Distribution of Freshwater Fishes in Western Washington'

Home , Longnose sucker, Shorthead sculpin

J. D. McPhail College of Fisheries University of \Tashington Seattle,Washington

Distributionof FreshwaterFishes in WesternWashington'

\Washington The state of is divided roughly in half by the CascadeMountains; the two halvesdiffer markedly both in climate and fauna. \fesrern lflashington (the area west of the Cascadedivide) is characerized by a damp but mild climate, whereas eastern\Tashington (the area east of the Cascadedivide) is characterizedby a dry, but much more exrreme climate. The two areasalso differ in their drainagepatterns. \Washington Eastern is drained exclusivelyby the Columbia River and its tributaries, while westert \Tashington is drained by the Cohrmbia, a series of short, separate, coastalrivers, and a small portion of the Fraser River system. These differences in climate and drainage pattern are reflected by the primary (strictly freshwater-see Myers, 1951, p. 12) freshwater fish faunas of the two areas,and make it teasonable to trear rhem separately. The purposesof the presentpapef are ro outline rhe main featuresof the distribution of primary fieshwaterfishes in western\fashington- and to attempt an explanarion of how the preseor disffiburioq patterns were evolved. This work was given some impetus by the mounting public interest in a proposedColumbia River-puget Sound canalsystem. If this canal systemis construced,the presenrnatural distribution patterns will prob,blybe desrroyed. The area under discussion (western NTashington) and the positions of the major lrver systemsare presentedin Figure 1. For the purposesof tl-ris paper the lower ColLrmbia is arbitrarily defined as that portion of the Columbia River and its tributaries below Bonneville Dam. Becauseof their inabiliry to dispersethrough salt water, mosr of the following discussionis coofined to primary freshwater fishes. In western I(ashington rhese are the membersof the families Cyprinidae,C.atostomidae, Umbridae, and Percopsidae.The only exception is a cottid (Cottus confuws), which has a unique distribution in westernVasbington. No attempt is made to discussthe taxonomy of western Vashington freshwater fishes, and the scientific, as well as rhe common, names used are those listed in the American FisheriesSociety list of common and scienrific names (Bailey et a1.,,1960). The only exceprion is the retention of the generic name Colambia (instead of per_ ccprir) for the sandroller. lContribution number 2i8, College of Fisheries,University of l7ashington, Seattlg I/eshinqtcn.

NorthwestScience, Vol.41, No. 1, 1967 asi t5 ,f-ry/-- c^ ) t4l' \')

I COLUMBIAR. IO GREENR. 2 COWLITZR, II LK.WASHINGTON 3 CHEHALISR. 12 SNOOUALMIER. 4 OUINAULTR. 13 SNOHOMISHR. 5 SKOKOMTSHR. 14 STILLAGUAMISHR. 6 KITSAPPEN. 15 SKAGIT R. 7 DESCHUTESR. 16 NOOKSACKF 8 NISOUALLYR. I7 SUMAS R. 9 PUYALLUPR. I8 FRASERR,

Figrre 1. lfestern $/ashington showing the main rivel systems mentioned in text.

2 J. D. McPhail Table 1. Primary freshwater fishes of western \Fashingtoa Cyprinidae A q o ch e;llrr dle&tac etu! Chiselmouth trIylocheil*s cauin** Peamouth P t1 ch o cb eilat or egonenit Notthern squawfish Rbinicbtby catanctae Longoose dace Rhinicbthy falca*t leopard dace Rbinichthls oscabt Speckled dace R ichmdsanias baheat u.s Redside shioer Catostomidae Cata[torl? t catottorn,t longnose sucket Cato$omat marocheihu" Lalgescale sucker Umbridae Noo*mbra btbbi Olympic mudminnow Petcopsidae Col*ntbiattantmontanzr Sandroller * indicatessome tolerance oI brackishwater.

DistributionPalterns in WestemWashinglon Eleven species of primary freshwater fishes are known from westeln Washiogtor (Table 1). Aq additional syccies(Pantosteu platyhynchus) is known from the \fil- lamette River in Oregon and may also occur in the lower Columbia system of western 'Washington. However, it has not been takeo in western l(ashington and, therefore, is excludedfrom the presentdiscussion. The 11 primary freshwater species,plus the single speciesof Cottus nertioned in the introduction, are arrangedbelow in a seriesof sevendistinct distribution patterns. An explanationof how thesedistribrition lmrternsarose is attemptedin the discussion.

