Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Significance of certain scale characters in the recognition of Fraser River sockeye races Hamilton, James Arthur Roy 1947

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1947_A8 H2 S5.pdf [ 13.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0107059.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0107059-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0107059-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0107059-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0107059-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0107059-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0107059-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0107059-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0107059.ris

Full Text

SIGNIFICANCE OF CERTAIN SCALE CHARACTERS IN THE RECOGNITION OF FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RACES by James Arthur Roy Hamilton A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l Fulfilment of The Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of ZOOLOGY The University of Brit i s h Columbia APRIL, 1947 Significance of Certain Scale Characters i n the Recognition of Fraser River Sockeye Races Table of Contents Introduction Materials and Methods Sockeye Scale Structure Results and Discussion 1. Age composition of Fraser river races. 1. Lacustrine l i f e . 2. Age at maturity. 3. Precocious sockeye abundance. II, C i r c u l i counts. 1. Procedure i n enumerating rings. 2. C i r c u l i counts for sex. 3. C i r c u l i counts for age. 4. Lacustrine ring counts. a. Comparison of ring counts between years with races. b. Comparison between areas within years. c. Correlation between annual changes in different.areas. d. Segregation of races by f i r s t season rings, e. Distributions of f i r s t season rings i n 1916-1918. 5. Second season or f i r s t season salt water rings. 6. Association of f i r s t season and second season rings. 7. Comparison of numbers of rings in yearling and adult scales. 8. Firs t season ring counts of precocious sockeye. III. General appearance of scales. IV. Ring counts and the environment. Summa ry Acknowledgments. References. J Significance of Certain Scale Characters i n the Recognition of Fraser River Sockeye Races Abstract The Fraser River sockeye population i s segregated geo-graphically into a number of individual races. The scales of these fish contain several characters which might be used i n the identification of these races. They are number of annuli (winter "checks"), number of f i r s t season and second season rings, additional "checks", and general appearance of scales. With few exceptions the Fraser River sockeye are of the 42 age group. Birkenhead River, Cultus Lake, and Chilko Lake sockeye have varying numbers of 53 f i s h . The Harrison River fish in general migrate immediately to sea as fry. The P i t t River sockeye in general return as 52 f i s h . Any difference * that exists i n ring counts between the sexes of sockeye i s not significant. In general i t was found that the younger sockeye (32) have greater numbers of f i r s t season lacustrine rings than do the 42 sockeye and that i n turn the 42 f i s h have more rings than do the 52 f i s h . There i s considerable varia-b i l i t y from year to year i n both f i r s t season and second season ring counts for each race. The greatest association in f i r s t season ring counts occurs on adjacent years. The ring counts between races within years are i n many cases statistioaJJy different. The yearly variab i l i t y within races and the over-lapping i n ring counts makes the separation of the races i n a homogeneous population an impossibility. The ring counts of yearling migrant sockeye have fewer rings than do the adult sockeye of the same brood year. Most of the races have additional checks. On the basis of these studies i t i s impossible to segregate the various Fraser River races by using scale characters alone. Introduction: Over a period of years c e r t a i n of the Fraser River sockeye populations have shown a marked decline i n numbers of f i s h present on the spawning beds, u n t i l to-day i n some areas they may be enumerated i n mere hundreds rather than thousands. Other populations have increased i n abundance while the remainder tend to stay at a more stable l e v e l . I t i s the object of the International P a c i f i c Salmon Fi s h e r i e s Commission to b u i l d up these depleted races to a more substantial l e v e l , i f not to t h e i r o r i g i n a l one, and to maintain the present abundance of the remaining races. One measure undertaken for the preservation of the races was the removal of numerous obstacles that obstructed t h e i r migration to the spawning beds. To further augment th e i r s u r v i v a l i t was necessary to c u r t a i l the commercial fi s h e r y to permit free passage of those races that showed signs of depletion. Before putting such- r e s t r i c t i o n into e f f e c t i t was necessary to determine the period of migration of each race through the f i s h e r y . As a r e s u l t of the various tagging experiments from 1938 - 1945, i t has come to l i g h t that the bulk of the f i s h of the p r i n c i p a l Fraser River races pass through the fishery between l a t e June and l a t e September. While there i s considerable overlapping i n t h e i r periods of migration, the races are commercially exploited i n t h i s order: Stuart Lake (earl y ) , Bowron Lake, Chilko Lake, Stellako River, Stuart Lake ( l a t e ) , Adams River and Cultus Lake • While the tagging experiments have contributed much to the solution of t h i s problem i t was f e l t that a d d i t i o n a l information might be gleaned by a study of the i n d i v i d u a l populations from a r a c i a l standpoint. With the solution of t h i s problem i n mind the r a c i a l investigation was under-taken. Numerous characters might be used f o r the recognition of f i s h races. Pritchard (1945) studied the py l o r i c caeca of the pink salmon and McGregor (1923) on the Sacramento and Klamath Rivers showed that "pyloric caeca and egg counts might be used f o r the separation of the spring salmon from each of these r i v e r s . Vertebral counts have been of considerable value i n separating populations of herring on the P a c i f i c coast, Thompson (1916), Rounsefell and Dahlgren (1935). Schaefer (1936) by means of vertebral frequencies was able to show, the heterogeneity of the P a c i f i c coast smelt populations, G i l b e r t (1913 - 1925) and Clemens and Clemens (1925 -1937) were able to show through t h e i r analyses of scales the inherent differences of sockeye inhabiting the various B r i t i s h Columbia coastal streams, v i z . Skeena River, Naas 3. River, Rivers I n l e t and the Fraser River. Gilb e r t not only-attempted to separate the spawning populations i n these major streams but ca r r i e d the study a step farther and t r i e d to show that through differences i n scale characters the i n -d i v i d u a l races of the Fraser River i t s e l f might be segregated. He states without q u a l i f i c a t i o n that c e r t a i n differences i n the scale nucleus separates the races i n the Fraser r i v e r l i k e i n d i v i d u a l finger p r i n t s . Over a period of years r a c i a l samples of vertebrae, p y l o r i c caeca, g i l l rakers, eggs and scales have been colle c t e d from sockeye for the purpose of determining t h e i r value i n the recognition of the various Fraser River races. The contents of t h i s paper deal with the study of the scales alone, and i s to be followed at a l a t e r date by an i n v e s t i -gation of the remaining characters. Materials and Methods: From a geographical standpoint the Fraser r i v e r popu-l a t i o n has been divided, for the purpose of r a c i a l separation into ten areas: Stuart Lake, Stellako River, Bowron Lake, Chilko Lake, Adams River, Cultus Lake, Birkenhead River, Weaver Creek, Harrison River and P i t t Lake. These areas are shown in the accompanying map. For the past eight years,1938 - 1945, scale samples have been taken from adult sockeye spawning i n these areas, as well as from the commercial f i s h i n g areas, Sooke, Anacortes and Steveston. These samples were placed i n scale books with information pertaining to each; v i z . , t o t a l and standard length of f i s h , sex, weight and condition at time of sampling. The scales were cleaned i n the usual manner, mounted i n glycerine j e l l y and examined under a promar projector of power X40. Sockeye Scale Structure: In appearance the sockeye scale i s a f l a t structure, s l i g h t l y e l i p t i c a l i n shape, with a number of concentric rings on i t s surface, A close examination of the scale under a microscope w i l l show that these rings are not a l l of the same dimension or equally spaced .one from the other. The rings closest to the nucleus are generally of a f i n e structure and c l o s e l y spaced while those nearer the periphery of the scale are heavy i n appearance and more widely spaced. When the young sockeye has attained a length of approx-imately 30 num. the f i r s t c i r c u l u s appears on the scale (Dunlop, 1924), After t h i s period, as growth of scale and f i s h progress additional concentric rings are l a i d down, the spacing of these rings being dependent on the rates of growth of scale and f i s h (van Oosten 1928). When the growth i s retarded or arrested "checks" are formed on the scales. This was established experimentally by Hoffbauer (1898) i n a study of carp scales. He noted that during the warm months the concentric rings were well separated but as winter came on and a l l the body growth ceased they became more approximated and t h i s condition prevailed u n t i l the approach of spring when they again were widely spaced. This area of close c i r c u l i he correlated with the retarded growth, and concluded that the number of such marks gave an index to the age of the f i s h . In a l a t e r experiment, Walter (1901) working with the carp confirmed Hoffbauer's findings and Van Oosten (1923) concluded that the annuli i n whitefish scales are "of the same number as that of the winters of the fishes l i f e " . That the annuli frequency corresponds to the age of the f i s h has been demonstrated i n d i r e c t l y by marking experiments. G i l b e r t (1913) states that several marked P a c i f i c coast coho salmon returned to the area of l i b e r a t i o n and that t h e i r scales were i n agreement with t h e i r known age. Also i n a s i m i l a r experiment, (Fraserjl919) the scales of spring and coho salmon showed perfect harmony with the known age of each f i s h . Generally a portion of the l i f e h i s t o r y of the sockeye i s l a c u s t r i n e . The lake growth area of the scale i s repre-sented by a varying number of f i n e c l o s e l y spaced r i n g s . In contrast, the following sea growth rings are heavy and are more widely spaced, thus permitting a ready means for separating the growth periods i n the two environments. In an extensive study of the red - salmon of the K a r l i k River, G i l b e r t and Rich (1927) i n s t i t u t e d a terminology for 6 . describing the age - groups encountered i n a sockeye popu-l a t i o n . Their nomenclature takes into consideration the age at which the sockeye migrates to the sea and secondly the age at which they mature, spawn and d i e . For example, a sockeye leaving the lake i n i t s second year and maturing, spawning and dying i n i t s fourth year i s symbolically referred to as a 4g f i s h , a four with a subscript 2. S i m i l a r l y a 5 3 f i s h departed for the sea i n i t s t h i r d year and matured in i t s f i f t h . Results and Discussion: Age Composition of Fraser River Races G i l b e r t (1913 - 1925) and Clemens and Clemens (1925 -1937) i n t h e i r work on the sockeye salmon noted over t h i s period that the Fraser River sockeye were predominantly f i s h of the 4 2 age groups. However i n addition varying numbers of 4 i , 3g, 4g, 5£, 53 and 63 groups were encountered. Since the sockeye of the p r i n c i p a l coastal streams are characterized by a d i f f e r e n t age composition, i t would appear that so also might the i n d i v i d u a l races i n the Fraser i t s e l f . Lacustrine L i f e : The lacustrine l i f e of the Fraser River sockeye varies i n extent but the majority of the f i s h remain i n the lake for one year (Table I ) . The two p r i n c i p a l lower r i v e r races, Cultus Lake and Birkenhead River, have considerable numbers of sockeye that remain an additional year i n fresh water before migrating to sea. The Chilko area i s the only other containing noticeable numbers of t h i s type of migrant. The Harrison River race i s unique among the Fraser River races i n that the scales indicate that the majority of the migrants pass immediately to the sea af t e r emerging from the gravel. G i l b e r t referred to this type of scale as the sea - run type, i n contrast to the lake - type. - The customary close, f i n e rings and d i s t i n c t winter check exhibited by lake type scales are absent, the c i r c u l i are widely spaced, considerably heavier i n appearance, and run into the second year growth rings with no dis t i n g u i s h i n g winter check to separate c l e a r l y the two zones, (Figure 24). Just where these f i s h spend t h e i r f i r s t year of l i f e i s d i f f i c u l t to say. There i s no lake between the spawning area and the sea, the closest one being Harrison Lake, which i s approximately three miles up stream from the spawning area. However scales taken from sockeye inhabiting t h i s lake are quite d i f f e r e n t from those encountered i n the r i v e r race. Age At Maturity: Unfortunately i n most cases sockeye scales when obtained from mature or spawned and spent f i s h are not intact owing to the absorption of the margins. Sockeye salmon have been tagged by the International P a c i f i c Salmon Fish e r i e s Commission at Sooke since 1938, 8. and at Salmon Banks, and Sandheads during the seasons 1939 - 1941. The destinationsof some o f the tagged sockeye are f i n a l l y known. Scales taken from these f i s h at the time of marking have the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as those taken d i r e c t l y from the spawning population with the added advant-age of being i n t a c t . The scales of a l l tagged sockeye which reached t h e i r destination were read f o r age, the r e s u l t s of which are compiled i n Table I I . The majority of the f i s h return to spawn i n t h e i r fourth year, the only race showing.a pre-ponderance of f i v e - year f i s h being P i t t r i v e r i n 1945. A l l the other races have on c e r t a i n years numbers of these older f i s h but they at no time become the dominant age group. The 5 3 age group i s confined primarily to the lower r i v e r races, Cultus Lake, and Birkenhead River. Gi l b e r t (1913 - 1925) using scale samples from sockeye captured at Sooke Traps and other commercial f i s h i n g areas attempted to show that a heavy migration to the Fraser River of 42 f i s h was followed the next year by a sizeable number of f i s h i n t h e i r f i f t h year. On some years he was able to note t h i s , however ce r t a i n exceptions presented themselves. Since his samples were drawn from several races as they passed through the f i s h e r i e s the numbers of 5 2 f i s h of a ce r t a i n race, while a c t u a l l y present i n sizeable numbers could r e a d i l y be obscured by a large number of 4 2 f i s h of another race. 9. The spawning ground samples present the most s a t i s -factory material f o r comparing the abundance of the 4 2 and 5g year classes of the same brood year, f o r here the over-shadowing e f f e c t of other races has been eliminated. From Table II an insight into the age composition of several of the Fraser River races has been had. The size of the spawning 4g population i n conjunction with the numbers of 5 2 f i s h present i n each race i s tabulated i n Table I I I , The escapement i n 1944 to Bowron Lake consisted of f o r t y - f i v e percent 5g sockeye. In the preceding year the t o t a l escapement was 6,215 f i s h , the largest number recorded for this'area over a four-year period. The Chilko race conformed i n general to t h i s sequence of events. In 1944, 328,655 sockeye were enumerated at the Chilko d i s t r i c t and the following year twenty - one percent of the 186,337 sockeye present were 5 2 f i s h . While these two examples indicate that large 4g mi-grations are followed by considerable numbers of 5g f i s h , such races as Stellako River, and Birkenhead r i v e r do not adhere to t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . It must not be overlooked that these figures only include the t o t a l escapement to the spawning beds and do not take into account the numbers that each race contributes to the commercial f i s h e r y . Precocious Sockeye Abundance: I t has been a common practice for fishermen and 10. s c i e n t i s t s a l i k e to predict within l i m i t s the size of the migration from the number of precocious or '3g sockeye. These "jacks", as they are commonly referred to, return to the spawning beds one and two years before t h e i r 42 and 5 2 k i n . The f i e l d personnel while enumerating the spawning population i n each d i s t r i c t have i n the past noted that 3 2 sockeye may be separated from the 42 and 52 f i s h not by c r i t i c a l examinations of scales but by length frequencies. The basis of the d i v i s i o n i s evident from Figure I where the 3g sockeye show d i s t i n c t separation from the larger 4 2 and 5 2 f i s h . The "jacks" i n 1941 had a mean length of 41.56 cms^ 1.2 cms whereas those for the 42 and 52 f i s h were 60.8 cms+ 5.5 cms. and 64.7 cms t 2.05 cms. Further, i n 1944 the separation between 32» and 42 and 52 f i s h was even greater for the mean length of "jacks" was only 39.7 cms $ 1.1 cms. and f o r the 42 and 52 sockeye i t was 64.66 cms +5.7 cms. and 66.40 cms. + 3.6 cms. Using size as a means for separating the 32 f i s h from the remainder, the data of Table IV show that with few exceptions a l l races contain precocious sockeye, the except-ions being Weaver Creek and P i t t Lake races. Only on c e r t a i n years are "jacks" found i n the Stuart Lake, Stellako River, Bowron Lake, Adams River and Chilko Lake. The discrepancy between Table II and .Table