198 
Fishery Bulletin 115(2) 
Figure 2 
Photographs showing the differences in mouths and noses between the Atlantic sturgeon {Acipens- 
er oxyrinclius) and the shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum). (A) Photograph of the shortnose stur¬ 
geon, with an estimated 75-cm fork length, described in this article (photo credit M. Balazik, 
Virginia Commonwealth University). (B) Photograph showing the differences in the mouths and 
noses of an Atlantic sturgeon (65-cm fork length, left) and a shortnose sturgeon (76 cm fork length, 
right) (photo credit W. Post, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources). 
Results 
A sturgeon estimated to be about 75 cm long (in fork 
length [FL]) was caught during the net set (Fig. 1). 
This estimated FL reflects the opinion of the experi¬ 
enced researchers and their analysis of photographs 
that have objects in the background to judge the size 
of fish. The sturgeon was initially thought to be a sub¬ 
adult Atlantic sturgeon, and standard protocols were 
followed to process this fish (Kahn and Mohead, 2010). 
A fin was clipped and taken for genetic purposes, and 
a passive integrated transponder was placed under 
the dorsal fin. After the passive integrated transpon¬ 
der was in place, the surface of the fish was noted 
to be very smooth (Gorham and McAllister, 1974), in 
contrast with the surface of Atlantic sturgeon. This 
sturgeon was rolled over to reveal its ventral surface, 
where pre-anal plates were observed on the ventral 
median, and the anal fin lacked paired plates (Vecsei 
and Peterson, 2004). After the placement of plates and 
smooth skin were noted, it was determined that the 
fish was most likely a shortnose sturgeon. A picture 
was taken of the mouth and anal fin, and the fish was 
released (Fig. 2). No official length measurement of the 
sturgeon was taken, and the sex was not determined. 
Genetic analysis verified that the sturgeon caught in 
the James River was a shortnose sturgeon of the Dela- 
ware-Chesapeake Bay stock (King^). This collection is 
the first verified occurrence of a shortnose sturgeon in¬ 
habiting the James River. 
® King, T. 2016. Personal commun. Leetown Science Cen¬ 
ter, U.S. Geological Survey, 11649 Leetown Rd., Kearneysville, 
WV 25430. 
Shortnose sturgeon mature sexually at approxi¬ 
mately 50 cm FL (Dadswell et al., 1984; Bain, 1997); 
therefore, the fish caught in the James River was likely 
to have been a mature fish. It was roughly the same 
size as the 2 gravid females caught in the Potomac 
River during the Kynard et al. (2009) study. The late- 
stage shortnose sturgeon caught at river kilometer 63 
of the Potomac River was 75 cm FL and was captured 
on 22 March 2006 (Kynard et al., 2009). The late-stage 
shortnose sturgeon caught at river kilometer 63 of the 
Potomac River was 75 cm FL and was captured on 22 
March 2006 (Kynard et al., 2009)—at a location and 
time of capture similar to the documented data for the 
shortnose sturgeon collected from the James River. 
Discussion 
The historical occurrence of shortnose sturgeon in the 
Chesapeake Bay is unclear. Although numerous fin 
spines from sturgeons were found in the trash mid¬ 
dens of Jamestown Colony, none are thought to be from 
shortnose sturgeon (Balazik et al., 2010). A more in¬ 
tensive study on the scute material from Jamestown 
Colony is needed to verify or refute this suggestion. 
The earliest documentation of shortnose sturgeon in 
the Chesapeake Bay was a partial skin described by 
Milner in 1876 (Kynard et al., 2009). Uhler and Lug¬ 
ger (1876a) did not list shortnose sturgeon in their first 
edition of their list of the fish species of Maryland, but 
this fish was later added to the second edition (Uhler 
and Lugger, 1876b). During a study of the fish species 
in the District of Columbia, Smith and Bean (1899) 
noted that shortnose sturgeon were not as abundant 
