New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-07-02
SUNAPEE LAKE TROUT.
ANOTHER CONTRIBUTION TO vExED CUES,
mehatto- orrhe tribune


TON.
TO me bdttor OF The Tribune.
Sir On sunday, April 90, clipped from your paper
an article on The Trout in sunapee Lake, and
good deal Of It was in variance with my knowledge
Of fish culture. 1 sent It to an excellent authority.
Archer C. Rabbit. of Grayling. Mich, man who has
been my guide in Craylng fishing for the last twelve
years. and has been in the employ of the Michigan
Fish Commission for at least half that timo.
ircloso his capable reply to the Professor ouack-
enbos view. c. E. PoMERoY.
Toledo Ohio. June o5, 1899.
Str: Your letter Of the 9Th with article on sunapee
trout inclosed is at hand. The theory of hybrdlsm
I think reasonable, but the citation Of the cross Of
trout and crawling Is absurd. Brook trout (SalvC nus
fontnaIls) spawn during the months of October. No
vember and December or nom the 9Th of tho first
named month 10 the 7th of the last, and grayling
(thymalus ticolor1 spawn from April to May 90.
This difference IN the spawning season would explode
1t is quite possible that hybrid might be obtained
from the grayling and rainbow trout, or California
mountain trout as IT sometimes called 1t oeng
Fobriay - and ending by the last OF March or very
first Of April.
stence worthy credence In support OF the assertion
that gray ling and trout Of any kind have been crossed
have ended in failure. Fish cultTlsts OF wide OK.
perence have given it up They failed in the primary
ancn OF course there are several Instances where
ova has been obtained from fish taken from their ma
percentage hatched but there assuredly no at
tempt at hybrdism in these Instances. The great
difficulty to overcome Is TO propagate the grdSlus
pure and simple 80, ~.
The discovery Of salvelins sunapee in 1891, after
the lake being hshcd by at least two generations OF
men leaves hybrldsn about the only thread TO follow
The Introduction Of land-locked salmon ana wmU.sn
into sunapee Lake. l believe. would make mat
reasonable theory From the description OF the fish, as
given by Professor Quacenhos, should say that
Is hybrid II Is closely related 10 the whltesn.
may 10 the hvbrd resulting from the first crossing OF
male whlteish and female land-lo sIn'5i, OF pDe
siblv a cross in the same order OF the vhitensh and
trout's natural habitat do not oeeve IN natu "a,
| hvbrdlem IN the full sense of the term. That IS
fishes placed by nature I'm their habltaS, no mat
| ter how many kindred species inhablt the same
waters IN my opinion, do not hybridize. on the
other hand change of the natural condition OF hshes
brings about a change ln their habits generally
In crossing brock trout loaVeHtnuYY byo t",nd
With lac trout (Salvclinus Darnaycnshl nave Iounu
that the hybrds partake Of the general chaI a.
Of the male line Of proGsnitors INC ny i+b oD
tained by a crVSs Of the male lake trout WIN d
SnaIe broos trout would retain greater share OF the
chorarerisfcs Of the lake trout than OF me DrooA
tguut Hence the species 70 which INC hyDrlo "
onc,d would b. easily determined II 50 VIII III
varieties Why not with other varieties Anu VIZ
not this fact In tracing me orgih oi w ~
trout II seems impossible that hy0rddsn Ih i solP
on such extent IN the lake as ~ 80, f.e
| nv which rs origin might be traced TO produce
this new independent species there must Irsv 10
| conjunction On spawning bed OF tNyo Hde1ehu,'nte
| snoccs Then these hybrids. resulting from SuCh
con iIlnctsn must necessarily have moro rgld spawn
| ing habits than their prOgenitors To insure tIe
purity OF the strain Tho offspring OF tese ny o q
| ~ fho first cross or half breeds would 50 Closely
resemble one or the other of the original parent hS
that MS origin would be easily determined. II Is
quite probable that savel,nus Sunapee Is .!
tut quite improbable that t5 IS a representative
| 6vbridlvr1. \. c. BABBlTr.
"' T.ilula Lake, Mich, juno IS, 1889.