IV i n the numbers of "jacks" 11. present i n each race,each year, l i e s i n part on the inadequacy of the f i s h i n g gears at the areas of sampling to apprehend these small f i s h , with the r e s u l t that i n age determination from scales alone the 3 2 scale samples are often lacking. The greatest number of "jacks" are recorded on the year preceding a large 42 migration. The Cultus Lake material supplies the most accurate data i n t h i s respect. In 1938, thirty-two percent of the 13,342 sockeye counted into the lake were of the 32 type. The following year 73,189 f i s h were enumerated, a number f a r exceeding anything encountered i n t h i s area f o r some time. In 194£ a somewhat si m i l a r s i t u a t i o n was noticed, f o r the run on t h i s year of 37,000 sockeye was preceded i n 1941 by a large number of "jacks". Owing to le s s accurate methods of enumeration the data for other races i s "not as r e l i a b l e as that f o r Cultus Lake, ' but as a whole the large runs into other areas are preceded by greater numbers of 3 2 f i s h . C i r c u l i Counts; I t has been demonstrated that scale and f i s h growth are closely correlated (Walter 1901). I t i s evident that adverse growing conditions w i l l r e s u l t i n poor growth of both f i s h and scale, and since growth conditions i n the various lakes throughout the Fraser system are not uniform, c e r t a i n variations i n growth of f i sh and scale may be expected. A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s between the size of the 12. f i r s t annual growth zone and the number of circujl within that zone for the Stellako scales. The coefficient of corre-lation (r) was calculated to be +.91 and was significant, for at 33 degrees of free'dom and P = 1$, r « 4.449. To further show the relationship between the size of the growth zone and the numbers of rings within that zone, P i t t River scales with fewer rings were examined. Here again the correlation was high and significant, r = +.94, P< .01. The relationship between the two variates i s graphically represented i n Figure £, and demonstrates further that any change i n the size of the growth zone i s followed by a change in the number of•rings within that zone. Any growth condition characteristic of a lake, should i t be of sufficient magnitude to leave i t s effect on the growth of the scale could be expected to effect the numbers of rings on that scale. Procedure In Enumerating Rings: Ring, counts can be made along numerous r a d i i , however since the c i r c u l i do not always form complete semi-circles but may be broken and coalesced, i t was necessary to establish a uniform method for their enumeration. The counts were not taken along the lateral r a d i i because the c i r c u l i at this position consisted of several rings fused together. While i t does not show i n Figure 3 the c i r c u l i along the anterior radius i n many of the cases were incompletely formed or were damaged. The radii that promised to be most reliable were those lying along the lines A and B which are situated about 15° to the l e f t and r i g h t respectively of the anterior radius(figure 3). Since either might be used i n counting, i t was necessary to compute the significance of any difference which might exist i n counts along the two r a d i i . The r e s u l t s of the readings of f i f t y scales are given i n Table Y. The small " t " value of .044, P) .01 shows that the difference of .04 c i r c u l i between the counts on r a d i i A and B i s of no significance and that counts may be made indiscriminantly along either, without any error r e s u l t i n g . C i r c u l i Counts for Sex: To demonstrate the presence of differences i n r i n g counts between the sexes i t was e s s e n t i a l to eliminate any error that might arise through differences i n age groups. In examining the r i n g counts of both males and females, P i t t Lake, 5£ sockeye were used. The difference of .16 c i r c u l i between males and females i n 1941 was of no s i g n i f i c a n c e . The calculated t-value was .353, P^ .01. In 1945 the difference of .12 rings between the sexes gave a t-value of .311, P'^  .01 which again was of no s i g n i f i c a n c e . The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of these r i n g counts may be found In Table VI. C i r c u l i Counts For Age: I t has been noted previously that age groups cannot be i d e n t i f i e d from spawning ground scale samples owing to 14. marginal erosion of the scale. While tagging st a t i o n scale samples were used f o r age determination of c e r t a i n of the races, they•were too few i n number to make comparisons i n r i n g counts between the Fraser r i v e r races, and so, the larger spawning ground samples were considered necessary. Depending on the race selected, the scale samples taken might be from several age groups present on the spawning beds. Unless environmental conditions i n the lakes of the Fraser r i v e r water shed are i d e n t i c a l , and there i s l i t t l e assurance that they are, i t might be expected that the lacustrine growth and numbers of rings of the i n d i v i d u a l age groups encountered i n any spawning ground sample might'differ. I t was therefore necessary before making general comparisons of r i n g counts of the various races from spawning ground samples to compare the numbers of lake growth rings of the various age groups. Only c e r t a i n races supplied s u f f i c i e n t information for such a comparison. The differences i n r i n g counts between the age groups from several areas are shown i n Table VII. The age groups found i n the table are not of the same brood year, but are those encountered when the samples were taken. Only those scales of known age were considered, doubtful cases were discarded. The number of rings i n the f i r s t year of growth of the 4 2 age group i n 1938 showed a mean of 11.52 while the 5g f i s h 15. had a mean at 10.76 rings. The difference of .76 rings between the means was not s i g n i f i c a n t . The calculated t -value was 1.15, P >.3. A similar treatment of the age groups encountered i n 1940 showed a difference of .12 rings between the 4 2 and 52 age groups. Here again the difference was not s i g n i f i c a n t . In 1941 and 1944 the differences were of greater magnitude between the 4 2 and 5 2 age groups. In the f i r s t case the difference of 2.84 rings approached significance. The p r o b a b i l i t y of t h i s t-value was about one percent. The difference of .48 c i r c u l i i n 1944 between the 4 2 and 5g age groups gave a t-value of 1.00. "P" i s seen to be about .05 and was therefore of no si g n i f i c a n c e . The P i t t lake race furnishes a d d i t i o n a l material f o r the comparison of rin g counts f o r age groups. In 1941 the difference between the mean rings of the 4 2 and 5 2 sockeye found i n the sample was 1.58. The calculated t-value was 2.16, the corresponding p r o b a b i l i t y of which i s .05, and so the difference was of no si g n i f i c a n c e . The difference between these two age groups f o r the same race i n 1945 was only .16 c i r c u l i f o r which "t° was .43, a value f a r less than that required f o r significance at p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .01. The difference of 1.42 c i r c u l i i n the mean lacustrine r i n g counts between 4 2 and 5 2 Chilko lake sockeye was great -enough to approach si g n i f i c a n c e . The calculated t-value was 2.89, P < .01. 16. In 1941 and 1944 the Birkenhead r i v e r race as noted above contained a number of three year old g r i l s e . The scale r i n g counts for t h i s group were compared with those of the four and f i v e year groups. In both 1941 and J.944 the "jacks" had a greater number of rings i n the scales than did the 5 2 age group. In 1944 while the rings i n the 3 2 scales were more numerous than i n the 4 2 scales such was not the case i n the 1941 sample. It would appear from the 1944 Birkenhead material that the yearling migrants with the largest number of rings return i n t h e i r t h i r d year to spawn, the group having fewer rings return as 4 2 f i s h , while the smallest y e a r l i n g migrants return as 5g adults. Further the ri n g counts of the 4g age group i n each of the races i n Table VII are greater i n a l l cases than are those of the 5g age group. The 3 g sockeye i n 1941 however do not f a l l i n l i n e i n t h i s respect f o r they have fewer rings than do the older 4 2 f i s h . Since the age groups i n the table are not of the same brood year and were i n residence i n the lake on d i f f e r e n t • years the tendency f o r the younger f i s h to have greater numbers of rings might be merely a r e s u l t of d i f f e r e n t en-vironmental conditions rather than an inherent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the groups themselves. However i n the Birkenhead race, the 4 2 i n d i v i d u a l s of 1940 are of the same brood year as the 5 2 f i s h of 1941, and here again with the influence of different 17. environmental conditions eliminated the 4 2 sockeye have greater numbers of rings than do the 5 2 f i s h . Unfortunately no additional data were available to further demonstrate this, but from the consistently higher numbers of rings of the 42 fish over the 52 fi s h i t might be suspected that the younger age groups do have more rings i n the f i r s t season of growth. In the light of this information, i t i s evident that general comparisons of ring counts over the Fraser River water shed should be confined to an individual age class, notably the 4 2 group, since in so many cases this age class was the prevailing type on the spawning beds. The 32 sockeye were readily segregated from their older kin on the bases of the differences in total length, and the remaining age groups, save the 52 class, were separated easily by means of their scales. However due to marginal erosion of the scales and the degree of overlapping in their total lengths the 4 2 and 52 f i s h in the samples were inseparable. The samples to be used i n the comparison of the races contained both these classes, and while this has i t s disadvantages, i t was f e l t that i n many cases the 52 fi s h were so insignificantly few that the 42 distributions of ring counts would be l i t t l e effected by their inclusion. Comparison of Lacustrine Ring Counts Between Years Within Races: It i s obvious from Tables vTII - XVI and figures 4 - 1 3 18. that there was a c e r t a i n degree of v a r i a b i l i t y from year to . year i n numbers of f i r s t season lacustrine c i r c u l i i n each race. The range i n mean values over the eight year period for the Stuart Lake race was 15.80-19.74 rings, Stellako River 17.05-21.44 and Weaver Creek 16.98-20.15. The range i n mean counts f o r the Birkenhead River race was 10.06-13.28, Bowron Lake 11.70-14.69, and Adams River 11.50-15.22. In contrast to these the Cultus Lake race has a range extending over 8.45 c i r c u l i from 9.09-17.54 and P i t t Lake 8.31 rings from 12.63-20.94 rin g s . Many of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s were skewed, and while t h i s departure from the normal curve was most common i n the Cultus Lake, Stellako River, Birkenhead River and Chilko Lake, nearly a l l the races had at least one d i s t r i b u t i o n which was skewed i n one d i r e c t i o n or the other. In the f i r s t two races the d i s t r i b u t i o n s were p o s i t i v e l y skewed^whereas.the Birkenhead River and Chilko Lake d i s t r i b u t i o n s were distorted i n the other d i r e c t i o n . Within a series of frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s i t i s quite possible to have s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the means a r i s i n g from chance alongj. I t i s therefore necessary to treat the data as a whole to determine whether a l l , the samples ma*y be sub-samples of a single population. I f the means are homogeneous then the sub-samples must be considered as being drawn from a single population. 19. For t e s t i n g the homogeneity of a population, Fisher(1934) developed what i s referred to as the "Analysis of Variance", which rather than being the comparison of two means, i s the comparison of several. This test has become very popular i n f i s h e r i e s research and was used by Buchanan-Wollaston (1933) on the A t l a n t i c herring, Rounsefell and Dahlgren (1935) on the P a c i f i c herring, and by Schaefer (1936) on the surf smelt. The underlying assumptions In applying the analysis of variance to any series of data are that the samples are drawn from populations which are normal and which have common variances. To determine whether the samples with variance s-j_2 and s 2 2 are drawn from populations with common variances the F test was developed and i s calculated as follows: n i t s i ) 2 F= n i - l  M s g ) 2 n 2 - 1 where n i and n 2 are numbers of variates i n samples "one and two", s i 2 and s 22 are the variances i n samples "one and two". I f the hypothesis i s true, that the samples were drawn from normal populations of common variance, then the F value approaches one. The calculated value of F may be larger or smaller than one. I f the larger sample variance i s considered as s i 2 then F w i l l always be greater than one. On the other 20. hand, i f the smaller variance i s ST_ 2 then F w i l l always be the reciprocal of the other, and i s less than one. The F-table was developed for testing the results ob-tained i n the analysis of variance and may also be applied to the results of the F-test. The probability levels of 1$ and 5$ give only the F-values greater than one. But F may be greater or less than one, depending on whether s i 2 i s the larger or the smaller sample variance, hence, the 1% and 5$ levels test only half the p o s s i b l i l i t i e s and the true limits are actually 2$ and 10$. When using the F-test as a preliminary to the Analyses of Variance i t i s preferable to apply the Analyses of Variance with extreme caution when the probability / of the variances of the populations being equal i s less than 10%. The results of the application of the F-test to the data of Tables VIII - XVI are given i n Tables XVII - XXV. There i s l i t t l e doubt that the population variances of Cultus Lake, Birkenhead River, Weaver Creek, Chilko Lake, Adams River, and Stuart Lake races are heterogeneous. The P i t t River, Stellako River and Bowron Lake races approach very cbsely the stage when the population variances may be considered verging on equality. However even in these races the differences i n several of the sample variances gave F-values that were greater than those recorded at the 10% level of probability thus casting doubt on the hypothesis that the samples were 21. drawn from populations with common variance. I t has been c l e a r l y shown that due to the heterogeneity of the variances i t was inadvisable to apply the analysis of variance to these data and that some other s t a t i s t i c a l measure must be used to test the differences between the samples. The s t a t i s t i c a l treatment most commonly used f o r the comparison of groups of data i s the t - t e s t . This t e s t makes a comparison of two means at a time rather than several. The difference between the means i s noted, the standard error of the difference between the means calculated, and the s i g -nificance of the difference (t) determined from the r a t i o of the difference between means divided by the standard error of the difference as follows: D t = ' n l n2 where D = Difference between the means 3^2 s Variance of sample one. n i = Number i n sample one. To test the significance of t h i s value the tables of t are then consulted. I f the calculated t-value f a l l s beyond that recorded f o r the p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l most suitable f o r the data the differences between the means are considered to 22. be s i g n i f i c a n t . To obtain r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s from the t - t e s t the samples to be compared should be of equal size and variance, otherwise, i f these q u a l i f i c a t i o n s are lacking and the t- t e s t i s used the int e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s may be quite unreliable and misleading. When the samples are of equal size and unequal variance the t - t e s t gives not too unsatisfactory r e s u l t s . I f , under these conditions, the Ifo point i s selected f o r the l e v e l of significance the investigator can be assured that the l e v e l at which he i s t e s t i n g the data i s no greater than the 2% l e v e l . On the other hand when the data d i f f e r s i n both size and variance, the discrepancy between the recorded l e v e l of significance found i n the t-table and the actual l e v e l becomes greater. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true for small samples of the order of 10-25 i n d i v i d u a l s . In t h i s case i f both the q u a l i -f i c a t i o n s are lacking-the calculated t-value might f i t the 5$ point of significance, when a c t u a l l y f o r r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s the data should be tested at the 20#-30# l e v e l s . I t i s f e l t that f o r samples of one hundred or more i n d i v i d u a l s the discrepancy between the recorded l e v e l s of significance and the actual l e v e l s are not too great. An alternative method was developed whereby the differences i n means of unequal samples could be tested. This i s referred to as the Fisher-Behrens t e s t . Unfortunately at the time of 23. w r i t i n g t h i s paper neither the outline of the method nor the necessary Fisher-Behrens table were a v a i l a b l e . Even though the scale samples f a l l i n many instances beyond the bounds of equal variance and equal size i t i s possible, that with the samples as .large as they are, the t- t e s t would give not too unsatisfactory r e s u l t s . With the shortcomings of the t - t e s t i n mind, i t was applied to the scale r i n g data and the mean c i r c u l i counts f o r each year were compared with those of a l l other years, the r e s u l t s of which may be found i n Tables XXHTrXXXTT. The significance of r the differences are noted i n column f i v e of the table at pr o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .01. That the majority of the Fraser r i v e r sockeye mature, spawn, and die i n t h e i r fourth year, thus adhering to a four year cycle has been d e f i n i t e l y established. I f an area supports a spawning population each year, then, over a four year period there are four separate groups of fish,each to a large degree independent of the other. Not u n t i l the f i f t h year when the progeny of the spawning population of the f i r s t year return to deposit t h e i r eggs, can a close association between groups be expected. While we are dealing with i n -d i v i d u a l races, i s o l a t e d geographically one from the other, each race might be' further divided into c y c l i c groups, the number of which would be determined by the age class pre-dominating. Since there are but eight years data for r i n g 24. counts available, four complete four year cycles can be considered. In the case of the P i t t River race where the 5g sockeye predominate a f i v e year cycle must be taken into account. There i s less tendency f o r the r i n g counts on cycle years to be more closely associated than on any other years. Of a possible 56 comparisons of c i r c u l i counts on consecutive years 22 or 39.2 percent showed differences of no s i g n i f i c a n c e . There were 49 comparisons f o r alternate years, and of these 18 or 36.7 percent had s t a t i s t i c a l l y s imilar counts. From 40 comparisons of counts, three years apart, 14 or 35.0 percent had differences of no significance and on cycle years 10 or 29.4 percent of the 34 comparisons had mean ri n g counts of no s i g n i f i c a n c e . The r i n g counts between years within races have most i n common on consecutive years and within the period of one cycle, i n general the further the samples are separated one from the other i n respect to time the less c l o s e l y associated they are. Comparison Between Areas Within Years: Because of the annual changes i n numbers of f i r s t season rings, t h e i r use i n the recognition of the separate races i s lim i t e d to yearly comparisons. The material of Tables VIII-XVI has been rearranged i n Tables XXXV-XLITto f a c i l i t a t e the comparisons of r i n g counts between races within years. These data are graphically represented i n figures 13-20. 25. Correlation Between Annual Changes i n Ring Counts i n Dif f e r e n t Areas: The question that must he asked with respect to the annual mean counts i s t h i s : To what extent do the yearly-mean counts of each race vary together? The 1938 year was selected as the base year, and the mean values f o r each l o c a l i t y i n years 1939 - 1945 were plotted with those of the base year i n figure 21. While i t i s possible to make a v i s u a l evaluation of the association between yearly r i n g counts from the figure,a / clearer picture may be had by applying a c o r r e l a t i o n . Table XLIII shows the degree of association of r i n g counts between years and the significance of the r - values at the Vfo l e v e l . I t i s evident that the differences between means i n 1938 and 1941, 1939 and 1940, and i n 1940 and 1944 where the " r ' s " were +.9089, +.9424, and +.9424 respectively approached equality. On the other hand i n f i v e of the nine areas the mean values i n 1943 extended the range i n mean counts and as a r e s u l t produced correlations of +.6951,+.7090, +.4439 and +.7330 a l l of which are above the 1$ l e v e l of sign i f i c a n c e . The mean rin g counts on cycle years are p o s i t i v e l y correlated. A s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n of +.8543 was obtained for the cycle 1938-1942. The .T- value of +.7090 f o r the 1939-1943 cycle approached si g n i f i c a n c e , ,05>P>.01. In both the cycles 1940-1944 and 1941-1945 the c o r r e l a t i o n of 26. . +.9424 and +.8836 were s i g n i f i c a n t . Using 1938 as the base year % the relationship between the meansof the base year and a l l the remaining years 1939-1945 was desired. The c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n was calculated to be +.7492. Snedecor gives an 'r-value at ifo l e v e l of significance and 58 degrees of freedom as +.325. Since the calculated value i s fa r i n excess of the l e v e l required i t must be considered as s i g n i f i c a n t . This c o r r e l a t i o n value substantiates the obvious deviation from l i n e a r i t y i n the mean counts as seen i n the f i g u r e . I t i s apparent that each race from one year to the next, although subject to the yearly fluctuation,conforms i n general to i t s own range i n rang counts. However the var i a t i o n s from year to year are s u f f i c i e n t l y extensive to make i t impossible to separate the races one from the other i n a homogeneous mass, as would be encountered i n a commercial f i s h e r y , and to predict with any degree of accuracy the r i n g counts of a future year would be out of the question. Segregation of Races by F i r s t Season Rings: On the bases of the. s i m i l a r i t i e s i n r i n g counts and the differences between others the races have been assigned to separate groups. The significance of the differences between races within years was determined by using the t - t e s t . The res u l t s are recorded i n Tables XLIV-LI. Even though the differences between the races within groups may be s i g n i f i c a n t , 27. the differences between the groups themselves are great enough to warrant t h e i r separation. The Stuart Lake, Stellako River, and Weaver Creek races on the strength of the.large numbers of rings present were placed i n a separate group. On the other hand the few rings of the Birkenhead River and Bowron Lake scales, placed them i n a second group. So close were t h e i r r i n g counts that on f i v e of the eight years the differences between Bowron and Birkenhead means were of no s i g n i f i c a n c e . The remaining races varied so markedly that they eit h e r comprised an intermediate group or contributed to one of the above groups. On f i v e of the eight years the Chilko race f a l l s into the group of few rings. In 1940 ,and 1945 the rings were more numerous, placing i t i n the intermediate group,while i n 1943 the count approached that of Weaver Creek and Stuart Lake. The Adams River race i n 1938, 1939, and 1942 has few enough rings to allocate i t to the Birkenhead-Bowron group but i n 1940, 1941, and 1944 the r i n g counts placed i t i n the intermediate group. Owing to the i r r e g u l a r i t y i n the r i n g counts of Cultus Lake and P i t t Lake d i s t r i b u t i o n s i t i s impossible to designate any one group for them. In 1939, 1940, 1942, 1943, and 1944, the counts were so l i k e those of the Birkenhead race that on four of these years the differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t . In 1938 the count rose to 14.28 placing i t i n the intermediate group and i n 1941 and 1945 the count was even higher making 28. i t comparable to that of Stuart Lake. Not only the means, but the entire d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the two races, Birkenhead and Bowron, show on a l l years, nearly complete separation from the Stellako River, Stuart Lake, and Weaver Creek races. D i s t r i b u t i o n of F i r s t Season Rings i n 1916-18: In years 1916-18, Gi l b e r t obtained samples of adult sockeye scales of certa i n races and made comparisons of the numbers of f i r s t season rings. His r e s u l t s are found i n Table LII with the addition of s t a t i s t i c a l measures, mean, standard deviation, and standard error. He noted that Weaver Creek and P i t t Lake races had more rings i n t h e i r n u c l i i than did the Birkenhead race. The year 1916 seemed to be an exceptional year f o r growth. On t h i s year very few rings were noted i n the nucleus f o r each race. Years 1940 and 1944 are cycles of 1916, but counts were not as low on either of these years. However i n 1918 the numbers of rings are more comparable to t h e i r l a t e r cycle years 1938 and 1942. Gilb e r t ' s d i s t r i b u t i o n s give further evidence of the variations i n f i r s t season rings. In general with the ex-ception of the samples i n 1916 the r i n g counts are i n accord with those encountered i n the l a t e r years. 29. Second Season or F i r s t Season Salt Water Rings:, Since i n so many cases, the scales of spawning ground sockeye were heavily absorbed i t was only possible to enumerate the rings up to, and including, the second winter check. The counts of the second season rings i n Tables LIII-LX are those l a i d down i n the f i r s t season i n s a l t water for 4 2 and 5 2 f i s h . In general the second season r i n g counts are more widely di s t r i b u t e d than are the f i r s t season c i r c u l i , giving a greater variance to each d i s t r i b u t i o n . The F-test was again applied to the yearly samples of each race and the r e s u l t s (Tables LXI-LXEX) showed the complete lack of homogeneity i n the variances. I t was therefore inadvisable to apply the analyses of variances to the samples to test f o r homogeneity. With the exception of 1943, 1944 and 1945 the Cultus Lake race has the greatest number of second season rings. The significance of the differences between i t and a l l others may be had i n Tables LXX-LXXVTI. In general the three lower Fraser races, Cultus Lake, Birkenhead River, and Weaver Creek, have deposited more rings i n the second season than have the remaining races. Unlike the lacustrine rings of 4g and 5 2 scales, there i s a greater degree of overlapping i n second season rings between races, and also there i s f a r less v a r i a b i l i t y from year to yeas However, while the differences between means are i n many cases 30. significant, the overlapping i s so great, that to segregate the races i n a mixed population by them alone would be impossible. Association of F i r s t Season and Second Season Rings: During the analysis of f i r s t and second season rings there appeared to be i n some instances association between the ring counts i n the two growth zones. From Table LXXvTII i t i s evident that i n a l l cases the correlation coefficients are not large enough to be significant. Using the data for a l l years grouped together,the correlation between the numbers of f i r s t season and second season rings was only -.097 which again was not significant. For 66 degress of freedom and at 1% level of significance the n r M value re-quired for significance i s -.302. In conclusion no assoc-iation exists between f i r s t and second season rings. Comparison of Numbers of Rings In Yearling and Adult Sockeye  Scales: Scales of yearling migrant and adult sockeye alike were available for the Cultus Lake race only. The numbers of rings in the f i r s t season of growth were counted and their frequency compared with the number of rings obtained from the adult scales of the same brood year(Table LXXEX). With the exception of brood year 1939, the yearling sockeye had on the average greater numbers of rings than did the adult scales. The most noticeable difference occurred when both the yearling and adult scaies had large numbers of rings. If the yearling migrant and adult scales have been 31. randomly sampled, and i t i s f e l t they have, then there should be no discrepancy between counts, unless there has been some p r e f e r e n t i a l mortality or straying on the part of a select portion of the sockeye between the times of t h e i r seaward migration and t h e i r return to Cultus Lake, two and one hal f years l a t e r . The only sel e c t i v e agency known to date which might account for the difference i n r i n g counts between year-l i n g scales and adult scales i s the commercial f i s h i n g gears. The gears which f i s h the Fraser River population are of four, types: f i s h traps, purse seines, reef nets, and g i l l n e t s , a l l of which might have a selective e f f e c t towards sockeye. While the degree of s e l e c t i v i t y of each gear has not been established, i t i s f e l t that the g i l l nets are more e f f e c t i v e i n eliminating c e r t a i n groups from the population than are the other gears. In t h e i r studies of North Sea herring populations Buchanan-Wollaston (1937) and Hodgeson (1927,1933) noted that the s e l e c t i v i t y of d r i f t nets, which are e s s e n t i a l l y l i k e g i l l nets, were much "sharper" than had previously been supposed and that the size of the herrings captured was dependent on the size of the mesh used. I f such were the case f o r the Fraser River population, then the size of the sockeye taken i n the f i s h e r y , and the size of the f i s h escaping to the spawning beds would be lar g e l y determined by the. sizes of the meshes used i n the g i l l net f i s h e r y . Further, while there i s no evidence as yet to substantiate that g i l l nets do 32. s e l e c t i v e l y f i s h the sockeye population as they migrate to the spawning areas, i t i s evident that there i s some agency at work which i s instrumental i n eliminating the sockeye with the largest number of f i r s t season rings. F i r s t Season Ring Counts of Precocious Sockeye: In order to recognize the i n d i v i d u a l races as they pass through the commercial fi s h e r y i t i s necessary to be able to anticipate the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c scale pattern of each race. I t has been outlined previously that due to the yearly v a r i a b i l i t y i n r i n g counts such i s not possible without assistance from another source. An i n d i c a t i o n of the general scale characters of 42 sock-eye may be had from the precocious sockeye of each race. Since these sockeye are of the same brood year as t h e i r 42 k i n , and since t h e i r span of l i f e i n fresh water i s the same then some-what similar numbers of lacustrine rings can be anticipated. This would undoubtedly be of help i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of races i n the commercial f i s h e r i e s since any v a r i a t i o n i n counts of 42 scales would be expected. General Appearance of Fraser River Scales: While the discussion has been devoted to the p e c u l i a r i t i e s i n r i n g counts of each race, the general appearance of the scales and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the rings on the scales are f o r some races of a distinguishing nature. Figures 22-30 show the 33. c h a r a c t e r i s t i c appearance of scales of some of the races. The small nucleus of the Birkenhead River scales i s quite evident (figure 27). In the second season of growth some of the Birken-head River scales have what i s referred to as an a d d i t i o n a l "check". This i s not an annulus but i s a group of c l o s e l y placed rings, so cl o s e l y placed that they may be confused with the annulus. The Adams River race i s another showing these a d d i t i o n a l "checks" (figure 30). A l l the races occasionally have these "checks". The large nuclei and numerous rings on Weaver Creek, Stuart Lake and Stellako River scales can be seen i n figures 25,28 and 22. In contrast to the races with scales bearing fewer rings these c i r c u l i are widely spaced and are not so i r r e g u l a r . Few addit i o n a l "checks" are found i n the second season growth zone. Ring Counts and the Environment: I f the deposition of rings i s a r e s u l t of growth condition, then the conditions are by no means similar throughout the Fraser system within a single year, or within a given area from one year to the next. However i t i s not possible to say whether the r i n g frequency i s e n t i r e l y the r e s u l t of the environment, only c a r e f u l l y controlled experiments can supply the answer to t h i s question. In studying the r e l a t i o n of the sockeye population to i t s environment, i t must not be overlooked that the population 34. i t s e l f forms part of i t s own environment and that i t s size may * affect the general b i o l o g i c a l balance of the lake and thus the environment. Certain growth conditions must be f u l f i l l e d i n . order that sockeye i n a lake may survive and reach a suitable size before migrating seawards. The sockeye population fluctuates i n numbers and i f there i s not a corresponding f l u c t u a t i o n i n the growth producing ingredients i n the lake then growth of the sockeye themselves i n e v i t a b l y v a r i e s . Xn Table LXXX i s given the average number of rings i n the nuclear area and the number of yearling migrants. On apply-ing a c o r r e l a t i o n to these two variables, a value of -.932 was obtained, .05>P>.01. The c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n (-.932) being closer to the 1% l e v e l than the 5% l e v e l indicates that about only three cases out of a hundred would a value of t h i s dimension be obtained by chance alone, and therefore may be considered to be s i g n i f i c a n t . In general then a reasonably close negative relationship exists between the number of f i r s t season rings and the size of the lacustrine y e a r l i n g population. Ma t e r i a l from other races i s not available to show i f t h i s holds f o r them too. I f i t were and confirmed the findings f o r the Cultus lake f i s h , then scale rings might act as an index of population size. Summary: 1. Three scale characters were considered of possible value i n the recognition of the sockeye races i n the Fraser 35. r i v e r . They were numbers of annuli (age), numbers of f i r s t season lacustrine and f i r s t season s a l t water c i r c u l i , and general appearance of the scales. 2. The analyses of the scales f o r age showed that the bulk of the races were composed predominantly of one-year-in-lake type sockeye. The Harrison r i v e r race was the only one where the bulk of the f i s h migrate d i r e c t l y to sea a f t e r emerging from the gravel. Varying numbers of ye a r l i n g sockeye i n the Birkenhead r i v e r , Cultus lake, and Chilko lake races remain an ad d i t i o n a l year i n the lake and migrate seawards i n t h e i r t h i r d year. These two-year-in-lake sockeye usually returned i n t h e i r f i f t h year to spawn. The P i t t r i v e r race i s unique i n that i t i s composed almost e n t i r e l y of 5 2 sockeye, a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c not noted for any other race. 3. That there was considerable f l u c t u a t i o n i n r i n g counts fo r each race has been f u l l y emphasized. However t h i s yearly v a r i a b i l i t y i s i t s e l f a feature of each i n d i v i d u a l race and i n general each race maintains i t s own c h a r a c t e r i s t i c range i n r i n g counts. 