A. UbiquitousSpecies Three (,M. caxrinu, R, cat4ractde,^nd C, macrocbeilut)of the 11 speciesof primary freshwater fishes in westetn Washingtor are common to most of the liver systems that cortain primary freshwater fishes. The distribution of the peamouth (M. caaiws) is typical of these ubiquitous species (Figute 2). B. Species Restricted to the Columbia System \i0ashington Three (4. ale*.taceus,R. fahdt&r, and C. tran:tnantanat) of the species in western are resiricted to the Cotumbia system. The distributions o{ the chiselmouth (A. ale*tacea:) and sand rollet (C. t&nsmantdn !) (Figure 3) are typical of these species. C. Species Restticted to the Chehalis System and Pugec Sound Dtainages 'fwo (N. h&b:i tnd C. calottotnu) of the species in western lfashington are testticted to the Chehalis system and Puget Sound drainages. The distributions of the Olympic mudminnow and the longnose sucker are presentecl.in Figure 4. The Olympic mudminnow is the only species of primary freshwater fish endemic to *,estern \fashington. D. Species Common to the Lower Columbia, Chehalis, and Southem Puget Sound Dminages Excluding the three rbiquitous species, there are three species (P. oregonensit, R. otc*lus, arrd R. bAkah.s) common to the lower Columbia system, the Chehalis River, and Puget Sounil drainages. The distribution oI the speckled d,ace,R. asc*las, is typical of these species (Figure

E. Spec;e" erere.tt in Southern Puget Sound Drainages but Absent in Northera Puget Sound Drainages The primary freshwater fish fauna of western l(ashington becomes progressively poorer florth of the Chehalis system (Figure 6). Nouambra bubb:i is absent from all Puget Sound drainages except rhe Deschutes Rivet, wbile on thc wesr coast of the Olympic Peninsula it extends north only to the Quinault River. The speckled dace (R. oscalu) has a similar distribution on the Olympic Peninsula, but reaches the Puyallup River (rhe second system rorth of the Deschutes) in the Puget Sound region. A much sharper faunal change occurs farther to the north between the Snohomish and Stillaguamish rivers. Two species (P. ategonensis ar.d R. baltealu) are present in the Snohomish system, brt absent from the Stillaguamish River (the next system to the oorth) and the Skagit River. R. beheatat rcappeats as a small localized population in the lower Nooksack River, and both species ale common in the Sumas River, a lower Fr'aser tributary that draios a small lortion of the northwest corner of western lJrash- ington. In addition, the geographic ranges of three species of sculpins (C. confas$, C. Perplextur, and C. thotbel.s) also stop abruptly at the Snohomish River. The distribution of the northerr squawfish, P. oregonensis (Figure 7), illustntes this sudden faunal break.

