteflsh inhabiting the Great Lake 
basin. It jnay be at once distinguished from all the whitelishes known to occur in 
the United States by the general form of body combined with the very long lower 
jaw, which is contained less than twice in the length of head and extends backward to 
or beyond the posterior edge of orbit. It most closely resembles Coregonus laurettce 
Bean, inhabiting northern Alaska, but is easily distinguished from that species by 
its more elevated back, greater depth (3.} instead of 41), larger head (4 to 4^ instead 
of 5 in body length), lai’ger mouth, longer maxillary {2}^ instead of 3^- in head), longer 
mandible (If to Ig- instead of 2^- in head), larger scales, and a number of other features. 
From the lake herring {Coregonus artedi), with which the fish has some affinities, 
it differs in general form, greater dei)th, smaller eye, longer mandible and maxillary, 
shai)e of head, rather larger scales, more contracted caudal peduncle, longer ventrals, 
etc. 
Dr. Bean has drawn my attention to the resemblance existing between this fish 
and the Coregonus lucidus of Eichardson,* described from Great Bear Lake, Canada, 
in 1836, and not again detected by ichthyologists until 1893. t The similarity consists 
chiefly in the long lower jaw, the slender caudal peduncle, and the slight nuchal 
enlargement. These features appear in the figure of C. lucidus in the work cited. The 
plate is so faulty, however, and so often at variance with the text, that much reliance 
can not be placed on it. The differences in the two fish, as determined by Eichard- 
son’s not wholly lucid description, are, in Dr. Bean’s opinion, sufficiently marked to 
establish their specific distinctness. Coregonus lucidus is described as having 88 scales 
in the lateral line, with the thirty-third scale in the lateral series equidistant between 
end of snout and base of caudal. The scales are thus more numerous than in C. progna- 
tlius, and the position of the i^articular scale is widely different in the two fish. C. 
lucidus has the ventrals longer than dorsal, and a ventral appendage eleven-twelfths 
of an inch long in a fish 18 inches long. The ventrals in C. prognatlms are equal to 
dorsal, and the appendage is very short, being less than half an inch long in a fish 15 
inches in length. Both the maxillary and mandible are smaller in C. lucidus than in 
the other si)ecies. 
Notice of this fish was first published by the late Prof. J. W. Milner, by whom it was 
identified with Coregonus hoyi (Gill). In the foregoing remarks on Coregonus osnie- 
riformis attention was drawn to some of the characters of C. hoyi as understood by 
Jordan. In order to clearly discuss the various points involved in the description of 
the fish now under consideration and to show the error into which Milner fell, it is 
necessary to make a further detailed reference to C. hoyi. 
* Fauna Boreali-Americaua, part 3. 
t See Article 3 in tlie present Bulletin, by Professor Gilbert, who writes under date of February 21, 
1894: “My specimens of lucidus are from the type locality, and agree in most points with Richardson’s 
description and figure. The lower jaw does not, however, project, and many other points — to some of 
which you call attention — show abundant difference from j}ro(/nath us.” 