4. The v a r i a b i l i t y may be atrributed to.such causes as 1. yearly variations i n environmental conditions i n the lake and i n the sea; 2. i n f l u x of numbers of 52 f i s h into the sample; 3. s e l e c t i v i t y of commercial f i s h i n g gear. I t would appear from the discussion on the relationship between size of yearling migrant populations and numbers of f i r s t season rings that the environmental conditions may be to a large degree the 36. cause f o r the yearly v a r i a b i l i t y . However, how much the r e -maining two factors enter i n can only be determined by further study of a d d i t i o n a l spawning ground and commercial f i s h e r y scale samples. 5. While there was considerable overlapping between the races i n numbers of f i r s t season rings the Stellako River, Stuart Lake, and Weaver Creek populations had the greatest number, whereas the Birkenhead River, Bowron Lake, and Chilko Lake had the least number of rings. The differences i n second season rings were not so marked. 6. No clear-cut segregation of the races can be had by using a single scale character alone, or even by employing a combination of a l l the scale features namely: number of rings, age, spacing of rings and annul!, and presence of accessory checks. Separation i n the commercial f i s h e r y would be an impossible task without employing i n addition to scales, features such as time of migration, g i l l raker and p y l o r i c caeca counts and others. Furthermore, even i f a method fo r the recognition of the races on the spawning grounds i s found, i t s t i l l remains to be shown whether the spawning ground samples are comparable to those of the f i s h e r y . Acknowledgments; This study was carr i e d out at the laboratory of the International P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission, and the author wishes to express h i s appreciation and thanks to Mr.' B. M. Brennan, d i r e c t o r of the Salmon Commission, f o r the f a c i l i t i e s and material placed at h i s disposal. The writer also wishes to express his indebtedness to Dr. R. Van Cleve and Dr. W. A. Clemens f o r t h e i r supervision and c r i t i c i s m of the methods used. To the members of the s t a f f of the Salmon Commission who assisted i n the many aspects of the r a c i a l work, and to Miss Ninette Wesson who so kindly typed t h i s paper I wish to express my appreciation. References Buchanan - Wollaston, H. J . On the selective action of a trawl net with some remarks on selective action of d r i f t nets. Con. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer., Jour, du Cons., 2(3), 343-355, 1927. Buchanan - Wollaston, H. J. Some modern s t a t i s t i c a l methods; t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n to the solution of herring race problems. With a forward by R. A. Fisher. Con. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer., Jour, du Cons., 8(1), 7-47, 1933. Clemens, W. A. and Clemens, L. S. Contributions to the l i f e h i s t o r y of the sockeye salmon. Rep. Commiss. F i s h . B. C. for the years 1925-1937. Dunlop. H. A. The growth-rate of the scales i n the sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Contr. Canad. B i o l . , N. S., Vol. I I , No. 10, 151-160, 1924. Fisher, R. A. S t a t i s t i c a l methods f o r research workers. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and London, 1934. Fraser, C. McLean Growth rate i n the P a c i f i c salmon. Trans. Roy. Soc.Can., Fraser, C. McLean. Series I I I , Vol. XIII, 163-226, 1919. Gi l b e r t , C. H. Age at maturity of the P a c i f i c coast salmon of genus oncorhynchus. B u l l . U. S. Bur. F i s h . , Vol. XXXII, 1912 (1914), 1-22, 1913. G i l b e r t , C. H. Contributions to the l i f e history of the sockeye salmon. No's 1-10, Rep. Commiss. F i s h . , B. C., f o r the years 1913-1925, 1914-1926. Gi l b e r t , C. H. and Rich, W. H. Investigations concerning the red-salmon runs to the Karluk r i v e r , Alask. B u l l . U. S. Bur. F i s h . , V o l . XLIII, Part I I , 1927. Hodge son, W. C. Preliminary note on experiments concerning the selective action of d r i f t nets. Con. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer., Jour, du Cons., 2(3), 356-360, 1927. Hodgeson, W. C. Further experiments on the selective action of commercial d r i f t nets. Con. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer., Jour, du Cons., 8(3), 344-356, 1933. Hoffbauer. C. Die Altersbestimmung des Karpfen an seiner Schuppe. Hoffbauer, C. Allgemeine Fischerei-Zeitung, Jahrgang XXIII, Nr. 19, October 1, Art. I l l , 341-343, 1898. McGregor, E. A. Notes on the egg y i e l d of Sacramento r i v e r king salmon. C a l i f . F i s h . Game, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1923. McGregor, E. A. A possible separation of the r i v e r races of king salmon. C a l i f . F i s h . Game, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1923. Pritchard, A. L. Counts of g i l l rakers and p y l o r i c caeca i n pink salmon. Jour. F i s h . Res. Bd. Can., Vol. VI, No. 5, 1945. Rounsefell, G. A. and Dahlgren, E. H. Races of herring, Clupea p a l a s i i , i n southeastern Alaska. B u l l . U. S. Bur. F i s h . , 48(17), 119-141, 1935. Schaefer, M. B. Contributions to the l i f e - h i s t o r y of the surf smelt, Hypomesus preteosus, i n Puget Sound. Wash. State Dept. F i s h . B i o l . Rept., No. 35B, 1936. Snedecor, G. W. S t a t i s t i c a l methods. Iowa State College press, 1946. Thompson, W. F, A contribution to the l i f e - h i s t o r y of the P a c i f i c herring: i t s bearing on the condition and future of the fi s h e r y . Rep. Commiss. F i s h . B. C , f o r year ending Dec. 31, 1916, 1917. Van Oosten, J . The whitefishes (Coregonus clupeaformis). A study of the scales of whitefishes of known ages. Zoologica, V o l . I I , No. 17, June 19, 1923. Van Oosten, J . L i f e history of the lake herring (Leucichthys a r t e d i , Le Sueur) of Lake Huron as revealed by i t s scales, with a Critique of the scale method** B u l l . Bur. F i s h . V o l . XLTV, 1928. Walter. E. Die Altersbestimmung des Karpfens noch der Schuppe. In Knauthe, Die Karpfenzucht, p.p. 88-122 Neudamm, 1901. Table I R e l a t i v e Numbers Of Sea Type, One-Year-In-Lake Type And Two - Ye a r s- In -Lake Type Sockeye, F r a s e r River ', 19 38 - 1945 Sea Type One-Year- i n - Two-Years-in- Total L o c a l i t y Year $ Lake Type Lake Type fo Specimens Cultus Lake 1938 98.8 1.2 89 19 39 99 .0 1.0 106 1940 98.5 1.5 499 1941 83.4 16.6 157 1942 98.9 1.1 295 1943 99.3 0.7 164 1944 99.1 0.9 115 1945 97.4 2.6 79 Weaver Creek 1938 100. 97 1939 100. 50 1940 100. 88 1941. 100. 102 • 1942 100. 103 1943 100. 108 1944 100. 91 1945 100. 104 Birkenhead 19 38 80.9 19.1 21 Riv e r 1939 94.5 5.5 201 1940 82,9 17.1 363 1941 93.9 6.1 164 1942 95.1 4.9 104 1943 98.1 1.9 106 1944 92.9 7.1 114 1945 98.0 2.0 152 Locality-Table I (cont'd) R e l a t i v e Numbers Of Sea Type, One-Year-In-Lake Type And Two-Years-In-Lake Type Sockeye, E r a s e r R i v e r , 1938 - 1945 Sea Type One-Year-in- Two-Years-in- To t a l Year 1° Lake Type fo Lake Type fo Spec imens Ha r r i s o n R i v e r 1941 1942 74.6 95 .6 25 .4 4.4 71 92 P i t t R i v e r 1938 1940 1941 1942 1943 1945 97.9 99.1 100. 100. 100. 100. 2.1 0.9 48 115 96 68 43 147 C h i l k o Lake 19 38 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 75 .2 96.7 100. 100. 92.4 95 .8 99.2 94.9 24.8 3.3 7.6 4.2 0.8 5.1 93 92 103 84 93 73 141 99 Adams R i v e r 1938 19 39 1940 1942 1943 1944 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 219 95 89 109 247 100 Stuart Lake 1938 19 39 1940 100. 100. 100. 197 87 69 Table I (cont'd) R e l a t i v e Numbers Of Sea Type, -One-Year-In-Lake Type And Two-Years-In-Lake Type Sockeye, Fr a s e r R i v e r , 1938 - 1945 Sea Type One-Year-in- Two-Years-in- Total L o c a l i t y Year fo Lake Type fo Lake Type fo Specimens Stu a r t Lake (cont'd) Bowron Lake S t e l l a k o R i v e r 1941 100. 206 1942 100. 193 1943 100. 40 1944 100. 47 1945 100. 215 1938 100. 22 1939 100. 102 1940 97.8 2.2 47 1941 100. 85 1942 100. 108 1943 100. 193 1944 100. 36 1945 100. 44 1938 100. 99 1939 100. 96 1940 100. 90 1941 100. 104 1942 100. 142 1943 100. 339 1944 100. 108 1945 100. 77 Table II Age Composition Of Fraser River Populations As Determined From Scales 1938 - 1945 Total D i s t r i c t Year 4 1 3 2 4 2 5 2 62 5 3 6 3 Number Cultus Lake 1939 99.5 .5 205 1940 98.6 1.4 512 1941 84.7 15.3 170 1944 98.9 1.1 98 1945 32.25 61.29 6.45 124 Birkenhead 1938 4.3 63.6 9.0 18.1 4.3 22 River 1939 0.4 87.1 6.8 5.3 204 1940 68.3 6.2 26.4 272 1941 15.1 72.1 6.5 5.3 169 1942 95.0 5.0 101 1943 98.0 2.0 102 1944 24.8 40.1 29.5 4.1 8.2 169 1945 93.4 4.5 2.1 153 P i t t River 1940 89.6 9.4 116 1941 65 .0 35 .0 97 1945 26.1 73.1 .8 150 Chilko River 1943 95.5 4.5 68 1944 97.0 2.1 .7 137 1945 78.3 21.6 83 Stuart Lake 1941 100. 424 1942 100. 356 1943 57.8 42.2 19 1944 100. 10 1945 100. 284 Stellako 1942 100. 356 River 1943 92.6 7.2 250 1944 63.4 36.5 41 1945 9.43 83.0 7.5 53 Bowron Lake 1940 98.7 1.3 78 1941 100. 85 1942 100. 112 1943 97.6 2.4 43 1944 44.4 45 .6 9 1945 77.2 22.7 44 Table I I I Number of 52 Sockeye And Number of Spawners In Certain Races Of The Fraser River Number of 5 2 Sockeye .Size of Present At Spawning Spawning Grounds Race Year Population fo Bow r on 1941 1,050 0 1942 1,646 0 1943 6,215 2.4 1944 1,700 45.6 Stuart Lake 1941 4,250 0 1942 5,193 0 1943 2,550 42.2 Stellako River 1942 48,064 0 1943 9,142 7.2 1944 3,294 36.5 Chilko Lake 1943 13,546 0 1944 328,655 2.1 1945 186,337 21.6 Birkenhead 1941 46,500 6.5 River 1942 87,116 0 1943 50,668 0 1944 57,707 29.5 L o c a l i t y Table IV - Age Composition As Determined By F i e l d Observers Year Precocious Sockeye fo Remaining Age Groups fo Cultus Lake 1938 32.7 67.3 1940 0.7 99.3 1941 20.9 79.1 1943 1.6 98.4 1944 1.4 98.6 Birkenhead River 1939 0 100. 1940 9.4 90.6 1941 39.4 61.6 1942 1.3 98.7 1943 3.4 96.6 1944 40.2 . 59.8 Weaver Creek 1941 100. 1942 100. 1943 0.4 99.6 1944 0.2 99.8 P i t t River 1938 100. 1940 100. 1941 100. 1942 100. Chilko Lake 1938 100. 1939 55.0 45.0 1940 1.3 • 98.7 1941 100. 1942 100. 1943 7.0 93.0 1944 0.1 99.9 Locality-Table IV (cont'd) -Year Age Composition As Determined By F i e l d Observers Precocious Sockeye fo Remaining Age Groups fo Adams River Stuart Lake Bowron Lake 1939 100. 1940 41.9 48.2 1942 100. 1943 100. 1944 98.9 1938 100. 1940 70.3 29.7 1941 0.3 99.7 1942 0.3 99.7 1943 100. 1938 100. 1939 100. 1940 0.5 99.5 1941 100. 1943 100. 1944 100. Table V Comparison Of C i r c u l i Counts Along Radius A And Radius B As Seen In Figure 2 Number of Radius A Radius B Rings Left Right 6 1 7 0 1 8 2 2 9 2 1 10 0 2 11 1 2 12 6 2 13 2 4 14 4 4 15 4 3 16 3 4 17 4 4 18 3 3 19 2 5 20 2 1 21 6 1 22 1 3 23 4 5 24 0 0 25 2 2 26 0 0 27 1 0 28 1 Total 50 50 Mean 16.60 16.64 S.D. 4.4 4.6 S.E. .622 .650 S.E.D. .89 T .044 P .01 Table VI Average F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts For Sex Using P i t t River 5g Scales Only Number of 1941 1945 Rings M. F. M. F. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i 13 14 1 15 2 2 16 2 2 1 17 2 3 1 3 18 3 3 1 9 19 2 2 6 5 20 0 2 7 16 21 1 1 9 5 22 1 6 11 23 4 4 24 5- 5 25 4 26 1 27 2 28 29 30 Number 13 16 39 76 Mean 17.76 17.50 21.07 20.95 S.D. 1.90 2.04 1.70 2.36 .352 .311 Table VII Comparison of F i r s t Season Ring Counts of 3g, 4g and 5g Sockeye Taken i n a Single Year's Sample Birkenhead Birkenhead Birkenhead Birkenhead P i t t P i t t Chilko Stellako 1938 1940 1941 1944 1941 1945 1945 1943 No. of Rings 4g 5g 4g 5g 3g 5g 4g 3g 4g . 5g 4g 5g 4g 5g 4g 5g 4g 5. 6 1 1 1 7 3 2 2 2 0 0 1 8 1 2 8 1 1 1 2 1 ' -9 6 3 7 0 3 3 1 1 3 5 10 3 4 9 2 2 2 6 2 4 2 2 1 11 3 3 8 3 3 1 1 5 7 6 4 2 12 4 3 7 3 5 1 3 2 2 3 2 5 4 13 6 4 9 1 1 0 1 5 8 8 0 12 3 14 3 1 7 2 8 1 1 8 10 9 1 10 2 15 2 1 6 0 1 1 2 2 12 6 2 6 11 2 16 3 1 5 1 2 2 1 2 4 3 4 1 2 12 1 1 17 2 0 1 6 5 2 2 5 0 4 6 1 0 18 3 0 0 3 1 3 0 6 3 11 2 4 0 19 0 2 4 1 1 2 4 2 11 7 1 20 0 * 0 2 2 2 10 22 21 7 21 2 1 2 5 2 5 14 20 3 22 1 0 1 6 16 16 2 23 0 1 . 7 8 13 3 24 0 1 10 13 25 1 2 4 3 1 5 2 26 Number" 34 25 75 17 26" I I 26 42 55 ^ 5 T? ~33 31? 105 63 15 103 T? Mean 11.52 10,76 12.24 12.11 12.30 10.27 13.11 15.1113.5613.08 18.7017.1221.08 20.92 14.28 12.86 21.62 20.64 S. D. 2.7 2.4 3.20 3.41 2.2 2.4 4.04 3.61 2.38 2.68 2.46.2.35 1.99 2.34 1*90 1.65 2.06 1.67 S. E. .46 .48 ,372 .831 .44 .72 .808 .562 .321 .368 5.85 *451 .314 .199 .239 .434 .203 .403 t 1.15 _ .14 2.41 ,2.67 .. 2.46 1.00 2,16 .43 2.89 . 2.33 Table VIII Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Adult Cultus Lake Sockeye, 1938 - 1945 No. of-Rings 1938 1959 1940 1941 1942 • 1945 1944 1945 5 6 7 3 8 2 1 6 9 0 1 13 10 . 2 4 25 11 7 8 28 12 7 15 90 13 10 20 87 14 16 22 95 15 19 22 56 16 12 ' 10 47 17 5 0 26 18 8 1 12 19 0 4 20 1 21 22 23 24 • 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 17 19 2 4 39 4 2 8 31 9 1 14 21 14 4 26 17 15 0 51 3 20 1 2 55 4 7 4 6 50 5 16 7 13 37 1 12 6 21 23 1 7 8 17 14 1 3 10 18 8 2 3 10 16 2 1 2 13 11 10 9 3 8 4 3 1 No. 88 105 492 131 292 163 114 77 Mean 14.28 13.53 13.44 17.43 13.39 9.09 12.47 17.54 S.D. 2.23 1.87 2.20 2.88 1.98 2.47 2.66 2.54 S.E. .2405 .1825 .0996 .2518 .1162 .1941 .2500 .2894 Table IX. Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Adult Weaver Creek Sockeye, 1938 - 1945 No. of Rings 1938 1959 1940 1941 1942 1945 1944 1945 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 2 1 13 1 2 3 0 4 2 14 3 2 3 3 11 7 4 2 15 3 7 7 5 14 11 11 3 16 12 4 16 7 17 17 14 12 17 17 12 12 6 19 13 15 11 18 16 12 14 9 12 13 9 19 19 18 6 12 14 3 18 9 21 20 11 2 6 13 6 11 8 11 21 11 2 7 13 8 7 10 7 22 . 4 0 11 1 5 3 7 23 2 3 6 4 5 1 3 24 3 7 1 1 1 25 0 2 2 4 26 1 2 1 27 1 28 1 29 1 30 1 No. 97 50 Mean 18.40 16.98 S.D. 2.03 2.05 S.E. .2061 .2899 88 102 101 17.84 20.15 17.24 2.74 3.40 2.90 .2930 .3371 .2874 108 91 104 17.92 17.49 18.70 2.46 2.63 2.59 .2373 .2757 .2547 Table X Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Adult Birkenhead Sockeye, ' 1938 - 1945 No. of ttngs 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 19 4J 5 6 5 1 2 7 7 14 4 9 1 8 8 16 26 10 2 12 1 19 9 3 11 26 16 3 16 8 26 10 2 20 28 21 5 28 6 24 11 1 13 32 23 13 £0 14 12 12 2 15 29 17 21 6 6 15 13 4 21 37 5 15 3 17 17 14 0 14 23 13 12 8 17 5 15 2 6 20 5 15 1 18 7 16 1 21 17 10 2 6 6 17 ' 1 13 11 4 7 7 1 18 1 15 12 3 3 4 2 19 5 10 8 0 1 4 20 6 6 5 1 21 1 7 3 22 1 3 4 23 2 24 1 25 26 27 28 29 30 No. 17 190 301 154 99 104 106 149 Mean 12.64 13.01 12.69 12.96 13.26 10.06 13.28 10.91 S.D. 2.74 3.79 3.64 4.08 2.59 1.94 2.54 2.92 S.E. .6640 .2749 .2098 .3292 .2592 .1932 .2472 .2396 Table XI Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Rin^ I Counts of Adult P i t t River Sockeye, 1938 - 1945 No. of C i r c u l i 1938 1940 1941 1942 1943 1945 5 6 7 1 8 1 9 5 10 14 2 11 4 18 1 1 7 IE 6 21 2 4 6 13 8 14 2 5 2 14 8 17 4 9 3 1 15 7 11 15 9 7 1 16 3 9 10 15 2 3 17 3 3 9 9 5 4 18 6 1 15 5 4 14 19 0 11 5 3 14 20 1 6 2 1 33 21 0 18 3 0 18 22 1 1 1 0 23 23 2 0 15 24 1 10 25 6 26 1 27 2 28 1 29 1 30 No. 47 114 96 68 43 147 Mean 14.59 12.63 17.70 16.00 14.69 20.94 S.D. 2.47 2.16 2.65 2.40 2.53 2.50 S.E. .3632 .1660 .2707 .2910 .1534 .2062 Table 211 Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Adult Chilko River Sockeye, 1938 - 1945 No. of C i r c u l i 19 38 1939 1940 1941 1942. 1943 1944 1945 5 6 7 1 8 1 2 6 1 1 9 1 4 2 3 5 1 3 10 3 4 4 1 7 3 6 3 11 20 9 5 14 12 0 29 6 12 10 12 9 13 11 1 28 14 13 10 20 18 19 13 6 25 19 14 7 13 21 17 6 3 31 12 15 6 10 19 5 5 6 12 14 16 1 9 11 7 7 7 2 13 17 5 2 9 0 2 5 1 7 18 1 2 4 0 1 3 1 2 19 2 2 1 0 5 4 0 2 20 2 0 1 4 8 1 1 21 1 0 2 1 11 0 22 1 1 1 7 1 23 1 24 1 25 1 26 27 28 29 30 Number 70 89 103 84 85 70 140 94 Mean 13.38 13.40 14.46 13.05 13.19 17.42 12.68 14.17 S*D.- 2.88 2.43 2.07 2.31 • 3.43 4.04 1.78 2.27 S.E.- .3447 .2576 .2045 .2529 .3705 .4839 .1504 .2342 Table XIII Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of A d u l t Adams R i v e r Sockeye, 1938 - 1945 No. of C i r c u l i 1938 1939 1940 1942 1943 1944 5 6 7 5 8 1 1 10 9 12 1 9 6 1 10 26 4 2 18 6 1 11 41 10 3 16 8 3 12 52 21 7 17 24 7 13 36 18 9 14 31 13 14 23 21 14 7 49 19 15 13 12 10 5 58 19 16 7 4 15 2 34 15 17 4 1 12 3 11 13 18 3 0 11 1 6 4 19 1 2 3 0 3 4 20 1 1 6 1 21 1 0 3 22 1 0 23 2 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 No. 219 95 89 109 247 100 Mean 12.27 13.11 15.22 11.50 14.46 14.85 S.D. 1.96 1.85 2.33 2.74 2.36 2.10 S.E. .1324 .1902 .2469 .2628 .1504 .2125 Table XIV Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of A d u l t Bowron Lake Sockeye, 1938 - 1945 No. of C i r c u l i 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IS 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 138 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 194E 1 1 2 3 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 3 19 3 10 0 2 2 1 3 23 5 12 3 7 4 3 4 22 12 18 14 17 6 5 4 18 5 20 25 21 7 13 1 7 8 10 16 43 5 .' 9 4 1 1 8 25 42 6 6 0 1 3 2 13 19 4 3 1 0 3 3 6 26 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 10 1 2 0 1 1 No. 22 102 46 85 108 193 36 44 Mean' 12.77 11.70 12.36 12.56 14.23 14.69 13.47 13.56 S.D. 2.26' 1.97 2.42 -1.84 1.84 2.02 1.89 1.81 S.E. ' .4810 .1953 .3570 .2001 .1773 .1461 .3150 .2737 Table XV Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Adult Stuart Lake Sockeye, 1938 - 1945 No. of C i r c u l i 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 11 1 0 12 7 1 13 11 7 1 14 34 5 7 6 3 1 15 34 8 1 13 15 1 4 2 16 39 14 8 29 17 1 5 11 17 33 15 13 35 24 3 10 15 18 20 19 10 29 34 8 - 7 22 19 11 16 16 32 29 10 6 52 20 5 5 11 27 36 3 3 41 21 2 2 5 15 19 11 3 34 22 1 3 6 9 2 4 14 23 1 2 3 2 1 2 15 24 1 1 0 2 25 1 5 26 1 27 28 29 30 No. 197 87 69 206 193 40 47 215 Mean 15.83 17.54 18.62 17.83 18.45 19.35 18.06 19.74 S.D. 1.93 1.93 1.83 2.35 2.16 1.73 2.40 2.09 S.E. .1375 .2069 .2204 .1637 .1555 .2748 .3509 .1425 Table XVI Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Adult Stellako River Sockeye, 1938 - 1945 No. of C i r c u l i 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 12 2 0 13 1 5 14 8 7 2 15 7 7 1 16 16 20 8 17 27 13 11 18 15 14 16 19 11 14 20 20 5 8 13 21 3 4 6 22 3 0 6 23 - 1 3 24 1 3 25 1 26 27 28 29 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 2 6 1 2 2 1 6 23 4 3 2 18 28 14 9 2 9 21 32 6 14 25 24 62 18 9 13 16 58 12 16 11 14 51 17 15 9 4 58 18 7 1 3 31 11 5 0 2 10 7 2 0 10 3 . 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 No. 99 96 90 Mean 17.05 17.08 20.00 S.D. 2.12 2.40 2.22 S.E. ..2160 .2449 .2349 104 142 339 108 77 19.66 19.28 21.52 21.44 20.