1 the Fishes of the Vicinity of Rochester, New York Albert Hazen
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 The Fishes of the Vicinity of Rochester, New York Albert Hazen Wright 2 Preface Professor Albert Hazen Wright submitted this manuscript for publication to the New York State Museum in the mid 1920s. It was subsequently readied for printing, but was never actually published. The preceding article details the history of the manuscript and the importance of the information included here. I have tried to keep the flavor of the original manuscript, although it might best be described as rough. In general, I corrected spelling and typographic errors, but left colloquialisms, original phasing, which seems odd at times, and made no changes to style. I did not correct words that were consistently misspelled; I assume that the spelling was standard at the time. Wright entered tabular information into the text throughout the article; I removed that information from the text, reformatted it into tables, and direct the reader to the table in the text. Wright provided no figure captions so I wrote the captions. He also referred to the figures as charts; in this printing, if Wright used this term, I preserved it in the text as well. I retained the scientific and common names used by Wright. He occasionally used one name in one part of the paper and another in the list. Fish nomenclature is updated in Appendix A. Plant, crayfish, reptile and amphibian nomenclature is updated in Appendix B. I did not add information to the text, most is self-explanatory. However, for those unfamiliar with the area, R.W. and O.R.R. refers to the Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad, a set of initials that was so obvious in the early half of the twentieth century that Wright apparently never felt the need to supply the actual name in the document. Nor did any of the reviewers or editors require the name. I had to google the initials. I also include the complete citations; in Wright’s original manuscript, information was incomplete. 3 In the 1920s, NYSM Bulletins were octavos. Pages measured 14.5 X 23 cm and the print on the page would have measured 10.5 X 18.5 cm. The article would have been printed in one column. Most of Wright’s plates would have been printed as foldouts, the standard way to print larger figures during that period. The cover of the bulletin would have been card stock, off-white and printed with a masthead, the title of the article, and the table of contents. The obverse of the cover would have had a list of the Regents of the University of the State of New York, the governing body of the State Museum. The list of Regents would have been followed by a list of the hierarchy of the State Education Department and the State Museum. There would have been no additional front matter and the article would have begun on page 1. Although included in the edited manuscript, I have omitted these lists and the table of contents from this publication. Although there are several minor inconsistencies in the manuscript, and areas where Wright’s information is suspect or dated, I did not alter text or add information that was collected more recently. I believe that some of his identifications are wrong, but I did not change them. However, one discussion needs comment. Wright assessed habitat use among the three species of Ameiurus that he collected. He reported collecting black bullhead (A. melas) at several sites within the study area; in fact, he collected this species at four of the study streams. He then concluded that habitat was partitioned based on substrate and water velocity (see Figure 15). In examining specimens from the study at Cornell University, it appears that he misidentified the species. The specimens, CU72185 and CU2096, are brown bullhead. In fact, black bullhead are extremely rare in New York and most of the extant populations are the result of stocking efforts. In this light, Wright’s analysis is curious because it seems unlikely that he was actually observing black 4 bullhead. Perhaps, in making his identifications, he focused on color, which may have been influenced by habitat use. Another possible factor is that the characteristics of the two species were not well defined at the time, making a definitive identification difficult. The general thesis is that fish occur in certain, identifiable habitats. But this manuscript is an olio. Wright included information on habitat use and distribution within the watershed and within individual streams. In addition, he included meristic and morphometric information, behavioral information, information on feeding, fecundity, and spawning runs. He discusses stocking reports, catch records, commercial value, and anecdotal reports on abundance. The species list holds a wealth of information that is valuable to today’s workers and provides insights to current questions on fish distribution and biodiversity. At times, the style makes the information difficult to extract in an orderly fashion; however, it is worth the time to plod through it if a history of streams and fish distribution is needed. Charles Sheviak, Curator of Botany, NYSM, reviewed plant names and provided probable identities for some of the plants listed by their common names. Paul Sheeran, T.J. Sheeran Printers, Inc., Troy, NY, was able to reprint the figures 1 and 3 to 13 using a vintage printing press. The plate for figure 2, the map, was too large to fit into the press, so the original figure was scanned and reproduced here. Robert A. Daniels Albany, New York 14 February 2005 5 Introduction Immediately after the publication in 1902 of “Notes on Fishes of Lake Ontario”, by Drs. Barton W. Evermann and William C. Kendall, the present writer proposed to undertake a study of the fishes in the streams of northern Monroe Co., N.Y. During the following summer, a few collections and observations were made. Considerable work was done in the two succeeding summers. Incorporated with the above, are personal notes gathered from twenty years of previous residence in the region, the records obtained by the U.S. Fish Commission parties of 1894, and the record of fish distribution to Monroe waters by pisciculturists. For many years we have visited these streams; in recent years with university classes in ichthyology. We find them to be amongst the finest collecting spots in the study of fishes. Very few other places in N.Y. State offer such a variety of species in such abundance. We have used the class, ordinal and family names of Dr. Jordan’s recent Classification of Fishes (Jordan 1923, pp. 1-243, I-X). The names of the fish in the blocks and order of the groups have the Jordan Manual order. We employed as well Hubbs’s recent “Check list of the Fishes of the Great Lakes”, Dymond’s “Fishes of Nipigon” and Weed’s recent suggestions in Copeia concerning Esox. The last gentleman, a classmate of the author, lived in the adjoining county of Wayne, and helped me with several suggestions in the earlier stages of this work. Our acknowledgements are also due to Profs. B.G. Wilder, H.D. Reed, and B.W. Evermann for encouragement, advice and assistance. Thanks are also due Drs. C.C. Adams, S.C. Bishop, J.G. Needham and C.C. Embody. 6 Distribution Diagrams It is some years since ornithologists saw the advantages of a graphic means of representing complex bird waves and their coincident relation to physical conditions. In ichthyology, a schematic method whereby fish distribution and environment can be correlated is not less valuable. The study of a stream and its fishes involves the consideration of factors so numerous and diverse, and accumulates such a mass of data, that one is impelled to adopt some graphic method to make results appear quickly and clearly. The chart to be described presently (Figure 1) is of a hypothetical stream, including a variety of possible conditions. The first continuous vertical line to the right of the list of species represents the mouth of the stream, and the corresponding vertical on the right of the chart is its source. The dotted verticals numbered below (1 to 8) mark mile points. Beneath the “Misc. Data” space, these mile lines are not dotted but continuous. The heavy horizontal opposite each species indicates the range of that species in the stream. Wherever the horizontal is broken, it indicated the occasional occurrence of the species. Whenever a species gains entrance to a stream from two or more points an arrow tip at the end of each of its range lines indicates the direction of its migration; e.g., in our hypothetic stream the carp, Cyprinus carpio enters from the mouth and from canal overflows. The continuous horizontal above the first species in the list represents the surface of the water. The bottom is shown by the curved line labeled “Bottom of Stream”. The 7 average depth at any given point is, therefore, the vertical between these two lines, read from the scale at the extreme right of the chart. The continuous horizontal immediately below the last species enumerated, represents the altitude of the mouth above sea level. The profile line indicates the drop in the stream. The approximate altitude of any given point along the stream is shown by the vertical between the two above-mentioned lines, and read from the scale at the right. The continuous horizontal in “Valley Cross Sections” represents the stream, on either side of which is shown a section of the country for one and a quarter miles. In these cross sections at every mile point, the geologic formation can be indicated.