FreshwaterFishes in \WesternVashinqton l Botroeville Dam but Absent {rom the Iower F. Species Present itr the Columbia System belov t^'lf;riJ corumbiasvs*m i( *,l"T:":i rhedjsrribution or.{reshwarer ri'h1 i,n +e- l:LT $r'rdm"rk:;i:rl*;Flliru;:i';'f"'i.rt"1";1*''ilfin**kii,i7, '{i:?'iidli!'ljil#'ll-d";;i'l;; :it*::)^:,^int:;fi'.',*1fJ e*,'T; ii";* c +fr:ffriffi #'irtr. ,*,;:;U#l r:;;.',';;,):, ti:1'n:'',;*: $::LJ Tf:s'Ji'*'?i; ',l: puger Drainages,butAbsenc rrom ". i'"::,'","31'.':;',?l ff*#t&,f#fi" il',ffi'#, souod this unique distribution pattero (Fieure 9) ' ff.?i.Hii:':f "Ero". (co,t/t' cot'fft'us) has Discussion in western \trashington ale outlined above; The distribudon pattems of freshwater fishes of these patterns' Since the fishes under row it is desirable to attemPt an explanation these'with rwo excePtioosto be explained discussionare primary freshwaterfisies, and inland drainage changes'it is reasonable i"*"'"*."p'lf. on! of di'pt"ui through patterns in the geological history ;l*;;.;Aunu'tioo of iire differenr"distriburioo of the fegioo. Ple;rtacene Hirtorit ol Ve$en' ITa$fut gton impoftant aspect of the PJeistocene ;;- ;; J;., on fish distribution, the most o1 the Puget Sound region' A se- history of western \Tashington was ;he glaciation Puget Sound region (Crandell' Mul- quence of four major glaciatronsot*"e; n the however',only the events of the lineaux, and Waldron, 19)8) during the Pleistocer{ known to be co*elated with fish ;;;;;i;.i;;, the vashon stud", #' well enough disuibution. advancedinto,the Pr:get Sound lowland The Vashon Stadeof the Puget glacial lobe and Rubin' I965) The maximum pene- abour 1),000 yearsago (Mullinen"*, Vluld'ott' and the pattern of deglaciation are ffation of the ice, the resulting drainage changes' on fish disuibution the main points to outli[ed in Figrre 10. tsecauseof theii effects note afe: l.ThatmostoftheChehalisRiverwasunglaciated,aodthusavailableasarefuge thJ north of- the Chehalis were glaciated' for fishes when all of the river systems to oot during eadier Sfis- TLrat atoo dme during ihe Vashon stade' and Probably 2. system between the Chehalis system and the Columbia ..J; ;;.i",i*., was the divide broached.----2. -fr^rthe south into the Chehalis draioagefrom the Puget Soundglacial lobe was thai this drainage was maintained system and from there into the sea And Pattein of glacialLake Russell' up ro the time drrringdeqlaciarion. and rhe subsequentfotmarion and lormed Puget )ouno' the sJ enteredthrough rhe Srrait of Juan de Fuca Explanation of D^tribation Pattetnr speciesin western \fashington' two i.''ii;i'qilr",),'iu.- sitecies.of the three widespread in ttiackish water' This suggests ""iri" ani C. nucrocbeilut) h'ove been collected attained by dispersalthrough brackish that their wide disribuuon *us p'obubly Partly were never confluent during waters. Although the Columbia and ChehaLissystems of these rivers during glaciation g;.iuriorr, it is iikely that the gre'atly increased outflov the coast of sPecies tolefant to was sufficient to allow rhe occasional exch'.itlge alonS brackish-- water. never been taken in brackish water itt" tttird ubiquitous sPecies'R cutt actae'has

4 J. D. McPhail Figure 2. Left. Sfestern Ifashingtoo distribution of the peamouth, M. caurinas. Figure 3. Right. \Testern Washington distribution of the chiselmouth, A. aleLtacew (crosshatch' ing), and the sand roller, C. trawr 'ontanr.r (black circles).

Iieure 4. left. Total distribution of the Olvmoic mudminnow, N htbbsi ( crosshatching) , andthe v/esternWashington distribution ofthe longnosesucker, C .4torlomttt (black circles)' Figure 5. Right. rJfestern \fashington distribution of the slrckled dace,R. osculut.

FreshwaterFishes in \Western$Tashington 5 Figure 6. teft. The number of primary freshwaterspecies (from Table 1) in different parts of westeln !?ashington. Figure 7. tught. \festern Washington disftibutioa of the flortheln squaw{ish,P. oregonen:is.

Figure B. Left. \Testern \Tashington distribution of the leopatd dace, R. falcatt:. Iigure 9. Right. \?estern \Vashington distribution of the shorthead sculpin, C. confu:as.

