Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />4. Th~ee Canyon, Green River, R~ 169.5 <br /> <br />5. Steer Rid ge , Green River, RM 177.5 <br />6. Flat Canyon, Green River, R r~ 182. 1 <br />7. ',.Jhi rl pool Canyon, Green River, RM 337.6 <br />8. ~.Jestwater Canyon, Colorado River, R~ 1 24 . 1 <br /> <br />Ninety chub photographs from Slackrocks on the mainstem Colorado <br /> <br />R i v e r ( R i~ 1 0 5) w ere a 1 30m e a sur e d . <br /> <br />Blackrocks fish were assigned <br /> <br />to species according to a discriminant function algorithm used by <br /> <br />the U.S. ~ish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Grand Junction field <br /> <br />office: <br /> <br />30. grouped as "roundtail" chubs, <br /> <br />. "' 'rn <br />30'.'as "humpback" chubs, <br /> <br />and 30 as "unidentified" or "intermediate" chubs. <br /> <br />A questionable <br /> <br />"bony tail" morph caught at Blackrocks was also measured. <br /> <br />Also <br /> <br />evaluated were the photographs of 13 preserved chubs collected at <br /> <br />Horseshoe Canyon on the Green River in 1953. <br /> <br />Common names are <br /> <br />given in quotes because of the uncertainty of Colorado River chub <br /> <br />species designations. <br /> <br />PCA was done with the FACTOR routine of the STAT-SO interactive <br /> <br />statistical program (Wakefield, 1985) on a DEC-20 mainframe <br /> <br />COrT'Duter. <br /> <br />Prior to peA, distance me3sures were 10glo-transformed <br /> <br />to correct for some of the possible size influence on variation <br /> <br />(Neff and Smith, 1979). <br /> <br /><Note: <br /> <br />Size will be factored from <br /> <br />future studies using the shear method (Bookstein et al., 1985) in <br /> <br />order to compare populations more-specifically on a shap~ b2sis <br /> <br />and to enhance the ability to differentiate between groups. <br /> <br />Addition~lly, scatterplots will be displayed encompassed or <br /> <br />5 <br />