-74 2.55 2.11 2.21 2.49 2.37 .2501 .1778 .1200 .2403 .2700 Table ZV1I Comparison of the Variances, s i 2 and S2 2 of Cultus Lake F i r s t Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 F. Years of Variance Number in Sample At Levels Comparison S]_2 s g 2 nj_ n 2 F Zfo 1( 1938 - 1939 4.97 1940 4.97 1941 8.29 1942 4.97 1943 6.10 1944 7.07 1945 6.45 1939 - 1940 4.84 1941 8.29 1942 3.92 1943 6.10 1944 7.07 1945 6.45 1940 - 1941 8.29 1942 4.84 1943 6.10 1944 7.07 1945 6.45 1941 - 1942 8.29 1943 8.29 1944 8.29 1945 8.29 1942 - 1943 6.10 1944 7.07 1945 6.45 1943 - 1944 7.07 1945 6.45 *1944 - 1945 7.07 3.49 88 105 4.84 88 492 4.97 131 88 3.92 88 292 4.97 163 88 4.97 114 88 4.97 77 88 3.49 492 105 3.49 131 105 3.49 292 105 3.49 163 105 3.49 114 105 3.49 77 105 4.84 131 492 3.92 492 292 4.84 163 492 4.84 114 492 4.84 77 492 3.92 131 292 6.10 131 163 7.07 131 114 6.45 131 77 3.92 163 292 3.92 114 292 3.92 77 292 6.10 114 163 6.10 77 163 6.45 114 77 1.42 1.59 1.39 1.03 1.42 1.28 1.66 1.65 1.42* 1.27 1.48 1.32 1.22 1.57 1.38 1.42 1.65 1.42 1.29 1.69 1.45 1.37 1.46 1.30 2.36 1.59 1.39* 1.11 1.51 1.34 1.73 1.51 1.34* 2.02 1.59 1.39* 1.85 1.64 1.42* 1.72 1.42 1.28* 1.23 1.33 1.22 1.26 1.32 1.22 1.47 1.42 1.28* 1.34 1.47 1.32 2.12 1.48 1.32* 1.36 1.51 1.34 1.17 1.54 1.36 1.27 1.65 1.42 1.56 1.39 1.26* 1.81 1.48 1.32* 1.66 1.53 1.35* 1.16 1.51 1.34 1.06 1.56 1.37 1.09 1.65 1.42 Samples not drawn from populations of common variance Table XVIII Comparison of the Variances, s i 2 and S2 2 of Weaver Creek F i r s t Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 F Years of Variance Number in Sample At Levels Comparison s x2 s 22 n l n2 F 2$ lOfo 1938 - 1939 4.20 4.12 50 97 1.03 1.73 1.48* 1940 7.50 4.12 80 97 1.82 1.64 1.42* 1941 11.56 4.12 102 97 2.80 1.59 1.39* 1942 8.41 4.12 101 97 2.03 1.59 1.39* 1943 6.05 4.12 108 97 1.46 1.59 1.39* 1944 6.91 4.12 91 97 1.70 1.59 1.39* 1945 6.70 4.12 104 97 1.62 1.59 1.39* 1939 - 1940 7.50 4.20 88 50 1.77 1.82 1.52* 1941 11.56 4.20 102 50 2.72 1.82 1.52* 1942 8.41 4.20 101 50 1.98 1.82 1.52* 1943 6.05 4.20 108 50 1.42 1.82 1.52 1944 6.91 4.20 91 50 1.65 1.82 1.52* 1945 6.70 4.20 104 50 1.57 1.82 1.52* 1940 - 1941 11.56 7.50 102 88 1.53 1.65 1.42* 1942 8.41 7.50 101 . 88 1.11 1.65 1.42 1943 7.50 6.05 88 108 1.24 1.59 1.39 1944 7.50 6.91 88 91 1.07 1.59 1.39 1945 7.50 6.70 88 104 1.12 1.59 1.39 1941 - 1942 11.56 8.41 102 101 1.37 1.59 1.39 1943 11.56 6.05 102 108 1.91 1.59 1.39* 1944 11.56 6.91 102 91 1.64 1.59 1.39* 1945 11.56 6.70 102 104 1.72 1.59 1.39* 1942 - 1943 8.41 6.05 101 108 1.39 1.59 1.39 1944 8.41 6.91 101 91 1.19 1.59 1.39 1945 8.41 6.70 101 104 1.25 1.59 1.39 1943 - 1944 6.91 6.05 91 108 1.16 1.59 1.39 1945 6.70 6.05 104 108 1.10 1.59 1.39 1944 - 1945 6.91 6.70 91 104 1.04 1.59 1.39 *Samples not drawn from populations of common variance Table XIX Comparison of the Variances, s i 2 and s g 2 of Birkenhead River F i r s t Season Ring Counts, 1938 - 1945 F Years Of Variance Number in Sample At Levels Comparison si* SZ* n i &2 F 2fo, 10$ 1938 - 1939 14.36 7.50 190 17 1.81 2.70 1.99 1940 13.24 7.50 301 17 1.66 2.70 1.99 1941 16-. 64 7.50 154 17 2.10 2.70 1.99* 1942 7.50 6.70 17 99 1.17 2.19 1.25 1943 3.76 7 -.50 104 17 2.09 2.76 2.02* 1944 7.50 6.45 17 106 1.22 2.76 2.02 1945 8.52 7.50 149 17 1.07 2.76 2.02 1939 - 1940 14.36 13.24 190 301 1.08 1.39 1.26 1941 16.64 14.36 154 190 1.16 1.39 1.26 1942 14.36 6.70 190 99 2.13 1.51 1.34* 1943 14.36 3.76 190 104 3.80 1.51 1.34* 1944 14.36 6.45 190 106 2.21 1.51 1.34* 1945 14.36 8.52 190 149 1.68 1.43 1.29 1940 - 1941 16.64 13.24 154 301 1.26 1.43 1.29 1942 13.24 6.70 301 99 1.96 1.51 1.34* 1943 13.24 3*76 301 104 3.49 1.51 1.34* 1944 13.24 6.45 301 106 2.04 1.51 1.34* 1945 13.24 8.52 301 149 1.54 1.43 1.29* 1941 - 1942 16.64 6.70 154 99 2.47 1.51 1.34* 1943 16.64 3.76 154 104 4.40 1.51 1.34* 1944 16.64 6.45 154 106 2.57 1.51 1.34* 1945 16.64 8.52 154 149 1.95 1.43 1.29* 1942 - 1943 6.70 3.76 99 104 1.78 1.59 1.39* 1944 6.70 6.45 99 106 1.04 1.59 1.39 1945 8.52 6.70 149 99 1.26 1.59 1.39 1943 - 1944 6.45 3.76 106 104 1.71 1.59 1.39* 1945 8.52 3.76 149 104 2.25 1.59 1.39* 1944 - 1945 8.52 6.45 149 106 1.31 1.59 1.39 * Samples not drawn from populations of common variance. Table XX Comparison of the Variances, s i ^ and S2 of P i t t River F i r s t Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 F Years of Variance Number in Sample At Levels Comparison s i 2 S2,2 n i n2 F Zfo 10fo 1938 - 1940 6.10 4.66 47 114 1.32 1.68 1.45 1941 7.02 6.10 96 47 1.13 1.86 1.54 1942 6.10 5.76 47 68 1.06 1.82 1.53 1943 6.40 6.10 43 47 1.05 2.04 1.65 1945 6.24 6.10 147 47 1.00 1.72 1.47 1940 - 1941 7.02 4.66 96 114 1.50 1.59 1.39* 1942 5.76 4.66 68 114 1.24 1.64 1.42 1943 6.40 4.-66 43 114 1.39 l.*79 1.51 1945 6.25 4.66 147 114 1.-33 1.59 1.39 1941 - 1942 7.02 5.76 96 68 1.21 1.69 1.45 1943 7.02 6.40 96 43 1.45 1.79 1.51 1945 7.02 6.25 96 147 1.12 1.51 1.34 1942 - 1943 6.40 5.76 43 68 1.12 1.88 1.56 1945 6.25 5.76 147 68 1.07 1.62 1.40 1943 - 1945 10.24 6.25 43 147 1.04 1.22 1.47 Samples not drawn from populations of common variance. Table XXI Comparison of the Variances, S]2 and sg2, of C h i l k o Lake F i r s t Season Ring Counts, 19 38 - 1945 F Years of Comparison Variance s l 2 s 2 2 Number n i i n Sample n 2 F At L e v e l s 2$ lOfo 19 38 - 1939 8.29 5.90 70 89 1.40 1.70 1.45 1940 8.29 4.28 70 103 1.94 1.64 1.42* 1941 8.29 5.33 70 84 1.55 1.70 1.45* 1942 11.76 8.29 85 70 1.41 1.74 1.47 1943 16.32 8.29 70 70 1.90 1.74 1.47* 1944 8.29 3.16 70 140 2.63 1.56 1.37* 1945 8.29 5.15 70 94 1.61 1.64 1.42* 1939 - 1940 5.90 4.28 89 103 1.38 1.59 1.39 1941 5 .90 5 .33 89 84 1.10 T.65 1.42* 1942 11.76 5 .90 85 89 1.90 1.65 1-.42* 1943 16.32 5.90 70 89 2.77 1.69 1.45* 1944 5 .90 3.16 89 140 1.87 1.51 1.34* 1945 5.90 5.15 89 94 1.14 1.65 1.42 1940 - 1941 5 .33 4.28 84 103 1.24 1.65 1-. 42 1942 11.76 4.28 85 103 2.75 1.65 1.42* 1943 16.32 4.28 70 103 3.82 1.64 1.42* 1944 4.28 3.16 103 140 1.35 1.51 1.34 1945 5.15 4.28 94 103 1.20 1.59 1.39 1941 - 1942 11.76 5.33 85 84 2.20 1.70 1.45* 1943 16.32 5 .33 70 84 3.06 1.70 1.45* 1944 5.33 3.16 84 140 1.69 1.65 1.42 1945 5.33 5.15 84 94 1.03 1.64 1.42 1942 - 1943 16.32 11.76 70 85 1.39 1.70 1.45 1944 11.76 3.16 85 140 3.73 1.65 1.42* 1945 11.76 5.15 85 94 2.28 1.65 1.42* 1943 - 1944 16.32 3.16 70 • 140 5.18 1.56 1.37* 1945 16.32 5.15 70 94 3.17 1.64 1.42* 1944 - 1945 5.15 3.16 94 140 1.63 1.57 1.34* * Samples not drawn from populations of common'variance. Table XXII Comparison of the Variances, sj_2 and. sg2 of Adams R i v e r F i r s t Season Ring Counts, ' 1938 - 1944 F Years of Variance_ Number i n Sample A t Le v e l s Comparison s i 2 s g 2 n i ng F 2$ lOfo 1938 - 1939 3.84 3.-42- 219 95 1.08 1.-51 1.-34 1940 5 .42 3.-84 89 219 1.42 1.-48 1 .-32* 1942 7.-50 3.-84 109 219 1.96 1.48 1.32* 1943 5.56 3.-84 247 219 1.44 1.-39 1.-26* 1944 4.41 3.84 100. 219 1.15 1.48 1.32 1939 - 1940 5.42 3.42 89 95 1.53 1.65 1.42* 1942 7.50 3.-42 109 95 2.12 1.59 1 .-39* 1943 5 .56 3.-42 247 95 1.56 1.48 1.32* 1944 4.41 3.-42 100 95 1.24 1.5 9 1.-39 1940 - 1942 7.50 5 .42 109 89 1.38 1.59 1.39 1943 5.56 5.42 247 89 1.01 1.-57 1.-38 1944 5.-42 4.-41 89 100 1.23 1.65 1.-42 1942 - 1943 7.5 0 5 .-56 109 247 1.35 1.51 1.34* 1944 7.50 4.-41 109 100 1.7-0 1.59 1.39* 1943 - 1944 5 .-56 4.41 247 100 1.25 1.-48 1.32 Samples not drawn from populations of common va r i a n c e . Table X X I I I Comparison of the Variances, Sj2 and SQ2 of S t u a r t Lake F i r s t Season Ring Counts, 1938 - 1945 F Years of Variance^ Number i n Sample At L e v e l s Comparison S]_2 s g 2 nj_ ng F 2 $ 10$ 19 38 - 1939 3 . 7 2 3 . 7 2 197 87 1 . 0 0 1 . 5 1 1 . 3 4 1940 3 . 7 2 3 . 3 4 197 69 1 . 1 0 1 . 6 2 1 . 4 0 1941 5 . 5 2 3 . 7 2 206 197 1 . 4 8 1 . 3 9 1 . 2 6 * 1942 4 . 6 6 3 . 7 2 193 197 1 . 2 5 1 . 3 9 1 . 2 6 1943 3 . 7 2 2 . 9 9 197 40 1".21 1 . 6 9 r . 4 5 1944 5'. 76 3*. 72 47 197 1 . 5 7 1 . 6 2 r . 5 2 1945 4 . 36 3 . 7 2 215 197 1 . 1 7 1 . 3 9 1 . 2 6 19 39 - 1940 3 . 7 2 3 . 3 4 87 69 1 . 1 0 1 . 6 9 1 . 4 5 1941 5 . 5 2 3 . 7 2 206 87 1 . 4 7 1 . 4 8 1 . 3 2 * 1942 4 . 6 6 3 . 7 2 193 87 1 . 2 4 1 . 4 8 1". 32 1 9 4 3 3 . 7 2 2 . 9 9 87 40 1 . 2 2 1 . 9 4 1 . 5 9 1944 5 . 7 6 3'. 72 47 87 1 . 5 6 1 . 7 8 1 . 5 1 * 1945 4 . 3 6 3 . 7 2 215 87 1 . 1 6 1 . 5 7 1 . 3 8 1940 - 1941 5 . 5 2 3 . 3 4 206 69 1 . 6 3 1 . 6 2 1 . 4 0 * 1942 4 . 6 6 3 . 3 4 193 69 1 . 3 7 1 . 6 2 r . 4 0 1943 3 . 3 4 2 . 9 9 69 40 1 . 1 0 1 . 9 7 1 . 6 1 1944 5 .76 3 . 34 47 69 1 . 7 3 1 . 8 2 1 . 5 3 * 1945 4 . 3 6 3 . 3 4 215 69 1 . 2 9 1 . 6 2 1 . 4 0 1941 - 1942 5 . 5 2 4 . 6 6 206 193 1 . 1 8 1 . 3 9 1 . 2 6 1943 5 . 5 2 2 . 9 9 206 40 1 . 8 0 1 . 8 8 1 . 5 5 * 1944 5 . 7 6 5 . 5 2 47 206 1 . 0 6 1 . 6 2 1 . 4 2 1945 5 . 5 2 4 . 3 6 206 215 1 . 2 6 1 . 3 9 1 . 2 6 1942 - 1943 4 . 6 6 2 . 9 9 193 40 1 . 5 2 1 . 8 8 1 . 5 5 1944 5 . 7 6 4 . 6 6 47 193 1 . 2 5 1 . 6 2 1 . 4 2 1945 4 . 6 6 4 . 3 6 1 9 3 215 1 . 0 6 1 . 3 9 1 . 2 6 1943 - 1944 5 . 7 6 2 . 9 9 47 40 1 . 9 1 2 . 0 5 1 . 6 6 * 1945 4 . 3 6 2 . 9 9 215 40 1 . 4 2 1 . 8 8 1 . 5 5 1944 - 1945 5 . 7 6 4 . 3 6 47 215 1 . 3 4 1 . 6 2 1 . 4 2 * Samples not drawn from populations of common var i a n c e . Table XXIV Comparison of the Variances, s i 2 and sg 2 of Bowron Lake F i r s t Season Ring Counts, ' 1938 - 1945 F Years of Variance Number in Sample At Levels Comparison s i 2 sg 2 n i ng. F [Zfo XOfo 1938 - 1939 5 .10 3.88 22 102 1.36 2.06 1.68 1940 5.85 5.10 46 22 1.11 2.53 1.91 1941 5 .10 3.38 22 85 1.56 2.11 1.70 1942 5.10 3.38 22 108 1.56 2.06 1.68 1943 5.10 4.08 22 193 1.30 1.97 1.62 1944 5 .10 3.57 22 36 1.45 2.43 1.87 1945 5.10 3.27 22 44 1.59 2.32 1.81 1939 - 1940 5.85 3.88 46 102 1.52 1.73 1.48* 1941 3.88 3.38 102 85 1.14 1.65 1.42 1942 3.88 3.38 102 108 1.14 1.59 1.39 1943 4.08 3.88 193 102 1.04 1.51 1.34 1944 3.88 3.57 102 36 1.06 2.00 1.62 1945 3.88 3.27 102 44 1.16 1.88 1.56 1940 - 1941 5 .85 3.38 46 85 1.16 1.78 1.51 1942 5.85 3.38 46 108 1.75 1.73 1.48* 1943 5 .85 4.08 46 193 1.45 1.62 1.42 1944 5.85 3.57 46 36 1.08 3 • 1S 1.69 1945 5 .85 3.27 46 44 1.78 2.00 1.63* 1941 - 1942 3.38 3.38 85 108 1.00 1.64 1.42 1943 4.08 3.38 193 85 1.19 1.57 1.38 1944 3.57 3.38 36 85 1.07 2.04 1.65 1945 3.38 3.27 85 44 1.02 1.84 1.54 1942 - 1943 4.08 3.38 193 108 1.20 1.51 1.34 1944 3.57 3.38 36 108 1.07 1.79 1.51 1945 3.38 3.27 108 .44 1.01 1.79 1.51 1943 - 1944 4.08 3.57 193 36 1.11 1.94 1.59 1945 4.08 3.27 193 44 1.22 1.82 1.52 1944 - 1945 3.57 3.27 36 44 1.09 2.06 1.66 *Samples not drawn from populations of common variance. Table XXV Comparison of the Variances, s i 2 and s 2 2 of S t e l l a k o R i v e r F i r s t Season Ring Counts, 19 38 - 1945 F Years of Variance Number i n Sample At L e v e l s Comparison s i 2 S2 n i n2 F 2$ 10$ 1938 - 1939 5.76 4.49 96 99 1.28 1.59 1.39 1940 4.92 4.49 90 99 1.09 1.59 1.39 1941 6.50 4.49 104 99 1.44 1.59 1.39* 1942 4.49 4.45 99 142 1.01 1.51 1.34 1943 4.88 4.49 339 99 1.07 1.46 1.30 1944 6.20 4.49 108 99 1.37 1.59 1.39 1945 5.61 4.49 77 99 1.25 1.65 1.42 19 39 - 1940 5.76 4.92 96 90 1.16 1.59 1.39 1941 6.50 5.76 104 96 1.12 1.59 1.39 1942 5.76 4.45 96 142 1.29 1.51 1.34 1943 5.76 4.88 96 339 1.18 1.42 1.28 1944 6.20 5.76 108 96 1.07 1.59 1.39 1945 5.76 5.61 96 77 1.02 1.65 1.42 1940 - 1941 6.50 4.92 104 90 1.31 1.59 1.39 1942 4.92 4.45 90 142 1.11 1.51 1.34 1943 4.92 4.88 90 339 1.01 1.42 1.28 1944 6 .20 4.92 108 90 1.25 1.59 1.39 1945 5.61 4.92 77 90 1.14 1.64 1.42 1941 - 1942 6.50 4.45 104 142 1.46 1.51 1.34* 1943 6.50 4.88 104 339 1.34 1.42 1.28* 1944 6.50 6.20 104 108 1.04 1.59 1.39 1945 6.50 5.61 104 77 1.15 1.65 1.42 1942 - 1943 4.88 4.45 339 142 1.11 1.37 1.25 1944 6.20 4.45 108 142 1.39 1.51 1.34* 1945 5.61 4.45 77 142 1.26 1.56 1.37 1943 - 1944 6.20 4.88 108 339 1.27 1.42 1.28 1945 5.61 4.88 77 339 1.16 1.47 1.32 1944 - 1945 6.20 5.61 108 77 1.09 1.65 1.42 * Samples not drawn from populations of common variance Table XXVI Significance of Differences in Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - Cultus Lake > 1938 - 1945 Difference Standard ErrorDivided by-Years Total Difference of Difference Standard E r r o r Compared Specimens Between MeansBetwe:en Means of Dif f erence(t) 1938 - 1939 193 0.75 .3018 2.48* 1940 580 0.84 .2601 3.22 1941 219 3.15 .3478 9.15 1942 380 0.89 .2670 3.25 1943 251 5.19 .3090 16.79 1944 202 1.81 .3464 5.22 1945 165 3.26 .3755 8.68 1939 - 1940 597 0.09 .2078 0.43* 1941 236 3.90 .3109 12.54 1942 397 0.14 .2163 0.64* 1943 268 4.44 .2662' 16.67 1944 219 1.06 .3095 3.42 1945 182 4.01 .3420 11.72 1940 - 1941 623 3.99 .2707 14.73 1942 784 0.05 .1529 0.32* 1943 655 4.35 .2188 19.88 1944 606 0.97 .2690 3.60 1945 569 4.10 .3054 13.42 1941 - 1942 423 4.04 .2773 14.56 1943 294 8.34 .3178 26.24 1944 245 4.96 .3535 14.03 1945 208 0.11 38.34 0.28* 1942 - 1943 454 4.30 .2260 19.02 1944 406 0.92 .2756 3.33 1945 369 4.15 .3117 13.31 1943 - 1944 277 3.38 .3178 10.68 1945 240 8.45 .3478 24.29 1944 - 1945 191 5.07 .3821 13.26 * Of no significance Table XXVII Significance of Differences in Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - Weaver Creek 1938 - 1945 Difference Difference Standard Error Divided by-Years Total Between of. Dif f erence Standard Error Compared Specimens Means Between Means of Difference(t) 1938-1939 147 1.42 .3549 4.00 1940 185 0.56 .3577 1.56* 1941 199 1.75 .3949 4.43 1942 198 1.16 .3535 3.28 1943 205 0.48 .3141 1.52* 1944 188 0.91 .3435 2 . 6 4 0 1945 201 0.30 .3271 0.91* 1939-1940 138 0.86 .4111 2.09* 1941 152 3.17 .4438 7.14 1942 151 0.26 .4074 0.63* 1943 158 0.94 .3741 2.51* 1944 141 0.51 .4000 1.27* 1945 154 1.72 .3847 4.47 1940-1941 190 2.31 .4460 5.17 1942 189 0.60 .4098 1.46* 1943 196 0.08 .3768 0.21* 1944 179 0.35 .4012 0.87* 1945 192 0.86 .3873 2.22* 1941-1942 203 2.91 .4427 6.57 1943 210 2 .23 .4110 5.42 1944 193 2.66 .4347 6.11 1945 206 1.45 .4219 3.43 1942-1943 209 •> 0.68 .3714 1.83* 1944 192 0.25 .3974 0.62* 1945 205 1.46 .3834 3.80 1943-1944 199 0.43 .3633 1.18* 1945 212 0.78 .3478 2.24* 1944-1945 195 . 1.21 .3741 3.23 * Of no significance o Of doubtful significance Table 2X7III Significance of Differences in Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - Birkenhead. River 1938 - 1945 Difference Difference Standard. Error Divided by-Years Total Between of Difference Standard Error , Compared Specimens Means Between Means of. Difference t •1939 207 0.49 .7183 0.68* 1940 318 0.17 .6957 0.24* 1941 171 0.44 .7409 0.59* 1942 116 0.74 .7127 1.03* 1943 121 2.46 .6913 3.55 1944 123 0.76 .7085 1.07* 1945 166 1.61 .7056 2.28* •1940 491 0.32 .3449 0.92* 1941 344 0.05 .4278 0.11* 1942 299 0.25 .3768' 0.66* 1943 294 2.95 .3346 8.81 1944 296 0.27 .3687 0.73* 1945 339 2.10 .3633 5.78 •1941 455 0.27 .3898 0.69* 1942 400 0.57 .3331 0.17* 1943 405 2.63 .2851 9.22 1944 407 0.59 .3240 1.82* 1945 450 1.78 .3178 5.56 •1942 253 0.30 .4183 .71* 1943 259 2.90 .3807 7.61 1944 260 0.32 .4111 0.77* 1945 303 2.05 .4062 5.04 •1943 203 3.20 .3224 9.92 1944 205 0.02 .3577 0.55* 1945 248 2.35 .3521 6.67 •1944 210 3.22 .3136 10.26 1945 253 0.85 .3077 2.76 •1945 255 2.37 .3435 6.89 * Of no significance Table XZIX Significance of Differences in Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - P i t t River 1938 - 1945 Difference Difference Standard Error Divided by-Years Total Between • of Difference Standard Error Compared Specimens Means . Between Means of Difference t •1940 161 1.96 .3987 4.91 1941 143 3.11 .4527 6.86 1942 115 1.41 .4647 3.04 1943 90 0.10 .3937 .25: 1945 194 6.35 .4171 15.22 •1941 210 5.07 .-3162 16.03 1942 182 3.37 .3346 10.07 1943 157 2.06 .2258 9.12 1945 261 8.31 .2645 31.14 •1942 164 1.70 .3962 4.29 1943 139 - 3.01 .3111 9.67 1945 243 3.24 .3391 9.55 •1943 111 1.31 .3286 3.98 1945 215 4.94 .3563 13.86 •1945 190 6.25 .2569 24.32 * Of no significance Table XXX Significance of Differences i n Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - Chilko Lake 1938 - 1945 Difference Difference Standard Error Divided by-Years Total Between of Difference Standard E r r o r Compared Specimens Means Between Means of Difference t 1938-1939 159 0.02 .4301 0.46* 1940 173 1.08 ,4000 2.70° 1941 154 0.33 .4266 0.77* 1942 155 0.19 .5059 0.37* 1943 140 4.04 .5930 6.81 1944 210 0.70 .3755 1.86* 1945 164 0.79 .4159 1.89* 1939-1940 192 1.06 .3286 3.22 1941 173 0.35 .3605 0.97* 1942 174 0.21 .4505 0.46* 1943 159 4.02 .5477 7.33 1944 229 0.72 .2981 2.41* 1945 183 0.77 .3478 2.21* 1940-1941 . 187 1.41 .3240 4.35 1942 188 1.27 .4230 3.00 1943 173 2.96 .5244 5.64 1944 243 1.78 .2537 7.01 1945 197 0.29 .3108 0.93* 1941-1942 169 0.14 .4483 0.31* 1943 154 4.37 .5458 8.00 1944 224 0.37 .2941 1.25* 1945 178 1.12 .3435 3.26 1942-1943 155 4.23 .6082 6.95 1944 225 0.51 .3987 1.27* 1945 179 0.98 .4381 2.23* 1943-1944 210 4.74 .5059 9.36 1945 164 3.25 ,5375 6.04 1944-1945 234 1.49 .2782 5 .35 * Of no significance o Of doubtful significance Table XXXI Significance of Differences i n Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - Adams River 1938 - 1945 Years Total Compared Specimens Difference Difference Standard Error Divided by-Be tween of Difference Standard E r r o r Means Between Means of Difference t •1939 314 0.84 .2317 3.62 1940 308 2.95 .2806 10.51 1942 328 0.77 .2941 2.61o 1943 466 2.19 .2002' 10.93 1944 319 2.58 .2502 10.31 •1940 184 2.11 .3116 6.77 1942 204 1.61 .3240 4.96 1943 342 1.35 .2422 5.57 1944 195 1.74 .2851 6.10 1942 198 3.72 .3605 10.31 1943 336 0.76 .2889 2.63o 1944 189 0.37 .3255 1.13* •1943 356 2.96 .3026 9.78 1944 209 3.35 .3376 9.92 •1944 347 0.39 .2601 1.49* * No significance o Doubtful significance Table XXXII Significance of Differences i n Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - Stuart Lake 1938 - 1945 Difference Difference Standard E r r o r Divided by-Years Total Between of Difference Standard Error Compared Specimens Means Between Means of Difference t 1938-1939 284 1.71 .2483 6.88 1940 266 2.79 .2596 10.74 1941 403 2.00 .2134 9.37 1942 390 2.62 .2126 12.32 1943 237 3.52 .3072 11.45 1944 244 2.23 .3768 5.91 1945 412 3.91 .1979 19.75 1939-1940 156 1.08 .3021 3.57 1941 293 0.29 .2638 1.09* 1942 280 0.91 .2586 3.51 1943 127 1.81 .3435 5 .26 1944 134 0.52 .4062 1.28* 1945 302 2.20 .2510 8.76 1940-1941 275 0.79 .2744 2.87 1942 262 0.17 .2696 0.6S* 1943 109 0.73 .3521 2.07* 1944 116 0.56 .4135 1.35* 1945 284 1.12 .2623 4.26 1941-1942 399 0.62 .2256 2.74 1943 246 1.52 .3193 4.76 1944 253 0.23 .3860 5.95 1945 421 1.91 .2170 8.80 1942-1943 233 0.90 .3155 2.83 1944 240 0.35 .3834 0.90* 1945 408 1.29 .2107 6.12 1943-1944 87 1.29 .4427 2.91 1945 255 0.39 .3095 1.26* 1944-1945 262 1.68 .3781 4.44 * Of no significance Table 22ZIII Significance of Differences i n Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - Bowron Lake 1938 - 1945 Difference Difference Standard. Error Divided by Years Total Between of Difference Standard E r r o r Compared Specimens Means Between Means of Difference t 1938-1939 124 1.07 .5186 2.06* 1940 68 0.41 .5983 0.68* 1941 107 0.21 .5205 0.40* 1942 130 1.46 .5118 2.85 1943 215 1.92 .5020 3.82 1944 58 0.70 .5744 1.21* 1945 66 0.79 .5531 1.42* 1939-1940 148 0.66 .4062 1.62* 1941 187 0.86 .5794 3.07 1942 210 2.53 .2636 9.59' 1943 295 2.99 .2437 12.26 1944 138 1.77 .3701 4.78 1945 146 1.86 .3361 5.53 1940-1941 131 0.20 .4086 0.48* 1942 154 1.87 .'3974 4.70 1943 239 2.33 .3847 6.05 1944 82 1.11 .4753 2.33* 1945 90 1.20 .4494 2 . 