6 J. D. McPhail and is apparently a srrictly freshwaterfish. Thcrefote, its wide distribution musr have been attained through inland dispersalrortes. In western\fashington, rhe longnosedace typically inhrbits the swiftest, most turbulent portions of rivers. Since most of rhe drainage coonectionsberween the ChehalisRiver and rjvef systemsro rhe norah.werc through swift, nrrbulent, ice-margin channels (Bretz, 1)13), it is probable that R. cdtatutctaeatas able to usc lhese cotLflectionsmore freely than othe-rspecies- This hypo- thesis,however, docs not explain the presenceof rhc longnosedace in both the Chehalis and lower Columbia systefrs,since tl-redivide berweenthesc systemsprobably has been extant since the Sangarnoninterp,laci:il period (Crandeil, pelsonal communication). An explanation for the presenceof R. cataractaeon both sides of the ChehalisColumbia dtainage divide will be given in a later sectron- B. Speciesrcsrricted tn tbe Cohmbit :y$etn. The prescnceof three speciesin the lower Colurnbia systcmrhar are absen!from the Chehdis systeroand Puget Sound drain- agessupports the suggestionrhat the Columbia,Chehalisdrainagc divide existedthrough- out the late Pl:istocene. All three species(A. aleataccut,R. falcatu, and C, trannton- taMJ) naw occur in the Cowlitz River (:r lorver Colum5ia tributary) iess than five miles from the Chehalis system. If there had bccn anv connection between the two systemsdurirg thc late Pleisrccene,it is likely th:rt rhesespecies would have crossedover into tbe Chehalissystem. C. Speciet re!tuicted to the Chzhtlis ryiter4 auJ Puget Sourzddrainages,'Iwo species(N. bubbsi and,C. cdtoJton/Lt) are tesfficted to the Chehalissystem aod puget Sound drainages,although eppuently suitable habitat for both speciesoccurs in the upper Cowlitz Rivcr (a lower Columbi.atribntary with headrvatersclose to the Chehalis River). The abscnceof rhese speciesfronr the lower Columbia is probably another rcflcction of the permanerceof the Colutrbia-Chehalisdrainage divide during the lare Pleistocene. In contr:rst,the similarity in fauna betweer rhe Chehelissystem and puget Sound drainages.particr erly southetn Plrger So'rnd rivers, is nndoubtedlya result of the num- erous late Pleistocenedrainage colnections berwcen rhe two areas (see Figure 10). Earlier, it was noted that these coflnecrionsbetween rhe Chehalis system and puget Sound werc plobably swift, turbulent, melt-watet charloels,and that some specres were able to use rhese connections more freely than other slxcies. As a resulq spcciesadapted ro srvifr, cold water, s'-rchas R, cata%.tae,were able to use rh(] connec- rjoos much carlier, and thereforev'ere able to dispersefrrther north from the Chehalis refuge, than speciessuch as N. hahbti that are adaptedto qr{et waters. D. Speciet camr?otu,o the louet Colunbja, Cbehalit, and tu tbew plget Sallnd tlrainage.r.The main point made so far io this paper is thar the drainagedivide berween the Chchalisand Coiumbia sysre:nsbas been in existencethrougllort the late pleistocene and up ro the presenr time. The speciesdifferenccs in rhe primary freshvraterfish faunas oo either side of rhis dividc were explained in this way. However, there are more species(six) ccmmon to borh sides of the dividc rha! rhere are slxcies (five) restictcd by the divide. This srrontly sfggcsrsrhar tircte has been exchangeacross the divide. An explanation for tbis apparent paradox is fouod when the morphology of tbe speciescommon to both sidesof the divide is examined. Except for the two ubiquirous species(,4,t. cau'inus and C. matrocheiLut) capableof dispersalthrough brackishwater, there are marked mcrphological differenccsbetween the Chehalisand lower Columbia

Frcshwater Fishes in Ifestern N/ashington / 'Washington Figrre- 10. Drainage evolutioo in westerr (crosshatch€dareas indicate ice-sheets, and blaik areas representglacial lakes).- 4. Vashon glacial stade at maximum. B. Early stagesof deglaciation. C. late stagesof deglaciation. D. Presentdrainage pattern. Thi ice boundariesin lieure 10A are taken froo Crandell (1965) aod those itr lieures 108 and 10C ale infered from Bretz (1911).

8 J. D. McPhail populations of all of the sharedspecies (P. o.regonenit. R. catdrlctde,R, osculur, and R. baheatnt). Detailed morphological comparisonsof thesespecies will be published separately.However, as an example, a comparisonof R. catauctae from the Chehalis and lower Colun.rbie(Cowlitz River) systenisis presentcdln Table 2. The headwatersof the Chehalisand Corvlitz rivers intcrdigirate in areaswhere the hcight'of land betveen them is often lessthan 100 feet. In spire of this closegeographic proximity, there is oo overlap between the two popuhtions in either the number of lateral line scalesor scalesaround the candal peduncle. Sirr-rilarmorphological differ- eflces,ahhorigh usuaily not as extleme, characterizethe other speciesshared between the two systents.The existenceof such morphological differences suggestsrhat rhe speciescommon to both rhe Chehalisand lorver Columbia systemshave been geographi cally isolated for a considerabletime, and are thus not incor4patiblewith the evideoce that suggeststhat the divide has been in existencetllroughorlt the late pleistocene. However, the fact thrt roughly half of thc primary ftcshwater speciesare shared between the two systems (even rhough some morphological differeotiation has oc_ curred) indicatesrhar ar somerime,probrbly during rhe earlyor mid-pleist

Table 2. A Comparison of lareral Line Scales and Scales around the Caudal peduncle berween R. catdractae {rom the lower Columlia (Cowlirz R.) and Chehalis Dfainages.

