DOCSLIB.ORG

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarkii Pleuriticus): a Technical Conservation Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarkii Pleuriticus): a Technical Conservation Assessment Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project October 10, 2008 Michael K. Young, Ph.D USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 800 East Beckwith Avenue Missoula, Montana 59801 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society 1 Young, M.K. (2008, October 10). Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/coloradorivercutthroattrout.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Todd Allison, Warren Colyer, Greg Eaglin, Noah Greenwald, Paula Guenther-Gloss, Christine Hirsch, Jessica Metcalf, Dirk Miller, Kevin Rogers, and Dennis Shiozawa for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. My thanks also to Claire McGrath, Bruce Rosenlund, and Dave Winters for their reviews of a similar manuscript on a related subspecies. I appreciate the assistance of Dennis Shiozawa, Brigham Young University; Bill Wengert, Wyoming Game and Fish Department; and Dan Brauch, Colorado Division of Wildlife, for sharing a number of unpublished reports. This work was funded by the Species Conservation Project for Region 2 and the Rocky Mountain Research Station, both part of the USDA Forest Service. AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY Michael Young has been a Research Fisheries Biologist with the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station since 1989. His work focuses on the ecology and conservation of native coldwater fishes and the effects of natural and anthropogenic disturbances on stream ecosystems. COVER ILLUSTRATION CREDIT Illustration of the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) by © Joseph Tomelleri. 2 3 SUMMARY OF KEY COMPONENTS FOR CONSERVATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT Status The Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) was once distributed throughout the colder waters of the Colorado River basin above the Grand Canyon, primarily in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Primarily a fluvial species, it is believed to have historically occupied about 34,500 km of streams, of which about 4,850 km are currently occupied by fish thought to be good representatives of this taxon and about 2,900 km are occupied by unhybridized populations or those of particular ecological significance. Somewhat less than half of these populations are found in USDA Forest Service (USFS) Region 2, but all the national forests where Colorado River cutthroat trout historically occurred—Arapaho-Roosevelt, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison, Medicine Bow-Routt, San Juan, and White River—still support populations. The increased awareness of the status of this subspecies and increased agency conservation efforts since the 1970’s have apparently arrested the rapid loss of known populations and established new populations in some areas. The Colorado River cutthroat trout was first petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act in December 1999, but in April 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded that this subspecies did not warrant listing. In June 2007, the USFWS issued a 12-month finding that this subspecies still did not warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act. Regions 2 and 4 of the USFS have designated the Colorado River cutthroat trout a sensitive species; the Bureau of Land Management has accorded it a similar status; and Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming have given it special management designations. A multi-agency agreement also provides oversight for management of this subspecies. Primary Threats Historically, habitat alteration from mining, agriculture, and water development contributed to the extirpation or reduction of large numbers of populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout, whereas introductions and invasions of nonnative trout probably represent the greatest cause of recent declines and the major impediment to restoration of this fish in much of its historical range. Many populations appear to remain vulnerable to this threat either because barriers to ongoing invasions are absent or because existing barriers may be temporary or have nonnative fish passed over them illegally. A lack of connectivity to other populations increases their vulnerablility to extirpation from “short term” natural disturbances such as fire, post-fire debris torrents, or floods. In the long term the loss of genetic variability and the potential for evolving in response to changing environmental conditions can occur with limited population size. Some climate change model projections suggest suitable habitats may shift to higher elevations and precipitation patterns imply there may be large declines in late summer flows. The lack of connectivity could exasperate this problem by not allowing mobility to suitable habitats. While state and federal agencies along with public organizations are working to reestablish Colorado River cutthroat trout populations, the cumulative effects of past and ongoing impacts coupled with greater resource demands (particularly for water) by a rapidly growing human population in the Rocky Mountains, makes the future for Colorado River cutthroat trout uncertain. Primary Conservation Elements, Management Implications, and Other Considerations Conservation of Colorado River cutthroat trout will require attention to both short-term and long-term threats. In the short term, preventing invasions by nonnative trout through the judicious use of barriers can protect some populations, but perhaps the most successful long-term strategy will be to eliminate nonnative trout from downstream waters and expand the distribution of Colorado River cutthroat trout into larger basins exhibiting greater connectivity. Removal of nonnative trout and reintroduction of Colorado River cutthroat trout into formerly occupied habitats will also reduce the probability of losing all local populations simultaneously as well as offer the potential to conserve the remaining genetic variability represented in extant populations. Habitat improvement may have beneficial effects, particularly if combined with whole-basin changes in activities that degrade habitats; however, acknowledging the inherent temporal variability in habitat quality is essential. Given that habitat change is inevitable, 2 3 managing to permit the continued evolution of this subspecies may be fundamental to its long-term persistence. A strategic, rather than opportunistic, approach to conservation of Colorado River cutthroat trout is likely to be the most efficient and successful. 