6 7 0 1941-1942 193 1.67 .2672 6.25 1943 278 2.13 .2475 8.60 1944 121 0.91 .3728 2.44* 1945 129 1.00 .3376 2.96 1942-1943 301 0.46 .2295 2.00* 1944 144 0.76 .3605 2.10* 1945 152 0.67 .3255 2.05* 1943-1944 228 1.22 .3464 3.52 1945 237 1.13 .3101 3.64 1944-1945 80 0.09 .4171' 0.21* * Of no significance o Of doubtful significance Table XXXIV S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - S t e l l a k o R i v e r 1938 - 1945 D i f f e r e n c e D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r D i v i d e d by-Years Total Between of D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r Compared Specimens Means Between Means of D i f f e r e n c e t 1938-1939 195 0.03 .3255 0.09* 1940 189 2.95 .3178 9.28 1941 203 2.61 .3301 7.90 1942 241 2.23 • .2796 7.97 1943 438 4.47 .2469 18.10 1944 207 4.39 .3224 13.61 1945 176 3.69 .3449 10.69 1939-1940 186 2.92 .3391 8.61 1941 200 2.58 .3492 7.38 1942 238 2.20 .3024 7.27 1943 435 4.44 .2725 16.29 1944 204 • 4.36 .3420 12.74 1945 173 3.66 .3633 10.07 1940-1941 194 0.34 .3405 0.99* 1942 232 0.72 .2944 2.44* 1943 429 1.52 .2636 5.76 1944 • 198 1.44 .3346 4.30 1945 167 0.74 .3577 2.06* 1941-1942 246 0.38 .3067 1.23* 1943 443 1.86 .2773 6.70 1944 212 1.78 .3464 5 .13 1945 181 1.08 .3674 2.93 1942-1943 481 2.24 .2144 10.44 1944 250 2.16 .2988 7.22 1945 219 1.46 .3224 4.52 1943-1944 447 . 0.08 .2685 0.29* 1945 416 0.78 .2954 2.64o 1944-1945 185 0.70 .3605 1.94* * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e o Of do u b t f u l s i g n i f i c a n c e Table XXXV Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale i Ring Counts of F r a s e r River Sockeye Races. 1938 No. of Cultus Weaver Bi r k e n - P i t t C h i l k o Adams St u a r t Bowron St ell-C i r c u l i Lake Creek • head R. Lake Lake Riv e r Lake Riv e r akoR. 8 2 1 9 0 3 1 12 1 10 2 2 3 26 3 11 7 1 4 20 41 1 3 1 IE 7 2 6 10 52 7 4 2 13 10 4 8 10 36 11 4 1 14 16 3 0 8 7 23 34 1 8 15 19 3 7 6 13 34 4 7 16 12 12 . 1 3 1 7 39 0 16 17 5 17 1 3 5 4 33 1 27 18 8 16 1 6 1 3 20 1 15 19 18 0 2 1 11 11 20 11 1 2 5 5 21 11 0 . 1 2 3 22 4 1 1 i 23 2 Number 88 97 17 47 70 219 197 22 99 Mean 14.28 18.40 12.64 14.59 13.38 12.27 15 .83 12.77 17.05 S. D. 2.23 2.03 2.74 2.47 2.88 1.96 1.93 2.26 2.12 S. E. .2405 .2061 .6640 .3632 .3447 .1324 .1375 .4810 .2160 Table XXXVI Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts Fraser River Sockeye Races, 1939 Birken-No. of Cultus Weaver head Chilko Adams . Stuart Bowron Stellako C i r c u l i Lake Creek River Lake River Lake Lake River 6 5 7 7 1 8 1 16 1 1 2 9 1 11 4 1 5 10 4 20 4 4 19. 11 8 1 13 9 10 23 2 12 15 1 15 12 21 22 0 13 20 1 21 20 18 18 5 14 22 2 14 13 21 5 7 7 15 22 7 6 10 12 8 1 7 16 10 4 21 9 4 14 1 20 17 0 12 13 2 1 15 0 13 18 1 12 15 2 0 19 1 14 19 0 6 5 2 2 16 2 14 20 1 2 6 0 5 8 21 2 1 0 2 4 22 1 1 1 0 23 •1 -1 24 - 1 1 Number 105 50 190 89 95 87 102 96 Mean 13.53 16.98 13.01 13.40 13.11 17.54 11.70 17.08 S. D. 1.87 2.05 3.79 2.43' 1.85 1.93 1.97 2.40 S. E. .1825 .2899 .2749 .2576 .1902 .2069 .1953 .2449 Table XXXVII Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts Fraser River Sockeye Races, 1940 Birken- S t e l l -No. of Cultus Weaver head P i t t Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron ako C i r c u l i Lake Creek River River Lake River Lake Lake River 7 3 14 1 1 8 6 26 0 3 9 13 26 5 2 2 10 25 28 14 4 2 3 11 28 1 32 18 5 3 5 12 90 1 29 21 9 7 12 13 87 2 37 14 18 9 5 14 95 3 23 17 21 14 8 2 15 56 7 20 11 19 10 1 1 1 16 47 16 17 9 11 15 8 3 8 17 26 12 11 3 9 12 13 3 11 18 12 14 12 1 4 12 10 16 19 4 12 10 1 3 16 20 20 6 6 1 11 13 21 7 7 1 5 6 22 0 3 • 3 6 23 3 2 3 24 3 3 25 0 1 26 1 Number 492 88 301 •114 103 89 69, 46 90 Mean 13.44 17.84 12.69 12.63 14.46 15.22 18.62 12.36 19.00 S. D. 2.20 2.74 3.64 2.16 2.07 2.33 1.83 2.42 2.22 S. -E. .0996 .2930 .2098 .1660 .2045 .2469 .2204 .3570 .2349 Table XXXVIII Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts Fraser River Sockeye Races, 1941 Birken-No. of Cultus Weaver head P i t t Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako C i r c u l i Lake Creek River River Lake Lake Lake River 7 4 8 10 2 1 9 2 16 3 1 10 1 21 1 1 10 11 4 23 1 14 0 12 12 0 17 2 13 1 18 2 13 2 5 2 19 7 20 0 14 6 3 13 4 17 7 10 1 15 13 5 5 15 5 13 8 1 16 21 7 10 10 7 29 2 6 17 17 6 4 9 0 35 3 6 18 18 9 3 15 0 29 18 19 16 14 8 11 0 32 9 20 11 13 5 6 1 ' 27 25 21 9 13 3 18 2 15 13 22 8 11 4 1 6 11 23 3 6 2 2 3 9 24 7 1 1 1 25 2 0 26 2 0 27 1 1 28 1 1 29 1 30 1 Number 131 102 154 96 ' 84 206 85 ' 104 Mean 17.43 20.15 12.96 17'7.Q 13'§f_ 12 * S§ ^ ' l i ^ ' E l .2529 .1&37 .2001 .2501 Table XXXIX Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts Fraser River Sockeye Races, 1942 Birken- S t e l l -No. of Cultus Weaver head P i t t Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron ako C i r c u l i Lake Creek River River Lake River Lake Lake Rive: 7 5 8 4 2 6 10 9 8 3 5 9 1 10 14 5 7 18 0 11 26 13 1 12 16 3 12 51 1 21 4 11 17 14 13 55 3 15 5 13 14 1 25 14 50 11 12 9 6 7 6 16 15 37 14 15 9 5 5 15 25 6 16 23 17 2 15 7 2 17 13 1 17 14 19 7 9 2 3 24 6 23 18 8 12 3 5 1 1 34 3 28 19 2 3 0 5 5 0 29 • 1 21 20 6 1 2 4 1 36 1 24 21 8 3 1 0 19 16 22 1 1 1 1 9 14 23 4 2 4 24 1 0 3 25 2 1 2 26 1 Number 292 103 99 - 68 86 109 193 108 142° Mean 13.39 17.24 13.26 16.00 13.19 11.50 18.45 14.23 19.28 S. D. 1.98 2.90 2.59 2.40 3.43 2.74 2.26 1.84 2.11 S. E. .1160 .2874 .2592 .2910 .3705 .2628 .1624 .1773 .1778 Table XL Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts Fraser River Sockeye Races, 1943 Birken- S t e l l -No. of Cultus Weaver head P i t t Chilko Adams Stuart ako C i r c u l i Lake Creek River River Lake River Lake BowronR.River 5 1 6 17 1 7 19 9 1 8 ' 39 12 1 9 31 16 1 6 1 10 21 28 2 3 6 2 11 17 20 7 0 8 7 12 3 1 6 6 1 24 17 13 4 0 3 2 6 31 21 1 14 5 7 8 3 3 49 43 0 15 1 11 1 7 6 58 1 42 1 16 1 17 2 7 34 1 19 2 17 1 13 5 5 11 3 26 4 18 2 13 4 3 6 8 10 14 19 1 18 3 4 3 10 1 32 20 11 1 8 6 3 2 62 21 7 0 11 3 11 1 58 22 5 0 7 0 2 1 51 23 5 0 1 2 1 . 58 24 1 1 31 25 1 10 26 10 27 2 28 1 29 193 2 Number 163 108 104 43 70 247 40 ' 339 Mean 9.09 17.92 10.06 14.69 17.42 14.46 19.35 14.69 21.52 S. D. 2.47 2.46 1.94 2.53 4.04 2.36 1.73 2.02 2.21 S.E. .1941 .2373 .1932 .3892 .4839 .1504 .2748 .1461 .1200 Table ZLI Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts Fraser River Sockeye Races, 1944 Birken-No. of Cultus Weaver head Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako C i r c u l i Lake Creek River Lake River Lake Lake River 7 2 1 8 4 1 1 9 9 8 3 1 10 14 6 6 1 2 11 15 14 29 3 4 12 20 2 6 28 7 6 13 7 4 17 25 13 7 1 14 16 4 17 31 19 3 5 0 15 12 11 18 12 19 4 6 0 16 7 14 6 2 15 5 4 2 17 3 15 7 1 13 10 2 3 18 3 9 4 1 4 7 9 19 2 9 1 0 4 6 6 20 8 1 1 3 18 21 10 3 12 22 3 4 17 23 1 2 18 24 1 11 25 7 26 3 27 1 Number 114 91 106 140 100 47 36 108 Mean 12.47 17.49 13.28 12.68 14.85 18.06 13.47 21 S. D. 2.66 2.63 2.54 1.78 2.10 2.40 1.89 2 S. E. .2500 .2757 .2472 .1504 .2125 .3509 .3150 .24< Table XLII Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts Fraser River Sockeye Races, 1945 Birken-No. of Cultus Weaver Head P i t t Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako C i r c u l i Lake Creek River River Lake Lake Lake River 6 2 7 9 8 19 9 26 1 10 24 3 1 11 12 6 3 12 1 1 15 14 5 1 13 4 2 17 19 13 0 14 7 2 5 1 12 1 9 0 15 6 3 7 1 14 2 6 2 16 8 12 6 3 13 11 3 1 17 10 11 1 4 7 15 2 2 18 10 19 2 14 2 22 1 2 19 13 21 4 14 2 52 14 20 10 11 33 1. 41 9 ' 21 3 7 18 0 34 16 22 4 7 23 1 14 15 23 1 3 15 15 7 24 1 10 2 5 25 4 6 5 2 26 1 1 1 27 2 28 1 29 1 Number 77 104 149 147 94 215 44 77 Mean 17.54 18.70 10.91 20.94 14.17 19.74 13.56 20.74 S. D. 2.54 2.59 2.92 2.50 2.27 2.09 1.81 2.37 S. E. .2894 .2547 .2396 .2062 .2342 .1425 .2737 .2700 Table XLIII Correlation Between Annual Changes i n Ring Counts of Fraser River Races r at Vf0 Years of Pairs of Degrees of C o e f f i c i e n t Level of Comparison Means Freedom of Correlation Significance 1938 - 1939 8 6 +.6706 .765 1940 9 7 +.7683 .735 1941 8 6 +.9089 .765 1942 9 7 +.8543 .735 1943 9 7 +.6951 .735 1944 8 6 f.8356 .765 1945 8 6 +.7461 .765 1939 - 1940 8 6 +.9424 .765 1941 7 5 +.8703 .798 1942 8 6 +.8959 .765 1943 8 6 +.7090 .765 1944 8 6 +.8595 .765 1945 7 5 +.7155 .798 1940 - 1941 8 6 +.7076 .765 1942 9 7 +.7487 .735 1943 9 7 +.8096 .735 1944 8 6 +.9424 .765 1945 7 5 +.5968 . .798 1941 - 1942 8 6 +.7820 .765 1943 8 6 +.4439 .765 1944 7 5 +.7636 .798 1945 8 6 +.8886 .765 1942 - 1943 8 6 f.7330 .765 1944 8 6 +.8869 .765 1945 8 6 +.7856 .765 1943 - 1944 8 6 +.8657 .765 1945 8 6 +.5365 .765 1944 - 1945 7 5 +.7892 .798 Table XLIV Comparison of F i r s t Tear Scale Ring Counts of Fraser River Races, 1938 Difference S.E. of Races No. i n Between Difference Compared Sample Means Between Means t Cultus Birkenhead 103 1.62 .7056 2.29* Weaver 111 4.40 .3162 13.09 Chilko 156 0.88 .4197 2.09* Adams ' 305 1.99 .8670 2.29* Stuart 279 1.57 .2769 5.66 Bowron 107 1.49 .1700 2.77* Stellako 185 £.79 .3231 8.63 Birkenhead Weaver 114 5.76 .6949 8.28 Chilko 87 0.74 .7476 0.98* Adams 236 0.37 .6767 0.54* Stuart 210 3.19 .6775 4.70 Bowron 38 .13 .8197 .15* Stellako 116 4.41 .6978 6.31 Weaver Chilko 167 5.0£ .41£5 1£.16 Adams 316 5.13 .7752 6.61' Stuart 290 2.57 .2475 10.38 Bowron 118 5.63 .5224 10.77 Stellako 196 1.35 .2985 4.52 Chilko 3.01 Adams 289 1.11 .3687 Stuart 263 2.45 .3701 6.61 Bowron 91 0.61 .5916 1.03* Stellako 169 3.67 ,4062 9.03 Adams 18.66 Stuart 412 3.56 .1907 Bowron 240 0.50 .4985 1.00* Stellako 318 4.78 .8006 5.97 Stuart • 6.12 Bowron 214 3.06 .5000 Stellako 292 1.22 .2559 4.76 Bowron 8.11 Stellako 120 4.28 .5272 * Of no significance or approaching s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table XLV Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Fraser River Races, 1939 S.E. of Difference Races No. i n Difference Between Compared Sample Between Means Means t Cultus Birkenhead 295 0.52 .3286 1.58* Weaver 155 3.45 .1173 10.08 Chilko 194 0.13 .3155 0.41* Adams 200 0.42 .2634 1.59* Stuart 192 4.01 .2758 14.53 Bowron 207 1.83 .2672 6.84 Stellako 201 3.55 .3056 11.61 Birkenhead Weaver 240 3.97 .3987 9.97 Chilko 279 0.39 .3768 10.35 Adams 285 0.10 .3331 0.30* Stuart 277 4.53 .3435 13.18 Bowron 292 1.31 .3361 3.89 Stellako 286 4.07 .3674 11.07 Weaver Chilko 139 3.58 .3873 9.24 Adams 145 3.87 .3464 11.17 Stuart 137 0.56 .3549 15.77 Bowron 152 5.28 .3492 5.12 Stellako 146 0.10 .3794 .26* Chilko .90* Adams 184 0.29 .3209 Stuart 176 4.14 .3301 12.54 Bowron 191 5.73 .3224 • 17.77 Stellako 185 3.68 .3459 10.63 Adams Stuart 182 4.43 .2808 15.77 Bowron 197 1.41 .2725 5.17 Stellako 191 3.97 .3100 12.80 Stuart Bowron 189 5.84 .2844 20.53 Stellako 183 0.46 .3193 1.44* Bowron Stellako 198 5.38 .3132 17.77 * Of no si g n i f i c a n c e . Table XLVT Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Fraser River Races, 1940 S. E. of Difference Difference Races No. i n Between Between Compared Sample Means Means t Cultus Birkenhead 792 0.75 .2321 3.231 Weaver 579 4.40 .3093 14-. 225 P i t t 605 1.81 .1933 9.363 Chilko 594 0.81 .2273 3.565 Adams 579 1.82 .2660 6.642 Stuart 560 5.15 .2416 21.317 Bowron 537 1.08 . 3704 2.915 Stellako 581 6.56 . 2551 25.71 Birkenhead Weaver 389 5.15 .3591 14.34 P i t t 415 • 0.06 .2675 0-. 22* Chilko 404 1.42 .2929 4.84 Adams 389 . 2.57 .3224 7.97 'Stuart 370 5.93 .3041. 19.50 Bowron 347 0.33 .4171 0.79* Stellako 391 7.31 .3148 23.22 Weaver P i t t 202 5.21 .3361 15.50 Chilko 191 3.73 .3563 10.46 Adams 176 2.58 .3834 6-. 7 2 Stuart 157 0.78 .3660 2.13* Bowron 134 5.48 .4615 11.87 Stellako 178 2.16 .3755 5.75 P i t t Chilko 217 1.48 . 2632 5.62 Adams 202 2.63 .2974 8.84 Stuart 183 5.99 .2758 21.71 Bowron 160 0.27 .3937 0-. 68* Stellako 204 7.37 .2875 25.63 Chilko Adams 191 1.15 .3193 3.60 Stuart 172 4.51 .3005 15.00 Bowron 149 1.75 .4111 4.25 Stellako 193 5.89 .3112 18.92 Adams Stuart 157 3.36 .3301 10.17 Bowron 134 2.90 .4339 6.68 Stellako 178 4.74 .3405 13.92 Table XLVT Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Fraser River Races, 1940 Races Compared No. i n Sample Difference Between Means S.E. of Difference Between Means Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako 115 159 136 6.26 1.38 7.64 .4195 .3209 .4266 14.92 4.30 17.90 Of no significance or of doubtful s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table XLvTI Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Fraser River Races, 1941 S. E. of Difference Difference Races No. i n Between Between Compared Sample Means Means t Cultus Birkenhead 285 4.47 .4135 10.810 Weaver 233 2.72 .4207 6.46 P i t t 227 0.27 .3687 0.73* Chilko 215 4.38 .3563 12.29 Bowron 216 4.87 .3209 15.17 Stellako 235 2.23 .3535 6.31 Stuart 337 0.40 .3003 1.33* Birkenhead Weaver 256 7.19 .4711 15.26 P i t t 150 4.74 .4254 11.14 Chilko 238 0.09 .4147 0.21* Bowron , 239 0.40 .3847 1.03* Stellako 258 6.70 .4135 16.20 Stuart 360 4.87 .3674 13.25 Weaver P i t t 198 2.45 .4312 5.68 Chilko 186 7.10 .4207 16.87 Bowron 187 7.59 .3911 19.40 Stellako 206 0.49 .4195 1.16* Stuart 308 2.32 .3741 6.20 P i t t Chilko 180 4.65 .3701 12.56 Bowron 181 5.14 .3361 15.29 . Stellako 200 1.96 .3374 5.33' Stuart 302 0.13 .3162 0.41* Chilko 1.52* Bowron 169 0.49 .3209 Stellako 188 6.61 .3549 18.62 Stuart 290 4.78 .3011 15.87 Bowron 22.23 Stellako 189 7.10 .3193 Stuart 291 5. 27 .2584 20.39 Stellako 6.12 Stua r t 310 1.83 .2988 * Of no si g n i f i c a n c e . Table XLVIII Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Fraser River Races, 1942 S. E. of Difference Difference Races No. i n Between Between Compared Sample Means Means t Cultus Birkenhead 392 0.09 . 2839 0.31* Weaver 393 3.98 .3098 12.84 P i t t 360 2.65 .3132 8.46 Chilko 377 0.13 .3873 0.33* Adams 392 1.85 .2872 6.44 Stuart 486 5.10 .1995 25.56 Bowron 400 0.12 .2199 5.66 Stellako 434 5.93 .2123 27.93 Birkenhead Weaver 201 1.95 .2922 6.67 P i t t 168 2.74 .2909 9.41 Chilko 185 0.04 .4516 0.88* Adams 209 1.76 .3687 4.77 Stuart 294 5.90 .3057 16.97 Bowron 208 0.03 .3140 0.95* Stellako 242 6.02 .3141 19.16 Weaver , P i t t 169 1.33 .4086 3. 25 Chilko 166 4.11 .4679 8.78 Adams 210 5.83 .3885 15.00 Stuart 295 1.12 .3286 3.40 Bowron 209 4.10 .2918 14.05 Stellako 243 .2918 P i t t Chilko 153 2.78 .4701 5.91 Adams 177 4.50 .3911 12.50 Stuart 262 2.45 .3331 7.35 Bowron 176 2.77 .3405 8.13 Stellako 210 3.2 8 .3405 9.63 Chilko Adams 194 1.72 .4538 3.79 Stuart 279 5.23 .4037 12.95 Bowron 193 0.01 .4098 .24* Stellako 227 6.06 .4098 14.78 Adams Stuart 303 6.95 .3088 22.50 Bowron 217 1.73 .3162 5.47 Stellako 251 7.78 .3162 24.60 Stuart Bowron 302 5.22 .2404 21.71 Stellako 336 0.83 .2406 3.44 Bowron 23.90 Stellako 250 6.05 .2531 * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table XLIX Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Fraser River Races, 1943 S. E. of Difference Difference Races No. i n Between Between Compared Sample Means v Means t, Cultus Birkenhead 263 Weaver 270 8.83 .3064 28.01 P i t t 205 5.60 .2473 22.64 Chilko 232 8.33 .5205 16.00 Mams 409 5.37 .2453 21.89 Stuart 202 10.26 .3361 30.52 Bowron 354 5.60 .2429 23.05 Stellako 501 12.43 .2280 54.51 Birkenhead Weaver 209 7.66 .3059 25.04 P i t t 144 4.63 .2465 18.78 Chilko 171 7.36 .5205 14.14 Mams 348 4.40 .2447 17 .98 Stuart 141 9.29 .3346 27.76 Bowron 293 4.63 .2420 19.13 Stellako 440 11.46 .2273 50.41 Weaver P i t t 151 3.23 .2824 11.43 Chilko 178 0.50 .5385 0.92 * Mams 355 3.46 .2808 12.32 Stuart 148 1.43 .3619 3.95 Bowron 300 3.23 .2785 11.59 Stellako 447 3. 60 .2658 13.54 P i t t Chilko 113 2.73 .. 5069 5.38 Mams 290 0.23 .2147 1.07* Stuart 83 4.66 .3146 14.81 Bowron 235 0.00 .0000 0.00 Stellako 382 6.83 .1946 35.09 Chilko Mams 317 2.96 . 5059 5.85 Stuart 110 1.93 .5558 3.47 Bowron 262 2.96 .. 5049 5.86 Stellako 409 4.10 .4980 8.23 Adams . Stuart 287 4.89 .3132 15.61 Bowron 439 0.23 .2095 1.09* Stellako 586 7.06 , .1923 36.71 Stuart Bowron 232 4.66 .3113 14.96 Stellako 379 2.17 .2998 7.23 Bowron-Stellako 531 6.83 .1889 36.15 * Of no si g n i f i c a n c e . Table L Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Fraser River Races, 1944 S. E. of Difference Difference Races No. i n Between Between Compared Sample Means Means \ Cultus Weaver 206 5.14 .3714 13.83 Birkenhead 220 0.81 .3507 2.30* Chilko 254 0.21 .2917 0.-71* Adams 112 2.38 .3271 7.27 Stuart 161 5.59 .4302 12.99 Bowron 150 1.00 .4012 2.49 Stellako 222 8.97 .3464 25.89 Weaver Birkenhead 198 4.33 .3701 11.69 Chilko 232 4.93 .3140 .15.70 Adams 190 2.76 .3478 7.93 Stuart 139 0.45 .4460 1.00* Bowron 128 4.14 .4183 9.89 Stellako 200 3.83 .3646 10.50 Birkenhead 2.07* Chilko 246 0.60 .2893 Adams 204 1.57 .3255 4.82 Stuart 153 4.78 .4289 11.14 Bowron 142 0.19 .4000 0.47* Stellako 214 8.16 .3435 23.75, Chilko Adams 138 2.17 .2601 8.34 Stuart 187 5.38 .3807 14.13 Bowron 176 0.79 .3478 2.27* Stellako 248 8.76 . 2833 30.92 Adams Stuart 145 3.21 .4098 17.83 Bowron 134 1.38 .3794 3.63 Stellako 206 6.59 v.3193 20.63 Stuart Bowron 83 4* 59 .4711 9.74 Stellako 155 3.38 .4242 7.96 Bowron Stellako 144 7.97 .3949 20.18 * Of no significance or of doubtful s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table LI Comparison of F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts of Fraser River Races,. 1945 S. E. of Difference Difference Races No. i n Between Between Compared Sample Means Means t Cultus Birkenhead 226 6. 58 .4571 14.39 Weaver 181 1. 16 .4647 2.49 P i t t 224 3. 40 .4404 7.72 Chilko 171 3. 37 .4538 7.42 Stuart 292 2. 20 .4135 5.32 Bowron • 121 3. 98 .4753 8.37 Stellako 154 3. 20 .4732 6.76 Birkenhead Weaver 253 7. 74 .3492 22.16 P i t t 251 9. 98 .3160 31.58 Chilko 198 3. 21 .3346 9.59 Stuart 319 8. 78 .2787 31.50 Bowron 148 2. 60 .3633 7.15 Stellako 181 9. 78 .3605 27.12 Weaver P i t t 296 2. 24 .3211 6.97 Chilko 243 4. 53 .3449 13.13 Stuart 364 1. 04 .2917 3.56 Bowron 193 5. 14 .3728 13.78 Stellako 226 2. 04 .3704 5.50 P i t t Chilko 241 6. 77 .3120 31.69 Stuart 362 1. 20 .2506 4.78 Bowron 191 7, 38 .3420 21.57 Stellako 224 0. 20 .3391 0.58* Chilko Stuart 319 5. 57 .2742 20.31 Bowron 138 0. 61 .3591 1.69* Stellako 171 6. 57 .3563 18.43 Stuart Bowron 259 6. 18 .3085 20.03 Stellako 292 1. 00 .3052 3.27 Bowron Stellako 121 7. 