Lateral line scales 50 5t 5251 54 55 56 57 585960 61 626) 6465 66 67 68 69 7o 71 72 73x CowlitzR. 12 2 3 6 81011 9 51 3 2 2 66.6 chehalisR. | 1 4 6 5 I81 4 2 t3.s Scalesaround the caudalpeduncle 2t 22 21 2125 26 21 28 29 30 17 )2 31 )4 35 16 Cowlitz R. 4 814 12 6 2 31.2 ChehalisR. 2 7 6 4 21 21.0 stopped by the divide did nct :rlso cross at this time is unknown. pernaps some qe,g., C. cdtottolnai) wete nor presenr in eirbel atea wben the exchange occurred, while others (e.11,N. htbfui r lov-land form) probabiy were presenr but for ecological reasons were unable to use the connection. E. ,9pec;et pretent in Jaathera Pkget Sountl drainaget bu! ab.rent ta the tuartb. It was suggesred earlier tl,-at rhc limited norrhwrd dispcrsrl of rwo species, N. bubb:i aod, R. otculat, was probabiy due to rheir inabiliry to use rhe glaci;rl dralnage conoec- tions (excepr in the final stages of deglacierion) berween the Chehalis refuge and the Puget Sound region. In conarasr, nvo othet species, p. oregoncxit and 11, baLteatu:. range much farther north in thc Puget Sound rcgion. and probably were able o use these conne.ions fairly early in deglaciacion. However, the northcrn distriburioo of eve' these species (plus the three cortids menrioned earlier) comes to an abnipt stop at the Snoho'nirh River. A possible explanation of this su,lden faunal break is found io rhe final stages of the deglaciation of Puget Sound. Bretz (I91j) indicates rhat when the puget Sound Ice-lobe wirhdrew north of Everetr the sea cntered throtrgh rhe Strair of JLran de Fuca and Puget Sound was formed. Up unril that time the puget Sound basin had bccn occupied by a largc proglacial lake, Gle,-ialLeke Ruiscll tFigrrre 10c1. The faunal break .r! the Snohomisll River coffcsponds almost exactly ro the point at rvhich the sea $,as firsc able ro enter Pugct SoLrnd.This suggesrsfhrr it o..-rirhe sudden conversion of

rWcstern Frcshq,ater Fishes io Washington ! Lake Russell ( through which freshwaterfishes could easilydisPelse) into an atm of the seathat halted rhe northward dispcrsalof P. otegonenis ^nd R, boltedtr$' The restricted distribution of R. baheatu in the Nooksack systemindicates either ao introduction or a limited exchangewith the nearby Ftaser system. I7hen Puget Sound was first formed the sea submergedsevelal areasthat are now not palt of Puget Sound. One such area was Lake Washingtol, which now contains rwo;elict marire inveltebmtes (Neomlris ^nd Pantoporul) and a land-lockedpoPu- lation of the normally anadromottssmeh, Spitinchtu thalcichthlt. F. Speciesplercal it? the Colunzbiaiirreln belau Bonnecille Dam but absentfrom the lower portiotu al the ri'L,er. No satisfactoryexPlanation can be given for the de- pauperateprimary freshwetet fish fauoa of the lowei 60 miles of the Columbia River' The answer ptobably involves the physiology "nd ecology of the various species'par- ticularly their salinity tolerance. The Columbia River is under tidal influeoce as far upsrfeam as Bonneville Dam, but actual seawateronly penetratesabout 30 miles up- sffeam (Sylvestei and Carlson, 1p61). However, during the late Pleistocenethere may have been some marine submelgeoceiq the lower Columbia below the Kalama afea (Trimble, 1963). Tbis suPpliesa hisrorical reason for the sparseprimary fteshwater fish fauna of the lower 60 miles of the Columbia, but does not explain why the area has been so poody colonizedsince that time- G. Speci)t prereft, in ,he louet Calunbia and' Puget Sound dtainages but abrcnt 'fhe in western\7ash- Iram the Cbehalis:yfiem, unusualdistribution of Cottur to'?furtut ington is probab\' the iesult of a late-glacialinvasion of Puget Soundfrom the eastsloPe of the CascadeMountains. Bailey and Bond (1963) indicete that C confutus is t}:.e only Cottus found abcve SnoqualmieFalls rnd strggestrhat it enteted the Puger Sound region by crossingover from the Yakirna sysiem (3n enst slope Columbia tributary) into the South Fork of the SnoqualmieRiver' This enuy into the Puget Sound region appalently took place duling the final stegesof l,ake Russell, since C tonlutts wts able to reach the Kitsap Peninsula and a few sffeams on the westeln side of Puget Sound (the SkokomishRiver and some small) sePxlatestreams) but did not reach aoy of the rivers in the soutbern part of Puget Sound or the Chchalis system Apparently the entry of the sea into the Puget Sound basin preventedfurttrer dispersalof C con' lawt it this atea.