4 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................2 AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................................2 COVER ILLUSTRATION CREDIT ..............................................................................................................................2 SUMMARY OF KEY COMPONENTS FOR CONSERVATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT ...........................................................................................................................................................................3 Status..........................................................................................................................................................................3 Primary Threats..........................................................................................................................................................3 Primary Conservation Elements, Management Implications, and Other Considerations..........................................3 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ...............................................................................................................................7 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................8 Goal............................................................................................................................................................................8 Scope..........................................................................................................................................................................8 Treatment of Uncertainty ...........................................................................................................................................8 Application and Interpretation Limits........................................................................................................................9 Publication on the World Wide Web ........................................................................................................................10 Peer Review .............................................................................................................................................................10 MANAGEMENT STATUS AND NATURAL HISTORY ...........................................................................................10 Management Status ..................................................................................................................................................10
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Center Comments to the California Department of Fish and Game
    July 24, 2006 Ryan Broderick, Director California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Improving efficiency of California’s fish hatchery system Dear Director Broderick: On behalf of the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, we are writing to express our concerns about the state’s fish hatchery and stocking system and to recommend needed changes that will ensure that the system does not negatively impact California’s native biological diversity. This letter is an update to our letter of August 31, 2005. With this letter, we are enclosing many of the scientific studies we relied on in developing this letter. Fish hatcheries and the stocking of fish into lakes and streams cause numerous measurable, significant environmental effects on California ecosystems. Based on these impacts, numerous policy changes are needed to ensure that the Department of Fish and Game’s (“DFG”) operation of the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not adversely affect California’s environment. Further, as currently operated, the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Administrative Procedures Act, California Endangered Species Act, and federal Endangered Species Act. The impacts to California’s environment, and needed policy changes to bring the state’s hatchery and stocking program into compliance with applicable state and federal laws, are described below. I. FISH STOCKING NEGATIVELY IMPACTS CALIFORNIA’S NATIVE SALMONIDS, INCLUDING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Introduced salmonids negatively impact native salmonids in a variety of ways. Moyle, et. al. (1996) notes that “Introduction of non-native fish species has also been the single biggest factor associated with fish declines in the Sierra Nevada.” Moyle also notes that introduced species are contributing to the decline of 18 species of native Sierra Nevada fish species, and are a major factor in the decline of eight of those species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo of Western North America
    CItiEt'SW XHPYTD: RSOTLAITYWUAS 4 Monograph of ha, TEMPI, AZ The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo Of Western North America Robert J. Behnke "9! August 1979 z 141, ' 4,W \ " • ,1■\t 1,es. • . • • This_report was funded by USDA, Forest Service Fish and Wildlife Service , Bureau of Land Management FORE WARD This monograph was prepared by Dr. Robert J. Behnke under contract funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. Region 2 of the Forest Service was assigned the lead in coordinating this effort for the Forest Service. Each agency assumed the responsibility for reproducing and distributing the monograph according to their needs. Appreciation is extended to the Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, for assistance in publication. Mr. Richard Moore, Region 2, served as Forest Service Coordinator. Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. Rocky Mountain Region September, 1980 Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. it TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts
    Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts August 1976 USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Abstract Behnke, R. J., and Mark Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western trouts. USDA For. Sew. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-28, 45 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo. Discusses taxonomy, reasons for decline, life history and ecology, and sug- gestions for preservation and management of six closely related trouts native to western North America: Colorado River cutthroat, Salmo clarki pleuriticus; green- back trout, S. c. stomias; Lahontan cutthroat, S. c. henshawi; Paiute trout, S. c. seleniris; Gila trout, S. gilae; and Arizona native trout, S. apache. Meristic characters, distribution and status, habitat requirements and limiting factors, protective measures, and management recommendations are presented for each taxon. Keywords: Native trout, Salrno clarki pleuriticus. Sali?zo ckurki stoi~zius. Sulnzo clarki herzshawi, Salmo clarki seleniris, Salrno gilue. Sulrno uprrchc. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28 August 1976 Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts R. J. Behnke Colorado State University Mark Zarn Conservation Library Denver Public Library Information reported here was prepared under contract by the Conservation Library of the Denver Public Library, through the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. The report is printed as prepared by the authors; opinions are not necessarily those of the U.S. Forest Service. TABLE OF CONTENTS I . GJ3NERAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR RAE3 AND ENDANGJIRED WESTERN TROUTS Introduction ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Riverscape Genetics in the Endangered Mexican Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus Chrysogaster) in Sierra Madre Occidental, Mexico Marco Alejandro Escalante Sanchez
    Riverscape genetics in the endangered Mexican golden trout (Oncorhynchus chrysogaster) in Sierra Madre Occidental, Mexico Marco Alejandro Escalante Sanchez To cite this version: Marco Alejandro Escalante Sanchez. Riverscape genetics in the endangered Mexican golden trout (Oncorhynchus chrysogaster) in Sierra Madre Occidental, Mexico. Agricultural sciences. Univer- sité Montpellier; Centro de investigaciones biológicas del noroeste, S.C., 2017. English. NNT : 2017MONTT105. tel-01697876 HAL Id: tel-01697876 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01697876 Submitted on 31 Jan 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ! & :0\9-&76;8&6*:-518&3-&/8),-&,-&,6+:-;8&& DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE M 65:7-331-8& & -7&89KHKDFB?&8R:;AB=:7?&8BCC:AD9BC&)E7EPFMQBC?&7G;EK?FKHKDFB& ! 89KHB&I:9B:DGHB&/)1)& ! 37=BE&AB&NB9EBD9EB&+-.-& –&3L8&&/M0& & & 8FRBNC9GNB&DB7BPF9C&F7&PEB&B7AG7DBNBA&4BSF9G7&D:HAB7& PN:AP&\!%#$%$'%#$()*#$%')$+ )-.% &F7&9FBNNG&4GANB&699FAB7PGH?& 4BSF9:& & 7DEC>7PWB&NGD&4GD9:&)HBOG7AN:&-96"5),%-&9),61(P& 3B&%(&OBNPBI?NB&-./M& & *:AC&H>&AFN>9PF:7&I>&9PENJGJFB&4)5(5?&.NG79FC9:&SGRFBN&/)861)&,-&3-6,&
    [Show full text]
  • Paiute Cutthroat Trout ONCORHYNCHUS CLARKII SELENIRIS Rev
    Conservation Success Index: Paiute Cutthroat Trout ONCORHYNCHUS CLARKII SELENIRIS Rev. 1.0 - 6/2009 SPECIES SUMMARY Silver King Creek drains the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness Area on the east side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Alpine County, California and flows into the East Fork of the Carson River. Many of its tributary streams are spring fed systems with steep gradients that flatten out near the confluence with Silver King Creek. Silver King Creek itself is a small, tight drainage punctuated by a steep canyon with a large waterfall and interspersed with sections of lower gradient stream habitat. First described by J. O. Snyder in 1933, the Paiute cutthroat trout is found only in this system. Historically, it was limited to 9 miles of habitat on the lower main-stem of Silver King Creek and three small tributary creeks - Tamarack Creek, Tamarack Lake Creek and the lower section of Coyote Valley Creek downstream of barrier falls. Llewellyn Falls blocked upstream migration in Silver King Creek, while the steep canyon of Silver King Creek isolated Paiute cutthroat from its Lahontan cutthroat ancestors for thousands of years. Paiute cutthroat were transferred above waterfalls on Corral Valley Creek, Coyote Valley Creek, and in two smaller drainages within Silver King Creek in the 1910s. Sometime prior to 1924 rainbow, Lahontan cutthroat, and golden trout were introduced into the lower sections of Silver King Creek. Following these introductions, hybridization eliminated pure Paiute cutthroat from its historic habitat; the only pure populations remaining occur as the result of translocations to the headwaters of Silver King Creek and a few isolated areas in other parts of the Sierra Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Conchos Trout White Paper