18 .3834 18.72 Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table L l l Number of F i r s t Season Rings of Certain Fraser River Races i n Years 1916-1918 As Determined by Gilbert Y/eaver of Morris Creek P i t t Lake Birkenhead Cultus C h i l c o t i n Number of Rings 1916 1918 1916 1918 1916 1917 1918 1916 1916 1918 5 4 7 6 6 10 19 1 31 7 11 20 6 40 8 1 20 27 13 4 40 9 1 3 12 19 15 24 21 3 10 12 18 1 10 20 10 53 17 3 11 8 29 0 9 12 19 74 . 9 5 12 10 24 0 2 4 14 66 6 7 13 24 25 2 1 9 8 46 2 9 14 21 15 3 2 7 26 2 6 15 14 1 10 6 1 10 13 4 16 12 5 6 8 2 3 3 4 17 11 11 7 12 5 1 8 18 2 20 11 0 4 19 2 21 6 1 2 20 3 27 5 1 3 21 1 22 3 1 1 22 14 0 23 10 1 24 9 25 6 26 3 27 2 28 2 Number 121 153 138 58 79 142 114 310 174 59 Mean 13.94 20.49 12.47 17.20 8.36 8.78 11.48 11.63 8.04 14.37 S.D. 2.49 2.63 2.01 2.27 1.83 2.39 3.03 1.66 1,86 3.80 S!E! .2263 .2061 .1712 .2982 .2058 .2006 .2839 .0943.1410 .4947 Table L l l l No. of C i r c u l i Cultus Lake Weaver Creek Number of F i r s t Year Salt Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l Fraser River Races 1938 Birken-head P i t t Chilko Adams Stuart River River Lake River Lake Bowron Lake Stellako River 18 6 19 1 5 1 20 1 2 3 10 2 21 0 2 1 8 4 1 22 1 1 0 2 5 5 1 23 1 0 0 3 13 14 2 1 24 3 1 3 0 10 12 0 4 25 4 ' 1 7 1 18 23 1 6 26 1 5 3 5 3 23 24 2 9 27 3 7 1 5 6 23 24 3 15 28 2 6 1 6 '2 18 26 1 9 29 8 9 0 4 4 17 14 1 9 30 3 12 2 4 4 17 12 3 9 31 10 12 0 4 3 11 2 1 6 32 6 6 3 0 3 7 4 6 33 8 4 1 3 0 4 1 4 34 5 4 1. 1 1 4 2 35 6 1 0 0 1 3 1 36 5 0 1 3 0 1 37 5 2 1 1 1 38 2 Number 62 77 17 48 43 203 168 16 82 Mean 32.19 28.97 29.41 27.66 28.60 26.45 26.35 26.56 28, S. D. 2.90 3.20 4.30 3.72 4.93 4.01 2.61 2.98 2, S. E. . 3683 .3648 1.0436 .5369 .7526 .2816 .6367 .7450 . 3 : Table LIV Number of F i r s t Year Salt Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l Fraser River Races 1939 Birken-No. of Cultus Weaver head Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako C i r c u l i Lake Creek River Lake River Lake Lake River 20 21 22 1 23 0 24 1 2 25 1 0 26 0 0 27 3 5 28 6 9 29 8 4 30 3 6 31 16 4 32 13 9 33 13 4 34 11 1 35 6 36 6 37 7 38 4 39 0 40 2 Number 100 45 Mean 32.52 29.57 S. D. 3.17 2.60 S. E. .3178 .3880 1 1 1 2 4 6 7 6 2 2 7 4 4 12 6 7 15 10 10 15 14 11 19 6 6 23 6 11 17 10 5 15 '2 4 6 6 1 13 2 2 1 9 2 1 3 168 78 71 28.77 27.55 26.52 3.44 3.22 2.83 .2654 .3646 .3358 2 1 2 3 0 1 6 7 0 7 6 4 10 9 8 10 18 12 18 9 5 9 18 17 4 6 8 4 8 9 3 3 4 1 2 7 1 3 0 0 1 77 87 82 26.27 26.86 28.10 2.41 2.31 2.97 .2746 .2477 .3279 Table LV Number of F i r s t Year Salt Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l Fraser River Races 1940 No. of C i r c u l i Cultus Lake Weaver Creek Birken-head River P i t t River Chilko Lake Adams River Stuart Lake Steal -Bowron ako Lake River 19 20 21 22 5 3 23 3 2 24 4 1 25 8 6 26 13 6 27 19 8 28 30 13 29 33 7 30 36 17 31 47 5 32 55 7 33 62 3 34 48 4 35 37 1 36 25 1 37 26 38 9 39 6 Number 466 84 Mean 31.82 28.80 S. D. 3.44 3.02 S. E. .1600 .3295 6 2 3 1 1 3 3 7 6 10 9 6 16 10 7 17 17 14 22 13 4 18 9 11 23 12 7 15 11 8 17 6 7 11 6 3 13 1 3 6 0 4 2 1 3 179 112 83 27.60 25.79 26.63 3.15 3.22 3.16 .2363 , .3043 .3468 1 0 4 1 1 8 7 2 1 10 9 2 3 13 2 3 5 8 3 2 5 11 3 6 4 3 8 4 10 7 7 3 8 2 3 5 4 4 4 9 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 68 59 43 45 25.30 26.32 27.41 26.48 2.42 3.45 3.37 2.27 .2936 .4491 .5139 .3384 Table LVI Number of F i r s t Year Salt Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l Fraser River Races 1941 Birken-No. of Cultus Weaver head P i t t Chilko Stuart Bowron St' C i r c u l i Lake Creek River River Lake Lake Lake R l 15 1 16 1 17 1 1 2 18 2 0 1 19 0 0 0 1 ao 1 3 0 1 ' 5 1 21 3 1 0 3 1 5 3 22 1 1 3 4 2 8 2 23 2 8 5 5 1 8 6 24 6 4 8 9 5 24 2 4 25 5 14 8 10 5 23 6 6 26 4 11 10 11 8 27 12 9 27 8 12 19 11 12 23 7 7 28 9 12 22 16 13 26 17 12 29 16 17 6 8 10 15 5 15 30 12 7 12 7 6 16 7 6 31 11 9 11 1 4 12 3 7 32 12 2 6 1 6 7 7 2 - 33 13 6 1 3 2 4 0 34 10 4 1 1 0 0 35 9 1 0 2 1 0 36 8 1 1 1 1 37 3 38 2 Number 135 98 • 130 90 • 81 - 205 83 69 Mean 30.37 27.19 27.52 26.53 28.07 26.49 27.26 28.1 S.D. 3.79 2.50 3.86 3.00 3.16 3.16 '3.23 2.( S.E. .3419 .2525 .3385 .3162 .3511 .2208 .3548 .27 Table LvTI Number of F i r s t Year Salt Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l Fraser River Races 1942 Birken- S t e l l -No. of Cultus Weaver head P i t t Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron ako C i r c u l i Lake Creek River River River River Lake Lake River 20 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 22 0 2 3 1 3 1 1 23 1 2 7 3 1 7 0 3 24 0 1 3 3 2 4 1 0 25 2 1 1 2 3 0 11 3 7 26 0 1 2 4 8 2 20 3 9 27 1 2 4 5 11 1 18 2 6 28 7 5 1 10 11 6 21 12 10 29 8 5 7 10 10 2 25 9 11 30 9 9 12 3 13 10 21 15 17 31 17 6 7 4 7 2 12 10 14 32 10 8 5 3 3 3 8 11 14 33 15 16 8 4 3 1 3 7 8 34 15 6 10 4 1 1 6 5 6 35 12 4 5 0 1 3 6 7 36 9 5 7 1 0 1 5 37 9 5 2 1 1 3 38 9 2 3 1 0 2 39 3 1 1 1 Number 127 79 75 64 79 36 162 90 126 Mean 32.96 31.72 32.14 27.98 28.11 29.27 28.29 30.51 30 S. D. 3.25 3.54 3.17 3.66 2.71 3.68 2.84 3.27 3 S. E. .3886 .3982 .3660 .4575 .3051 .6133 .2232 . 3447.33< Table LVIII Number of F i r s t Year Salt Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l Fraser River Races 1943 Birken- S t e l l No. of Cultus Weaver head Pitt . Chilko Adams Stua r t Bowron ako C i r c u l i Lake Creek River River River River Lake Lake River 18 3 19 0 20 1 4 21 2 5 1 4 4 2 22 5 2 2 3 3 1 3 4 23 7 7 2 8 6 5 3 8 24 11 4 6 5 7 4 2 3 10 25 6 4 4 6 7 3 2 8 11 26 9 7 11 2 6 7 9 5 20 27 10 7 13 5 2 5 10 10 17 28 12 9 11 2 6 11 3 12 24 29 14 12 9 6 2 6 6 18 20 30 15 7 11 1 4 6 4 4 22 31 8 13 3 3 3 2 3 8 14 32 9 9 6 0 2 1 7 4 13 33 8 7 1 1 1 1 0 8 8 34 5 3 1 4 2 0 1 9 35 9 3 1 2 0 2 7 36 9 1 1 1 37 1 1 38 1 3 39 2 Number 147 90 91 42 55 61 53 89 : 194 Mean 28.97 29.92 27.21 27.61 25.87 26.77 27.73 28.41 28.35 S. D. 4.56 3.28 3.16 3.82 3.17 3.25 3.00 3.03 3.51 S. E. .3768 .3296 .3312 .5895 .4274 .4161 .4120 .3211 .2521 Table LIX Number of F i r s t Year Salt Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l Fraser River Races 1944 Birken No. of Cultus Weaver head Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellc C i r c u l i Lake Creek River Lake River Lake • Lake River 17 1 18 2 0 19 1 0 1 1 20 0 0 4 0 1 21 1 0 1 0 1 22 0 2 1 3 1 2 23 1 0 0 4 1 2 24 1 1 3 0 2 4 2 5 25 1 1 5 1 5 2 1 10 26 6 2 5 3 5 4 0 12 27 8 6 6 3 1 3 0 10 28 7 6 6 4 4 7 2 11 29 12 1 10 9 16 8 3 8 30 8 7 8 17 7 2 3 10 31 12 10 8 11 6 2 4 7 32 10 6 9 5 6 6 7 33 13 3 5 5 5 3 0 34 5 8 4 12 0 1 1 35 10 6 6 5 3 1 36 2 6 8 5 0 • 37 5 1 6 1 2 38 3 1 7 1 39 7 3 1 1 40 2 • 3 • 3 1 Number 115 71 104. 85 74 36 25 89. Mean 31.59 32.12 31.24 . 31.43 28.33 26.72 30.20 27.55 S. D. 4.28 3.86 4.75 3.20 4.07 3.06 2.66 3.06 S. E. .4099 .4581 .4661 .3471 .4731 .5100 .5320 .3243 Table LX Number of F i r s t Year Salt Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l Fraser River Races 1945 Birken-No. of Cultus Weaver head P i t t Chilko Stuart •Bowron S t e l l a C i r c u l i Lake Creek River River Lake Lake Lake River 16 1 17 0 18 0 19 1 1 1 20 1 2 2 0 1 1 21 0 1 3 5 0 1 22 1 4 2 1 0 0 23 1 0 8 4 8 1 0 24 3 0 3 7 5 6 0 5 25 0 0 2 12 12 17 0 3 26 2 2 5 16 7 23 5 6 27 2 2 5 13 8 21 2 4 28 2 2 4 20 12 20 2 8 29 3 6 9 16 13 31 4 11 30 6 10 19 19 9 23 6 10 31 4 8 21 8 7 19 6 7 32 11 7 8 7 1 15 1 7 33 7 10 12 1 2 12 5 5 34 3 11 16 3 2 7 1 2 35 5 9 16 0 1 5 3 3 36 9 4 8 3 2 5 2 37 4 5 9 1 0 2 0 38 2 7 6 1 1 0 39 1 1 3 1 2 40 1 3 3 Number 65 88 151 144 91 218 44 77 Mean 32.49 33.00 32.21 27.68 27.15 28.62 30.79 29.50 S. D. 3.67 3.47 3.80 3.53 3.29 3.39 3.84 3.66 S • E. .4552 .3699 .3104 .2941 .3450 .3296 .5789 .4170 Table LXT Comparison of Variances s i 2 and S2 2 of Cultus Lake Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 F At Levels Sl2 s 22 n i &2 F 2% 10% 1938 - 1939 10.04 8.41 100 62 1.18 1.74 1.48 1940 11.83 8.41 466 62 1.38 1.63 1.41 1941 14.36 8.41 135 62 1.69 1.74 1.48* 1942 10.56 8.41 127 62 1.25 1.74 1.48 1943 20.79 8.41 147 62 2.44 1.74 1.48* 1944 . 18.31 8.41 115 62 2.16 1.74 1.48* 1945 13.46 8.41 65 62 1.60 1.79 1.50* 1939 - 1940 11.83 10.04 466 100 1.16 1.46 1.30 1941 14.36 10.04 135 100 1.42 1.59 1.39 1942 10.56 10.04 127 100 1.05 1.59 1.39 1943 20.79 10.04 147 100 2.06 1.59 1.39* 1944 18.31 10.04 115 100 1.82 1.59 1.39* 1945 13.46 10.04 65 100 1.34 1.64 1.42 1940 - 1941 14.36 11.83 135 466 1.22 1.42 1.28 1942 11.83 10.56 466 127 1.10 1.40 1.27 1943 20.79 11.83 147 466 1.76 1.37 1.25* 1944 18.31 11.83 115 466 1.55 1.42 1.28* " 1945 13.46 11.83 65 466 1.15 1.47 1.32 1941 - 1942 14.36 10.56 135 127 1.34 1.54 1.36 1943 20.79 14.36 147 135 1.44 1.54 1.36 1944 18.31 14.36 115 135 1.27 1.54 1.36 1945 14.36 13.46 135 65 1.05 1.71 1.46 1942 •- 1943 20.79 10.56 147 127 1.95 1.54 1.36* 1944 18.31 10.56 115 127 1.72 1.54 1.36* 1945 13.46 10.56 65 127 1.27 1.59 1.39 1943 - 1944 20.79 18.31 147 115 1.13 1.54 1.36 1945 . 20.79 13.46 147 65 1.53 1.71 1.46* 1944 - 1945 18.31 13.46 115 65 1.35 1.71 1.46 * Samples not drawn from populations of common variance. Table LXII Comparison of Variances Sj_2 and Sg2 of Weaver Creek Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 F Years of At Levels Comparison S]_2 sg2 n i ng F • 2$ 10% 1938 - 1939 10.24 6.76 77 45 1.50 1.92 1.58 1940 10.24 9.12 77 84 1.12 1.70 1.45 1941 10.24 6.25 77 98 1.64 1.64 1.42* 1942 12.53 10.24 79 77 1.22 1.70 1.45 1943 10.75 10.24 90 77 1.04 1.65 1.42 1944 14.89 10.24 71 77 1.45 1.-70 1.45 1945 12.04 10.24 88 77 1.17 1.65 1.42 1939 - 1940 9.12 6.76 84 45 1.33 1.76 1.48 1941 6.76 6.25 45 135 1.09 1.79 1.49 1942 12.53 6.76 127 45 1.80 1.86 1.54* 1943 10.75 6.76 90 45 1.57 1.86 1.54* 1944 14.89 6.76 71 45 2.18 1.90 1.56* 1945 12.04 6.76 88 45 1.76 1.86 1.54* 1940 - 1941 9.12 6.25 84 98 1.46 1.64 1.42* 1942 12.53 9.12 79 84 1.37 1.70 1.45 1943 10.75 9.12 90 84 1.17 1.65 1.42 1944 14.89 9.12 71 84 1.63 1.70 1.45* 1945 12.04 9.12 88 84 1.31 1.65 1.42 1941 mm 1942 12.53 6.25 79 98 2.01 1.64 1.42* 1943 10.75 6.25 90 98 1.72 1.59 1.39* 1944 14.89 6.25 71 98 2.39 1.64 1.42* 1945 12.04 6.25 88 98 1.92 1.59 1.39* 1942 - 1943 12.53 10.75 79 90 1.16 1.64 1.42 1944 14.89 12.53 71 79 1.19 1.70 1.45 1945 12.53 12.04 79 88 1.04 1.70 1.45 1943 — 1944 14.89 10.75 71 90 1.38 1.69 1.45 1945 12.04 10.75 88 90 1.11 1.59 1.39 1944 - 1945 14.89 12.04 71 88 1.24 1.69 1.45 * Samples not drawn from populations of common variance. Table LXIII Comparison of Variances s ^ 2 and s 2 2 of Birkenhead River Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 F Years of At Levels Comparison s ^ 2 a 22 n^ n 2 F 2% 10% 1938 - 1939 18.49 11.83 17 168 1.65 2.12 1.71 1940 18.49 9.92 17 179 1.96 2.09 1.69* 1941 18.49 14.89 17 130 1.30 2.15 1.72 1942 18.49 10.04 17 75 1.92 2.28 1.79* 1943 18.49 9.98 17 ' 91 1.94 2.19 1.75* 1944 22.56 18.49 104 17 1.15 2.76 2.02 1945 18.49 14.44 17 151 1.35 2.12 1.71 1939 - 1940 11.83 9.92 168 179 1.19 1.39 1.26 • 1941 14.89 11.83 130 168 1.26 1.51 1.34 1942 11.83 10.04 168 75 1.16 1.62 1.40 1943 11.83 9.98 168 91 1.17 1.51 1.34 1944 22.56 11.83 104 168 1.91 'l.51 1.34* 1945 14.44 11.83 151 168 1.22 1.43 1.29 1940 - 1941 14.89 9.92 130 179 1.50 1.48 1.32* 1942 10.04 9.92 75 179 1.02 1.53 1.35 1943 9.98 9.92 91 179 1.01 1.48 1.32 1944 22.56 9.92 104 179 2.28 1.48 1.32* 1945 14.44 9.92 151 179 1.45 1.39 1.26* 1941 - 1942 14.89 10.04 130 75 1.47 1.69 1.45* 1943 14.89 9.98 130 91 1.48 1.59 1.39* 1944 22.56 14.89 103 130 1.51 1.54 1.36* 1945 14.89 14.44 130 151 1.03 1.46 1.31 1942 - 1943 10.04 9.98 75 91 1.01 1.69 1.45 1944 22.56 10.04 104 75 2.23 1.69 1.45* 1945 14.44 10.04 151 75 1.42 1.62 1.40* 1943 - 1944 22.56 9.98 104 91 2.25 1.59 1.39* 1945 14.44 9.98 151 91 1.43 1.51 .1.34* 1944 - 1945 22.56 14.44 104 151 1.56 1.51 1.34* * Samples not drawn from populations of common variance. Table LXIV Comparison of Variances s-j^ and Sg2 of P i t t River Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 F Years of At Levels 10$ Comparison S 12 S 22 n l n 2 F 2% 1938 - 1940 13.83 10.36 48 112 1.35 1.73 1.48 1941 13.83 9.00 48 90 1.55 1.78 1.51* 1942 13.39 13.83 64 48 1.03 1.88 1.56 1943 14.59 13.83 42 48 1.05 2.02 1.64 1945 13.83 12.46 48 144 1.13 1.68 1.45 1940 - 1941 10.36 9.00 112 90 1.14 1.59 1.39 1942 13.39 10.36 64 112 1.30 1.64 1.42 1943 14.59 10.36 42 112 1.42 1.79 1.51 1945 12.46 10.36 144 112 1.19 1.59 1.39 1941 - 1942 13.39 9.00 64 90 1.50 1.70 1.45* 1943 14.59 9.00 42 90 1.64 1.84 1.54* 1945 12.46 9.00 144 90 1.37 1.65 1.42 1942 - 1943 14.59 13.39 42 64 1.09 1-.90 1.57 1945 13.39 12.46 64 144 1.08 1.56 1.37 1943 - 1945 14.59 12.46 42 144 .1.19 1.72 1.47 * Samples not drawn from populations of common variance Table LXV Comparison of Variances si2 and s 22 . of Chilko Lake Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 F Years of At Levels Comparison S 22 n l n2 F- 2% 10% 1938 _ 1939 24.30 10.36 43 78 2.36 1.84 1.54* 1940 24.30 9.98 43 83 2.46 1.84 1.54* 1941 24.30 9.98 43 81 2.46 1.84 1.54* 1942 24.30 7.34 43 79 3.34 1.84 1.54* 1943 24.30 10.04 43 55 2.43 1.96 1.61* 1944 24.30 10.24 43 85 2.40 1.84 1.54* 1945 24.30 10.82 43 91 2.26 1.79 1.51* 1939 - 1940 10.36 9.98 78 83 1.03 1.70 1.45 1941 10.36 9.98 78 81 1.03 1.70 1.45 1942 10.36 7.34 78 79 1.40 1.70 1.45 1943 10.36 10.04 78 55 1.02 1.82 1.52 1944 10.36 10.24 78 85 1.01 1.70 1.45 1945 10.82 10.36 91 78 1.04 1.57 1.38 1940 — 1941 9.98 9.98 81 83 1.00 1.70 1.45 1942 9.98 7.34 83 79 1.35 1.70 1.45 1943 10.04 9.98 55 83 1.01 1.78 1.51 1944 10.24 9.98 85 83 1.02 1.70 1.45 1945 10.82 9.98 91 83 1.08 1.65 1.42 1941 — 1942 9.98 7.34 81 79 1.35 1.70 1.45 1943 10.04 9.98 55 81 1.01 1.78 1.51 1944 10.24 9.98 85 81 1.03 1.70 1.45 1945 10.82 9.98 91 81 1.08 1.65 1.42 1942 - -1943 10.04 7.34 55 79 1.37 1.78 1.51 1944 10.24 7.34 85 79 1.39 1.70 1.45 1945 10.82 7.34 91 79 1.47 1.65 1;42* 1943 - 1944 10.24 10.04 85 55 1.01 1.82 1.52 1945 10.82 10.04 91 55 1.06 1.78 1.50 1944 — 1945 10.82 10.24 91 85 1.05 1.65 1.42 Samples not drawn from populations of common variance. Table LXVI Comparison of Variances Sj_2 and s 22 of Adams River Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1944 Years ! O f At F . Levels Compa ri s o n S i 2 s 22 n i *2 F 2% 10$ 1938 - 1939 16.08 8.00 203 71 1.98 1.62 1.40* 1940 16.08 5.85 203 68 2.71 1.62 1.40* 1942 16.08 13.54 203 36 1.16 1.94 1.59 1943 16.08 10.56 203 61 1.50 1.68 1.44* 1944 16.56 16.08 74 203 1.03 1.53 1.35 1939 - 1940 8.00 5.85 71 68 1.36 1.74 1.47 1942 13.54 8.00 36 71 1.70 1.88 1.56* 1943 10.56 8.00 61 71 1.32 1.82 1.53 1944 16.56 8.00 74 71 2.06 1.74 1.47* 1940 - 1942 13.54 5.85 36 68 2.34 1.88 1.56* 1943 10.56 5.85 61 68 1.80 1.82 1.53* 1944 16.56 5.85 74 68 2.82 1.74 1.47* 1942 - 1943 13.54 10.56 36 61 1.29 1.86 1.'56 1944 16.56 13.54 74 36 1.20 2.04 1.65 1943 - 1944 16.56 10.56 74 61 1.20 2.04 1.65 * Samples not drawn from populations of common variance; 0 Table LXvTI Comparison of Variances s^8 and s 28 of Stuart Lake Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 t F Years of At Levels Comparison s 22 n l n 2 F 2% 10% 1938 - 1939 6.81 5.80 168 77 1.16 1.57 1.38 1940 11.90 6.81 59 168 1.76 1.66 1.44* 1941 9.98 6.81 205 168 1.46 1.43 1.89* 1948 8.06 6.81 162 168 1.18 1.43 1.39 1943 9.00 6.81 53 168 1.33 1.66 1.44 1944 9.36 6.81 36 168 1.40 1.72 1.47 1945 11.49 6.81 218 168 1.68 1.43 1.89* 1939 - 1940 11.90 5.80 59 77 2.05 1.78 1.51* 1941 9.98 5.80 205 77 1.70 1.57 1.38* 1942 8.06 5.80 162 77 1.37 1.57 1.38 1943 9.00 5.80 53 77 1.55 1.78 1.51* 1944 9.36 5.80 36 77 1.63 1.84 1.54* 1945 11.49 5.80 218 77 1.96 1.57 1.38* 1940 - 1941 11.90 9.98 59 205 1.20 1.62 1.48 1942 11.90 8.06 59 162 1.49 1.66 1.44 1943 11.90 9.00 59 53 1.31 1.90 1.58 1944 11.90 9.36 59 36 1.25 2.12 1.69 1945 11.90 11.49 59 218 1.04 1.62 1.48 1941 . - 1942 9.98 8.06 205 162 1.23 1.43 1.89 1943 9.98 9.00 205 53 1.09 1.71 1.46 1944 9.98 9.36 205 36 1.04 1.94 1.59 1945 11.49 9.98 218 205 1.15 1.39 1.86 194E - 1943 9.00 8.06 53 162 1.13 1.66 1.44 1944 9.36 8.06 36 162 1.18 1.72 1.47 1945 11.49 8.06 218 162 1.42 1.43 1.89* 1943 - 1944 9.36 9.00 36 53 1.04 1.96 1.61 1945 11.49 9.00 218 53 1.25 1.71 1.46 1944 - 1945 11.49 9. 36 218 36 1.19 1.94 1.59 *Samples not drawn from populations of common variance. Table L2CVTII Comparison of Variances s-,2 and s 22 of Bowron Lake Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 F Years Of * At Levels Comparison S 22 n l n 2 F 2% 10% 1938 - 1939 8.88 5.33 16 87 1.75 2.24 1.77 1940 11.35 8.88 43 16 1.22 3.01 2.16 1941 10.43 8.88 83 16 1.11 2.89 2.09 1942 10.69 8.88 90 16 1.14 2.86 2.07 1943 8.88 9.18 16 89 1.01 2.24 1.77 1944 8.88 7.07 16 25 1.28 3 i l 8 2.24 1945 14.74 8.88 44 16 1.59 3.01 2.16 1939 - 1940 11. 35 5.33 43 87 2.15 1.84 1.54* 1941 10.43 5.33 83 87 1.95 1.70 1.45* 1942 10.69 5.33 90 87 2.00 1.65 1.42* 1943 9.18 5.33 89 87 l i 7 2 l i 6 5 1.42* 1944 7.07 5.33 25 87 l i 3 6 2i03 1.65 1945 14.74 5.33 44 87 2.79 1*84 1.54* 1940 - 1941 11.35 10.43 43 83 1.10 1.84 1.54 1942 11.35 10.69 43 90 1.07 " l i 8 4 1.54 1943 11.35 9*18 43 89 1.25 1.84 1.54 1944 11.35 7.07 43 25 1.57 2.45 1.87 1945 14.74 11* 35 44 43 1.29 2.06 1.66 1941 - 1942 10.69 10.43 90 83 1.03 1.65 1.42 1943 10.43 9.18 83 89 1.13 1.70 1.45 1944 10.43 7.07 83 25 1.43 2.32 1.80 1945 14.74 10.43 44 83 • 1.42 1.84 1.54 1942 - 1943 10.69 9.18 90 89 1.16 1.65 1.42 1944 10.69 7.07 90 25 1.46 2.29 1.77 1945 14.74 10.69 . 44 90 1.39 1.79 1.51 1943 - 1944 9.18 7.07 89 25 1.26 2.29 1.77 1945 14.74 9.18 44 89 1.62 1.79. 1.51* 1944 - 1945 14.74 7.07 44 25 2.04 2.45 1.87* * Samples not drawn from populations of common variance. Table I2ZEX Comparison of Variances S3_2 and Sg2 of Stellako River Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 F Years of At Levels Comparison S X2 s 22 n l n2 F 2<fo 10$ 1938 1939 8.82 7.89 82 82 1.11 1.70 1.45 1940 7.89 5.15 82 45 1.51 1.90 1.57 1941 7.89 5.10 82 69 1.54 1.74 1.47* 1942 13.76 7.89 126 82 1.73 1.65 1.42* 1943 12.32 7.89 194 82 1.54 1.57 1.38* 1944 9.36 7.89 89 82 1.18 1.65 1.42 1945 13.39 7.89 77 82 1.69 1.70 1.45* 1939 - 1940 8.82 5.15 82 45 1.69 1.90 1.57* 1941 8.82 5.10 82 69 1.72 1.74 1.47* 1942 13.76 8.82 126 82 1.55 1.65 1.42* 1943 12.32 8.82 194 82 1.38 1.57 1.38 1944 9.36 8.82 89 82 1.06 1.65 1.42 1945 13.39 8.82 77 82 1.51 1.70 1.45* 1940 - 1941 5.15 5.10 45 69 1.01 1.82 1.53 1942 13.76 5.15 126 45 2.63 1.86 1.54* 1943 12.32 5.15 194 45 2.34 1.80 1.51* 1944 9.36 5.15 89 45 1.79 1.86 1.54* 1945 13.39 5.15 77 45 2.57 1.90 1 : 5 7 * 1941 - 1942 13.76 5.10 126 69 2.67 1.69 1.45* 1943 12.32 5.10 194 69 2.38 1.62 1.40* 1944 9.36 5.10 89 69 1.82 1.69 1.45* 1945 13.39 5.10 77 69 2.61 1.74 1.47* 1942 — 1943 13.76 12.32 126 194 1.12 1.48 1.32 1944 13.76 9.36 126 89 1.46 1.65 1.42* 1945 13.76 13.39 126 77 1.02 1.69 1.45 1943 1944 12.32 9.36 194 89 1.30 1.57 1.38 1945 13.39 12.32 77 194 1.09 1.53 1.35 1944 - 1945 13.39 9.36 77 89. 