09-20-2017, 05:15 PM
[quote doggonefishin][quote PBH] Mr. Yarrow was a trained biologist ("naturalist" was the term often used at the time) who was part of the Wheeler survey. We would expect him to describe things fairly accurately, which he did. [/quote]
His paper posted by the Dude is very accurate and describes Bonneville cutthroat clearly. His sub-title includes Salmo virginalis -- again, a cutthroat. So the big question comes down to why he titled the report "On the Speckled trout of Utah Lake" and included that opening sentence? This obviously threw off a handful of people (including Tubedude) to assume that the rest of the article described a speckled or brook trout, which it very clearly did not. Maybe the report is simply stating what the local inhabitants of Utah referred to the cutthroat as: a "lake" trout (ie: a trout that lives in a lake), and then misinterpreted their meaning for a speckled trout?
Regardless of the title and opening sentence, the report very clearly describes cutthroat trout, as had previously been identified by other naturalists as Salmo virginalis.
[signature]
His paper posted by the Dude is very accurate and describes Bonneville cutthroat clearly. His sub-title includes Salmo virginalis -- again, a cutthroat. So the big question comes down to why he titled the report "On the Speckled trout of Utah Lake" and included that opening sentence? This obviously threw off a handful of people (including Tubedude) to assume that the rest of the article described a speckled or brook trout, which it very clearly did not. Maybe the report is simply stating what the local inhabitants of Utah referred to the cutthroat as: a "lake" trout (ie: a trout that lives in a lake), and then misinterpreted their meaning for a speckled trout?
Regardless of the title and opening sentence, the report very clearly describes cutthroat trout, as had previously been identified by other naturalists as Salmo virginalis.
[signature]