    Conservation of the Conchos Trout: a white paper on history of its discovery, report on its status, and an urgent plea for action by Dean A. Hendrickson, Bernard Kuhajda, Richard Mayden, David Neely, David Propst, Joseph Tomelleri and Ralph F. Cutter (following discussions with other Truchas Mexicanas (http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/tnhc/fish/research/truchas_mexicanas) team members (see list on last page) during the team’s March 2006 fieldwork) March 31, 2006 Abstract A broad-scale survey of potential trout habitats in upper tributaries of the Río Conchos of Chihuahua, México resulted in the re-discovery in 2005 of a long-lost native, endemic, and now endangered, undescribed trout species that we call the “Conchos Trout.” We are currently in the process of scientifically describing this rare trout, the only native Mexican trout known from an Atlantic drainage. Our extensive field efforts to date clearly indicate that this species was formerly much more widely distributed historically. Though surveys should continue, our extensive field surveys found only one small isolated and extremely vulnerable population, leaving us less than optimistic that many other, if any, additional populations will be found. Persistence of this new critically endangered endemic Conchos Trout clearly requires rapid conservation action. Our consensus expert opinion is that we cannot over-emphasize the urgency of protection for this critically endangered population of this unique trout, and so we have produced this “white paper” in hopes that it might encourage others to join us in initiating appropriate conservation programs. The potentially viable population in Arroyo Ureyna is restricted to a short reach of a very small stream where it and another newly discovered, undescribed fish species, a sucker (and likely another unique taxon), could be relatively easily protected, studied and managed.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarkii Pleuriticus)
    Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): A Technical Conservation Assessment Michael K. Young Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project United States Department of Agriculture / Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-207-WWW March 2008 Young, Michael K. 2008. Colorado River cutthroat trout: a technical conservation assess- ment. [Online]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-207-WWW. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Station. 123 p. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_GTR- 207-WWW.pdf [March 2008]. Abstract The Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) was once distributed throughout the colder waters of the Colorado River basin above the Grand Canyon. About 8 percent of its historical range is occupied by unhybridized or ecologically significant populations. It has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act and is accorded special status by several state and federal agencies. Habitat alteration and nonnative trout invasions led to the extirpation of many populations and impede restoration. Habitat fragmentation exacerbated by climate change is an emerging threat. A strategic, systematic approach to future conservation is likely to be the most successful. The Author Michael Young has been a Research Fisheries Biologist with the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station since 1989. His work focuses on the ecology and conservation of native coldwater fishes and the effects of natural and anthropogenic disturbance on stream ecosystems. Address: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 East Beckwith Avenue, Missoula, Montana 59801. Email: [email protected]. Acknowledgments I thank Todd Allison, Warren Colyer, Greg Eaglin, Noah Greenwald, Paula Guenther-Gloss, Christine Hirsch, Jessica Metcalf, Dirk Miller, Kevin Rogers, and Dennis Shiozawa for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
    [Show full text]
  • APACHE TROUT My First Exposure to What Later Proved to Be Apache Trout, Caused Considerable Consternation. This Occurred In
    c J tap APACHE TROUT My first exposure to what later proved to be Apache trout, caused considerable consternation. This occurred in the late 1950's while conducting graduate research on the native trout of the Great Basin (mainly the cutthroat trout native to the Lahontan and Bonneville basins of Nevada and Utah). I had borrowed all of the preserved specimens available in museums to examine in order to characterize the subspecies described from the Lahontan and Bonneville basins. These diagnoses would allow me to recognize these subspecies if they still existed. Both the Lahontan subspecies henshawi and the Bonneville subspecies Utah were generally regarded to be extinct as pure populations at the time, but the problem was that if these subspecies still existed, how could they be verified since no valid diagnosis of the subspecies had ever been made. My study was progressing nicely as I compiled the diagnostic traits of the two subspecies when I received three specimens from the U.S. National Museum labeled, "Panguitch Lake, Utah" (a lake in Bonneville basin). These specimens were collected in 1873 and were entirely distinct from any form of cutthroat trout known to me. The specimens were only about five to eight inches in length but their deep bodies, long fins, spotting patterns, and other internal characters such„ as the number of vertebrae were very different from any other trout with which I was familiar. I pondered the question in my MS. thesis; How could a trout so distinctively different from the Bonneville cutthroat have existed in the Bonneville basin and not previously recognized? When I became aware that mix-ups of specimens and locality records of fish collections made by geological surveys and railroad surveys in the nineteenth century were a common occurrence, a bit of further investigation revealed that these three specimens (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenback Cutthroat Trout Genetics and Meristics Studies Facilitated Expert Panel Workshop