1.43 1.70 1.45 * Samples not drawn frompopulations of common variance. Table LX2C Comparison of Fraser River Races by Number of Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n Salt Water Standard 1938 Error of Total Difference Difference Races Compared Specimens Between Means Between Means t Cultus Weaver 139 3.22 .5176 6.22 Birkenhead 79 2.78 1.1045 2.51* Pi t t 110 4.53 .6503 6.96 Chilko 105 3.59 .8378 4.28 Adams 265 5.74 .4626 12.40 Stuart 230 5.84 .7355 7.94 Bowron 88 5.63 .8306 6.77 Stellako 144 3.69 .4806 7.67 Weaver Birkenhead 94 0.44 1.1045 0.39* P i t t 125 1.31 .6488 2.01* Chilko 120 0.37 .8360 0.44* Adams 280 2.52 .4604 5.47 Stuart 245 2.62 .7334 3.57 Bowron 93 2.41 .8394 2.90 Stellako 159 0.47 .4785 0.98* Birkenhead P i t t 65 1.75 1.1705 1.49* Chilko 60 0.81 1.2845 0.63* Adams 220 2.96 1.2961 2.28* Stuart 185 3.06 1.2207 2.50* Bowron 33 2.85 1.2806 2.22* Stellako 99 0.91 1.0863 0.83* Pi t t Chilko 91 0.94 .9241 ' -v 1.01* Adams 251 1.21 .8031 1.50* Stuart 216 1.31 .8324 . 1.57* Bowron 68 1.10 .9181 1.19* Stellako 130 0.84 .6196 1.35* Chilko Adams 246 2.15 .8031 < 2 . 6 7 0 Stuart 211 2.04 .9853 2.28* Bowron 59 2.25 1.0583 2.12* Stellako 125 0.10 .8136 0.12* Adams 0.15* Stuart 371 0.11 .6957 Bowron 219 0.11 .7962 0.13* Stellako 285 2.05 .4183 4.90 Stuart Bowron 184 0.21 .9798 2.14* Stellako 250 2.15 .7078 3.03 Bowron Stellako 98 1.94 .8068 2.40* * - of no significance o - of doubtful significance Table LXXI Comparison of Fraser River Races by-Number of Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n Sa l t Water Races Compared 1939 To t a l Difference Specimens Between Means Standard Error of Difference Between Means Cultus Weaver 145 Birkenhead 268 Chilko 178 Adams 171 Stuart 177 Bowron 187 Stellako 182 Weaver Birkenhead 213 Chilko 123 Adams 116 Stuart 122 Bowron 132 Stellako 127 Birkenhead Chilko 246 Adams 239 Stuart 245 Bowron 255 Stellako 250 2.95 3.75 4.97 6.00 6.25 5.66 4.42 0.80 2.02 3.05 3.30 2.71 1.47 1.22 2.25 2.50 1.91 0.67 .5010 .4135 .4827 .4615 .4195 .4024 .4560 .4690 .5319 .5128 .4243 .4593 .5079 .4505 .4277 .3807 .3619 .4207 5.88 9.06 10.29 13.00 14.89 14.06 9.69 1.70* 3.79 6.94 6.96 5.90 2.89 2.70O 5.26 6.56 5.27 1.59* Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako 149 155 165 160 148 158 153 164 159 169 1.03 1.28 0.69 0.55 0.25 0.34 1.58 0.59 1.83 1.24 .4949 .4560 .4404 .4899 .4335 .4171 .4690 .3687 .4266 .4208 2.08* 2.80O 1.56* 1.12* 0.57* 0. 81* 3.36 1. 60* 4.28 3.01 * - of no significance o - of doubtful significance Table LXXII Comparison of Fraser River Races by-Number of Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n Salt Water 1940 Standard E r r o r of To t a l Difference Difference aces Compared Specimens Between Means Between Means t Cultus Weaver 550 3.02 .3660 8.25 Birkenhead 645 4.22 .2853 14.79 P i t t 578 6.03 .3435 17.55 Chilko 549 5.19 .3807 13.63 Mams 534 6.52 .3331 19.57 Stuart 525 5.50 .4764 11.54 Bowron 509 4.41 .5375 8.20 Stellako 511 5.34 .3741 14.27 Weaver Birkenhead 263 1.20 .4049 2.96 P i t t 196 3.01 ;4483 6.71 Chilko 167 2.17 .4774 4.54 Adams 152 3*50 .4404 7.94 Stuart 143 2*48 .5567 4.45 Bowron 127 1.39 .6099 8.27* Stellako 129 2.32 .4722 4.91 Birkenhead P i t t 291 1*81 *3847 4.70 Chilko 262 0.97 .4195 2.31* Adams 247 2.30 .3768 6.10 Stuart 238 1.28 .5069 2.52* Bowron 222 0.19 .5648 .33* Stellako 224 1.12 .4123 2.71o P i t t Chilko 195 0.84 .4604 1.82* Adams 180 0.49 .4219 1.16* Stuart 171 0.53 .5422 0.97* Bowron 155 1.62 .5966 2.7lo Stellako 157 0.69 .4549 1.51* Chilko Adams 151 1.33 .4538 2.93 Stuart 142 0.31 .5665 0.54* Bowron 126 0.78 .6196 1.25* Stellako 128 0.15 .4837 0.31* Adams Stuart 127 1.02 .5357 1.90* Bowron 111 2.11 .5916 3.56 Stellako 113 1.18 .4472 2.63o Stuart Bowron 102 1.09 .6819 • 1.59* Stellako 104 0.16 .5621 0.28* Bowron Stellako 88 0.93 .6148 1.51* * - ©f no significance o - of doubtful significance Table LXXIII Comparison of Fraser River Races by Number of Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n Salt Water 1941 Standard Er r o r of Tota l Difference Difference Races Compared Specimens Between Means Between Means t Cultus Weaver 233 3.18 .4242 7.49 Birkenhead 265 2.85 .4806 5.93 P i t t 225 3.84 .4647 8.26 Chilko 216 2.30 .4899 4.69 Stuart 340 3.88 .4062 9.55 Bowron 218 3.11 .4919 6.32 Stellako 204 2.30 .4358 5.27 Weaver Birkenhead 228 0.33 .4219 0.78* P i t t 188 0.66 .4037 1.63* Chilko 179 0.88 .4324 2.03* Stuart 303 0.70 .3346 2.09* Bowron 181 0.07 .4347 0.16* Stellako 167 0.88 .3701 2.37* Birkenhead P i t t 220 0.99 .4626 2.14* Chilko 211 0.55 . 4868 1.12* Stuart 335 1.03 .4037 2.55* Bowron 213 0.26 .4899 0.53* Stellako 199 0.55 .4335 1.26* P i t t Chilko 171 1.54 .4722 3.26 Stuart 295 0.04 .3847 0.10* Bowron 173 0.73 .4743 1.53* Stellako 159 1.54 .4159 3.70 Chilko Stuart 286 1.58 .4147 3.80 Bowron 164 0.81 .4990 1.62* Stellako 150 0.00 .4438 0.00* Stuart 1.84* Bowron 288 0.77 .4171 Stellako 274 1.58 .3507 4.50 Bowron 1.81* Stellako 152 0.81 .4460 * Of no significance Table LXXI7 Comparison of Fraser River Races by Number of Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n Salt Water 1942 Standard Error of To t a l Difference Difference Races Compared Specimens Between Means Between Means t Cultus Weaver 206 1.24 .5558 2.23* Birkenhead 202 0.82 .5329 1.53* P i t t 191 4.98 .6000 8.30 Chilko 206 4.85 .4939 9.81 Adams 163 3.69 .7259 5.08 Stuart 289 4.67 .4472 10.44 Bowron 217 2.45 .5186 4.72 Stellako 253 2.54 .5099 4.98 Weaver Birkenhead 154 0.42 .5403 0.77* P i t t 143 3.74 .6064 6.16 Chilko 158 3.61 .5015 7.19 Adams 115 2.45 .8566 2.86 Stuart 241 3.43 .4560 7.52 Bowron 169 1.21 .5263 2.29* Stellako 205 1.30 .5172 2.51* Birkenhead P i t t 139 4.16 .5856 7.10 Chilko 154 4.03 .4764 8.45 Adams 111 2.87 .7141 4.01 Stuart 237 3.85 .4283 8.98 Bowron 165 1.63 .5020 3.24 Stellako 201 1.72 .4929 3.49 P i t t 0.23* Chilko - 143 0.13 .5495 Adams 100 1.29 .7648 1.68* Stuart 226 0.31 .5089 0.60* Bowron 154 2.53 .5727 4.41 Stellako 190 2.44 .5639 4.32 Chilko 1.69* Adams 115 1.16 .6848 Stuart 241 0.18 .3775 0.47* Bowron 169 2.40 .4593 5.22 Stellako 205 2.31 .4494 5.14 Adams 1.50* Stuart 198 0.98 .6519 Bowron 126 1.24 .7028 1.76* Stellako 162 1.15 .6964 1.65* Stuart 5.41 Bowron 252 2.22 .4098 Table LXXIT Comparison of Fraser River Races by Number of Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n Salt Water 1942 Standard E r r o r of To t a l Difference Difference Races Compared Specimens Between Means Between Means ' t Stuart (cont'd) Stellako 288 2.13 .3987 5.34 Bowron Stellako 216 G.09 .4774 0.18* Of no significance Table LXXV Comparison of Fraser River Races by-Number of Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n Salt Water 1943 Standard Error of To t a l Difference Difference Races Compared Specimens Between Means Between Means t Cultus Weaver 237 0.95 .5006 1.89* Birkenhead 238 1.76 .5010 3.51 P i t t 189 1.36 .6992 1.94* Chilko 202 3.10 .5692 5.44 Adams 208 2.20 .5612 3.92 Stuart 200 1.24 .5576 2.22* Bowron 236 0.56 .4949 1.13* Stellako 341 0.62 . .4527 1.36* Weaver Birkenhead 181 2.71 .4669 5.80 P i t t 132 2.31 .6752 3.42 Chilko 145 4.05 .5394 7.50 Adams 151 3.15 .5300 5.94 Stuart 143 2.19 .5272 4.15 Bowron 179 1.51 .4593 3.28 Stellako 284 1.57 .4147 3.77 Birkenhead? P i t t 133 0.40 .67 60 0.59* Chilko 146 1.34 .5403 2.48* Adams 152 0.44 .5310 0.82* Stuart 144 0.52 .5282 0.98* Bowron 180 1.20 .4604 2.60O Stellako 285 1.14 .4159 2.74 P i t t Chilko 97 1.74 .7 280 2.39* Adams 103 0.84 .7211 1.16* Stuart 95 0.12 .7190 0.16* Bowron 131 0.80 .6708 1.19* Stellako 236 0.74 .6410 1.15* Chilko 1.51* Adams 116 0.90 .5958 Stuart 108 1.86 .5933 3.13 Bowron 144 2.54 . 5338 4.75 Stellako 249 2.48 .4959 5.00 Adams Stuart 114 0.96 .5848 1.64* Bowron 150 1.64 .5253 3.12 Stellako 255 1.58 .4858 3.25 Stuart 1.30* Bowron 142 0.68 .5215 Stellako 247 0.62 .4827 1.28* Bowron-Stellako 283 0.06 .4074 0.14* * - Of no significance o - of doubtful significance Table LXXVT Comparison of Fraser River Races by-Number of Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n Salt Water 1944 Standard Error of Jaces Compared To t a l Specimens Difference Between Means Difference Between Means t Cultus Weaver 186 0.53 .6140 0.86* Birkenhead 119 0.25 .6204 0.40* Chilko 200 0.16 .5366 0.29* Adams 189 3.26 .6253 5.21 Stuart 151 4.87 .6542 7.44 Bowron 140 1.39 .6715 2.06* Stellako 204 4.04 .5224 7.73 Weaver Birkenhead 175 0.88 .6534 1.34* Chilko 156 0.69 .5744 1.20* Adams 145 3.79 . 6580 5.75 Stuart 107 5.40 . 6848 7.88 Bowron 96 1.92 .7014 2 . 7 3 0 Stellako 160 4.57 .5612 8.14 Birkenhead 0.15* Chilko 185 0.09 .5805 Adams 178 2.91 .6640 4.38 Stuart 140 4.52 .6906 6.54 Bowron 129 1.04 .7071 1.47* Stellako 193 3.69 .5674 6.50 Chilko Adams 159 3.10 .5865 5.28 Stuart 121 4.71 .6164 7.64 Bowron 110 1.23 .6348 1.93* Stellako N 174 3.88 .4743 8.18 Adams 2.31* Stuart 110 1.61 .6949 Bowron 99 1.87 .7113 2.620 Stellako 163 0.78 .5727 1.36* Stuart Bowron 61 3.48 .7368 4.72 Stellako 125 0.83 .6041 1.37* Bowron 4.25 Stellako 114 2.65 .6229 * - Of no Significance o - Of doubtful significance Table LXXVII Comparison of Fraser River Races by Number of Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n S a l t Water 1945 Standard E r r o r of To t a l Difference Difference Races Compared Specimens Between Means Between Means t Cultus Weaver 153 0. 51 • 5865 0.86* Birkenhead 216 0. 28 . 5504 0'. 50* P i t t 209 4*. 81 . 5412 8.88 Chilko 156 5. 34 .5709 9 ' . 35 Stuart 283 3; 87 . 5612 6.89 Bowron 109 5. 57 .7362 7.56 Stellako 142 2. 99 .6172 4.84 Weaver 1. 63* Birkenhead 239 0. 79 .4827 P i t t 232 5". 32 -.4722 11. 26 Chilko 179 5. 85 5049 i r . 58 Stuart 306 4. 38 .4949 8'. 85 Bowron 132 2. 21 . 6862 3.22 Stellako 165 3. 50 . 5567 6.28 Birkenhead P i t t 295 4. 55 .4266 10.66 Chilko 242 5. 06 .4636 10.91 Stuart 369 3. 59 . 4516 7*. 94 Bowron 195 1. 42 .6565 2.16* Stellako 228 2. 71 .5196 5.21 P i t t Chilko 235 0. 53 .4527 r.17* Stuart 362 0, 94 .4415 2.12* Bowron 188 3. 11 .6488 4.79 Stellako 221 1. 82 .5099 4.56 Chilko Stuart 309 r. 47 .4764 3.08 Bowron 135 3. 64 .6738 5.40 Stellako 168 2". 35 . 5403 4.34 Stuart. Bowron 262 2. 17 .6655 3.26 Stellako 295 0. 88 .5310 1. 65* Bowron T.80* Stellako 121 1. 29 .7134 *"- Of no significance 1 Table LXXvTII Correlation Between F i r s t Season Lacustrine Rings and F i r s t Season Salt Y/ater or Second Season Rings 1938 - 1945 Loc a l i t y No. of Pairs Degrees of Freedom Lacustrine Rings s U i - x i ) 6 Salt Water Rings s(x 2-x - 2 r 8*1 2C 2 r r at 13&5# l e v e l s of sig ifo 3?o Cultus Lake 8 6 54.37 12.31 10.65 + .4127 .834 .707 Weaver Creek 8 6 7.20 25.54 5.74 -.4251 .834 .707 Birkenhead River 8 6 10.02 30.65 3.00 +.1714 .834 .707 P i t t River 6. 4 42.30 3.65 4.79 +.3862 .917 .811 Chilko Lake 8 6 15.98 19.44 12.19 -.6926 .834 .707 Adams River 6 4 11.34 10.33 5.07 -.4694 .917 .811 Bowron Lake 8 6 7.00 21.20 8.22 +.6850 .834 .707 Stuart Lake 8 6 10.14 6.50 5.63 +.6950 .834 .707 Stellako River 8 6 21.40 9.9 1.34 -.0924 .834 .707 Table LXXIX Comparison of Number of F i r s t Season Rings from Scales of Adult and Yearling Migrant Sockeye of the Same Brood Year Brood Year 1936 1937""" 1938 1939 1940 Ye a r l . Adult Yearl. Adult Y e a r l . Adult Y e a r l . Adult Yearl. Adult Number of Rings Scales Scales Scales Scales Scales Scales Scales Scales Scales Scales 5 1 1 6 4 17 7 3 34 19 2 8 6 4 65 39 4 9 1 13 2 8 72 31 3 9 10 1 25 1 14 39 21 8 14 11 7 28 4 1 26 11 17 16 15 12 19 90 0 2 51 3 3 44 20 13 27 87 2 5 55 1 4 50 7 14 41 95 1 6 11 50 5 44 16 15 44 56 1 13 11 37 1 26 12 16 44 47 2 21 36 23 1 9 7 17 36 26 9 17 35 14 1 3 3 18 17 12 8 18 46 8 2 3 19 1 4 22 16 30 2 1 2 20 1 20 11 20 21 17 9 8 22 9 8 4 23 3 3 Number 239 492 92 131 209 292 230 163 203 114 Mean 14.93 13.44 19.56 17.43 17.43 13.39 8.67 9.09 13.11 12 Table LXXX Number of Lacustrine F i r s t Season Rings and Size of Yearling Sockeye Population-Cultus Lake Year of Number i n Number of Yearling Yearling F i r s t Year Rings Migration Migration of Yearlings 1938 1,617,414 14.93 1939 196,393 19.56 1940 1,374,800 17.43 1941 3,979,156 8.67 1942 1,764,517 13.11 F i g . 2 . C o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n n u m b e r o f c i r c u l i a n d w i d t h o f f i r s t s e a s o n g r o w t h z o n e 21 2 0 j 19 18 17 16 15 14 E ' 3 E £ 1 2 II io S t e l l a k o R i v e r - © P i t t R i v e r - x >C x x •* © G © . 0 O G ' © 0 0 * © 0 0 0 0 O O © « £> * 0 O O *• © O © © X X © * © 0 © x -e © © X X % X X 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 R i n g s Fig. 3 Pitt River sockeye scale showing radii along which all ring counts were made. F i g . 4 . P e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n of f i r s t s e a s o n r ings , C u l t u s L a k e 1 9 3 8 - 1 9 4 5 1 9 4 5 1 9 4 4 30 2 0 -10 1 9 4 3 1 9 4 2 1941 1 9 4 0 1939 1938 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 R ings F i g . 5 . Percentage d ist r ibut ion of f i r s t s e a s o n r i n g s , W e a v e r C r e e k 1938-1945 3C 20 10 1945 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 1944 1943 1 I u c 3 tt • 30 2 20 S io a. S 30 20 10 0 30-20 10 0 30 20 10 0 30-20 10-0 1942 1941 1940 ' ' » 1939 1 1 1938 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 R i ngs Fig.6 Percentage distribution of first season rings, Birkenhead River 1938-1945 30 20 10 . 1945 30 20 I0f 0 30 20 10 o-30 20 10 1944 1943 1942 30 2 t f 194 1 30-20-10-1940 i — r 30 1939 30f 20 1938 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 |4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Rings F i g . 7 . P e r c e n t a g e d is t r ibu t ion o f f i r s t s e o s o n r i n g s , P i t t R i v e r . 1 9 3 8 , 1 9 4 0 - 1 9 4 4 3 0 2 0 10 I 9 4 5 3 0 -2 0 -10 -I 9 4 3 3 0 2 0 10 I 9 4 2 3 0 2 0 10 1 9 4 1 3 0 2 0 10 1 9 4 0 3 0 " 2 0 -IO -1 9 3 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 R i n g s Fig.8. Percentoge distribution of first season rings, Chilko Lake. 1938-19 45 1945 1944 1943 I 942 l~H 194 1 1940 I 939 io-0 1938 a4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2tf" Rings Fig.9. Percentage distribution of first season rings, Adams River 1938-40, 1942-44 30-20 10 0 30 20-10-0 30 20 10 0 30-20 10 -0 30 20-10 0 I 944 1943 I — r 1942 1940 30" 20-1939 1938 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Rings Fig.10. Percentage distribution of first season rings, Stuart Lake. 1938-1945 1945 30 20-10-0 -30 20-10 o-30 20" 10" o-30 20-10-944 1943 1942 o-30-20-10-o-30-20-10-0-30-1941 1940 1939 1938 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Rings Fig.II Percentage distribution of first season rings, Bowron Lake 1938-1945 1945 1944 1943 1942 1941 30" 20" io-1940 30-20" 10-1939 1938 r - r - i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 B 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 26 27 Rings Fig. 12. Percentage distribution of first seoson rings, Stellako River 1938-1945 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 30 20 • 10 • 0 30 20-10 -0 30 20-10 -Fig.13. Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 1938 Stellako River Stuart Lake Weaver Creek 0 3C-20-10 0 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 30 20-10 0 30 20 10 0 Pitt River L I Bowron Lake i — i — 1 Adams River n - , • — Chilko Lake Birkenhead River I I 1. 30 20 10 0 Cultus Lake I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Scale Rings 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 I Fig.14. Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 19 3 9 Stellako River r-TT Stuart Lake Weaver Creek Bowron Loke Adams River Chilko Lake Birkenhead River Cultus Lake 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Scale Rings Fig.15. Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 19 4 0 30-20 10 0 -30 20 10-0 30 20 IOf . Stellako River o 0. 0 30 20 10 0 30 20-io-0 30-20-10-0 30f 20 10 0 30-20 10 Ct 30 20 10} 0 Stuart Lake Weaver Creek U L Pitt River Bowron Lake Adams River Chilko Lake Birkenhead River Cultus Lake 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Scale Rings Fig.16. Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 1 9 4 1 3 0 ' 2 0 -1 0 -0 -3 0 -2 0 1 0 • 0 -3 0 O 2 0 -C a> 1 0 -u w • o-a. 3 0 o 2 0 ->s u 1 0 c 0> 3 0 -c r a> w 3 0 I i . 2 0 1 0 o-3 0 ; 2 0 1 0 0 -3 0 2 0 1 0 -o-3 0 2 0 1 0 0 Stellatv/o River Stuart Lake Weaver Creek Pitt River Bowron Lake a Chilko Loke Birkenhead River Cultus Lake Scale Rings F i Q .17 Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 19 4 2 Stellako River Stuart Lake 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 30-20. 10-0 30-20-10-0 Weaver Creek Pitt River Bowron Lake Adams River Chilko Lake r H 30-20-10-0-Birkenheatf River 30-20- Cultus Lake 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Scale Rings 30 20 10 Fig.18. Comparison of first yeor scale ring counts of Fraser River races 19 43 Stellako River 1 — 1 30-20 10-S tuart Lake 0 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 Weaver Creek 1—I Pitt River 30-20 10 Bowron Lake 30 20 10-Adams River i — r 30-20-10 Chilko Lake ± z £ J 30 20 10 Birkenhead River t t = [ 30- Cultus Lake 20 10-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Scale Rings Fig.19 Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 19 4 4 30-20-10-o -30-20-10-0-Steltako River Stuart Lake • a> o c u a. w o >» u c « cr 30-20-10-o -30-20-10-0-30-20-10' 0-Weaver Creek Bowron L a k e Adams River 30-20-10-0-30-20-10-0-Chilko Lake Birkenhead River JZhzl 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Scale Rings Fig.20 Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 19 45 30 20 10 Stellako River 30 20 10-. Stuart Lake 30 20 10-Pitt River 30 20 10-„ Chilko Lake Birkenhead River 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 26 27 Scole Rings Fig.21 Variation between years in mean first seoson ring counts using 1938 as base year l i t * —~r 1938 1939 1940 Locality Fig. 22 Stellako River sockeye tagged at Sooke, 1945. One year in lake,in fourth year. Twenty-one rings in first season. Fig. 23 Chilko sockeye taken at spawning grounds, 1944 One year in lake. Fig.24 Harrison River sockeye taken ot spawning grounds, 1940 Showing very indistinct first season winter "check'.' Fig.25 Weaver Creek sockeye taken at spawning grounds,1944. Sixteen rings in first season. Fig.28 Stuort Loke sockeye togged ot Sooke Traps, 1945. One year in lake in fourth year. Note large nucleus. 4 3 2 Fig. 29 Pitt River sockeye captured at Pitt Lake for tagging, one year in lake, in fifth year. Fig. 30 Adams River sockeye taken at spawning grounds , one year in lake, showing additional "check" in second season (A ) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0107059/manifest

Comment

Related Items