"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
news:MYBii.8255$DM4.5582@trndny06...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

snip

We got us genuine mystery here!

Wolfgang
for god's sake, PLEASE!, is there a reference librarian in the house?
Maybe its not such a mystery. Upon reflection it occurred to me that even
by 1911, the fact that salmon returned to their natal stream to spawn was
likely unknown. It is highly unlikely that tagging studies had been
conducted by then.and they certainly didn't have radio telemetry on salmon
then. It is known that early salmon hatcheries, even as much as several
decades later than that, didn't appreciate the importance of using brood
stock from the drainage where the fry were to be stocked.

Ah, now THAT is an interesting theory. Can't think of any references
offhand, but I believe that there were at least strong suspicions even
before 1911 that salmon did indeed return to their natal streams. This
belief, on my part, is not very firm, but it is bolstered somewhat by the
sorts of chains of logic and deduction I alluded to in my prefatory
comments. For example, sheer numbers and gross physical distinctions
between regional variations would provide strong clues. At any rate, I' d
be delighted if someone would (and could) find a definitive answer to the
problem......but it ain't likely to be me (serendipity and coincidence do
not lend themselves.....or at least not readily and reliably.....to promises
and deadlines

Meanwhile, and not so incidentally, I've seen indications in recent years
that the salmons' famed fidelity to their natal streams is not so hard-wired
and infallible as was once supposed. I believe the issue, like so many
others (lifelong monogamy in various species comes quickly to mind) is still
pretty controversial, but even the staunchest advocates (well, at least
among those who take their heads out of their asses long enough to enjoy the
novelty of free oxygen) have had to admit at least that there are occasional
and incontrovertible exceptions.

However, that reasoning doesn't excuse another error in the piece -
attributing the scooping out of the Redd to the male, that activity is
strictly the province of the female.

If you read the whole book, which is available he

http://books.google.com/books?id=Lux... es%22+jordan

(or I can send you a searchable and editable plain text version if you like)
you will find many more errors, particularly with regard to taxonomy, but
hardly limited to that arcane and notoriously fractious field. And of
course, it's worth reading just for that.......but there's a lot more that's
good because it's right and it's well presented. On the other hand, there's
also a lot that's tendentious, polemical, pedantic, not so subtly political
and just plain dull. On the other other hand, some of it is good for just
those reasons.

Wolfgang