    FINAL SUMMARY REPORT Greenback Cutthroat Trout Genetics and Meristics Studies Facilitated Expert Panel Workshop REGION 6 OFFICE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE May 12, 2014 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region Ecological Services - Colorado Field Office 134 Union Boulevard Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1807 Prepared by: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 1819 Denver West Drive Suite 100 Golden, CO 80401 USFWS Order No. F13PB00113 AMEC Project No. 32106C002 Summary Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Summary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Background ......................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Expert Panel ........................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Workshop ............................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Essential Reading ........................................................................................... 2 3.2 Day One Summary ......................................................................................... 3 3.3 Day Two Summary ......................................................................................... 3 3.4 Day Three Summary ....................................................................................... 3 4.0 Summary of Expert Panel Responses
    [Show full text]
  • RARE and ENDANGERED SPECIES; the RIO GRANDE TROUT (Seim° Clarkii Virrinalis)
    RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES; THE RIO GRANDE TROUT (Seim° clarkii virRinalis) Robert Behnke Colorado Cooperative Fishery Unit Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado January, 1967 Introduction The cutthroat trout native to the Rio Grande River basin, is listed as endangered by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. So little is known about this trout regarding original distribution, taxonomy, or its present status, that perhaps the category "status unknown" would be more appropriate. Evermann and Kendall (1895) reviewed the scattered bits of information on the Rio Grande trout and concluded; "The distribution of the trout of the Rio Grande basin furnishes very interesting and proper subject for investigation." No such investigation has yet been attempted. Virtually the whole taxonomic foundation of this trout found in pre- sent day keys and check lists can be traced to the comments of Jordan (1891), who examined two specimens from the Rio Grande at Del Norte, Colorado, in 1889. The original distribution, characters distinguishing it from other cutthroat trout, and variability of populations is not known. Drastic en- vironment changes wrought by the use and misuse of water; the introduction of exotic fish species, particularly rainbow trout and other subspecies of cutthroat trout which hybridize with the native trout, make an evalua- tion of the present status of the Rio Grande trout 4 difficult task. Relatively few specimens of native Rio Grande trout were collected and permanently preserved in museum collections, and these were from a rather -2- restricted geographical area. Thus, there is little available material representing the original Rio Grande trout for comparative taxonomic studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Call Numbers for Salmonidae
    CALL NUMBERS FOR SALMONIDAE Use this chart for the special breakdown of QL638.S2. The names in boldface represent authorized Library of Congress subject headings. Works on ciscoes, salmon, trout, and whitefish using these common names but covering species within one genus will be classed under the specific genus. Made-up example: Title: Guide to trouts. Subjects: Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), and Apache trout (O. apache). Class under: Oncorhynchus (.S25) Works on ciscoes, salmon, trout, and whitefish covering species which belong to more than one genus but which fall collectively under one of these common names will be classed under the Cutter for the common name. Made-up example: Title: Guide to trouts. Subjects: Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Class under: “trout” (.S216) The fishes are arranged by scientific (Latin) nomenclature. Only the most current standard scientific (Latin) name is given. Obsolete and debated scientific names are numerous. Adjustments to taxonomical classification are not uncommon, including reclassification to a different genus. The previous or alternative versions of common (vernacular) names are shown. Be aware that some market names (those used commercially) are scientifically incorrect. For brevity, this table excludes some species and races, particularly under Coregonus and Salvelinus. ARLIS Call Numbers for Salmonidae under QL638 Salmonidae Salmonidae (in general or two or more genuses) .S2 Coregonidae
    [Show full text]
  • Kissing Cousins: Genetic Interactions Between Wild and Cultured Salmon
    Chapter 4 Kissing Cousins: Genetic Interactions between Wild and Cultured Salmon Fred M. Utter The Fulton spawning channel on the Babine River (Area 4) is one of four constructed spawning channels designed to increase sockeye production. At 4 km long, Channel 2 is one of the largest spawning channels in the world, producing 67 million sockeye fry in 2001. While the sockeye catch in the Skeena region has increased since the spawning channels were constructed in the 1960s, wild runs of sockeye have declined significantly over this period. photo: Garth Traxler 119 Part Two, Chapter 4: Introduction “...When is a chinook salmon in Puget Sound a ‘species’ ? Are Germans in Tacoma a ‘species’ of human?....Why do ‘wild’ salmon and not hatchery salmon count (under the Endangered Species Act)?” John Carlson, Republican candidate for Governor of the State of Washington in 2000. Introduction The above questions from a public figure reflect wide-spread public concern about the state of wild and hatchery salmon - concerns that are shared by many citizens of British Columbia. Mr. Carlson’s inquiries are not frivolous. They echo frustrations about seeming over-regulation and possible defiance of common sense and are based on understandings about genetic relationships that have been widely held for the past 50 years. When I entered the workforce in the 1950s, there were five species of the genus Oncorhynchus native to the US Pacific Northwest (chinook, coho, pink, chum, and sockeye salmon), plus the Asiatic masou salmon. In addition to being distinct from one another, the five local species were understood to have variant “races” within them such as spring-run and fall-run chinook, lake-type anadromous sockeye and non-migratory kokanee, as well as even- and odd- year pink salmon.
    [Show full text]