Acknowledgments grant for This researchwas Partially supportedby a Stateof Washingtoo Initiative 171 researchin Biology and Medicine. The author is indebted to the following students for assistancein the field work: Phillip Gray, David Greenfield, Richard Grinols, Ronald Jones,John Meldrim and Alan Nlillikan. Dr. Max Katz supplied the seioe with which most of the specimenswere collected,aod critically read the manuscript.

10 J. D. McPhail Literature Cited Bailey, R. M., and C. E. Bood. 1963. Four new speciesof freshwatersculpins, genus Corrrr, from WesternNorth America. Occ-Papers Mus. Zool., University of Mi,chigaa,634:1-27. Bailey, R. lvI., E. A. lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. R. Robins, P. M. Roedel, \tr. B. Scoft, and l. P. \troods. 1960. A list of common and scientificnames of fishesfrom the United States and Canada. Am. Fish. Soc.,Sp. Publ. 2, 102 p. Bretz, H. l. 1911. Giaciation of the Puget Soufld region. lwashingtoo Geol. Surv. Bull. 8, 244 p. Crandell, D. R. 1965. The glacial hisrory of western !(/ashington and Oregon, p- 341-353. lvright 12, H. E. and D. G. Frey (ed.l, The Qu^rernrry of $? Unired Srates,Princeton Uni- versity Press,Princeton, New Jersey Crandell, D. R., D. R. Mullineaux, and H. H. \faldron. 1958. Pleistocenesequence in the southeasternpart of the Puget Sound Lowland, Vashington. Am. J. Sci., 256:)84-)97. Mullineaux, D. R., H. H. Valdron, and M. Rubin. 1965. Stratigfaphyand chronology of late interglacial and eally Vashon glacial tirne in the Seartlearea, S?ashingron.U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull., 11940, 10 p. Myers, G. S. 1951. Ftesh-waterfishes and East Indian zoogeography.Stan. Ich. Bull.,4:11-21. Reimers, P. E. 1963. New downstream distribution record for the sand roller. Percabsis ttdutnLatat?at in the ColumbiaRiv,-r. Res.Briefs, Oregon Fish. Comm.,9(l), p. ol Sylvester,R. O., and A. A. Carlson. 1961. A report on tovrer Cnlumbia River, basic water quality data analysis for the year 1960. Mimeo rept., Univ. lVashington, Dept. Civil Engineering,52 p. Trimble, D. E. 1961. The geology of Pordand, Oregon, and adjacentarers. U.S. Geol. Surv. Butl. 1119, 119 p.

Accepted lor publication Ma1 12, 1966.

AssociationNews Rex Boughton,Professor of Educationat the University of British Columbia and Presidcnt of the Northwest Scientific Association,died on October 16, 1,966,aket surgery fo; removal of a brain nrmor. In rhe past five years,he showedexceptional enthusiasm for the Associationand was proving to be a valuableleader. rWashington Julian Barksdale,Professor of Geology at the University of and Vice Presidentof the N\7SA, will carry on the duties of the presidency. Plans are well Llnderway for the annual meering in Pullman, Washington, on April 14 and 15, 1961. This should be the largest and best meeting of recent years. Over 170 papersnre scheduled.There will be a specialsymposium on rhe biology of alder- Davc Rahm of the l7ashingtoo StateUniversity Ge,:rlogyDepartment will give an illustrated talk on Gcology from rhe Air showing things that cannotbe properly seenor appreciatcd from the ground. Memberswill rcccivea program and registrationform in March. Non- members may obtain a program or information from the Secretary-Treasurer(B. V. Ettling, Eogineering ResearchDivision, \WashingtonState Universiw, Pullman, S7ash rngton,99163).

FreshwaterFishes in lTestern NTashineton 11