Laserfiche WebLink
<br />chubs and a few individuals fell into the gap between the two <br /> <br />clusters for Blackrocks fish. <br /> <br />Green River collections sorted out as follows: <br /> <br />1. More variation was collectively seen in the combined <br /> <br />1935 Green River collections than in the one from Black- <br /> <br />rocks (Fig. 6; compare with Fig. 4). <br /> <br />2. Although plots of Green River collections overlapped, <br /> <br />there was a tendency for combined collection scores to be <br />. ~>'''rn <br /> <br />distributed within somewhat different regions defin2d by th2 <br /> <br />PCA axes (Fig. 6). <br /> <br />3. Whirlpool Canyon speciMens exclusively plotted <br /> <br />into the same region as those for "roundtail" chubs from <br /> <br />Blackrocks, Colorado (Fig. 7). <br /> <br />4. Elsewhere, specimens mostly sorted into the "humpback- <br /> <br />intermediate" category from Blackrocks, Colorado (Fig. 6). <br /> <br />For example, the Coal Creek collection had specimens that <br /> <br />exclusively clustered as "humpback-intermediate" chubs (Fig. <br /> <br />8) . <br /> <br />6. The 1953 Horseshoe C3nyon specimens scored within a lower <br /> <br />extreme of variation for Green River and Colorado River <br /> <br />fishes, marGinally overlapping the Blackrocks "hump~ack- <br /> <br />intermediate" chub cluster (Fig. 9). <br /> <br />The only exceptions <br /> <br />were the 3 smallest specimens from Horseshoe Canyon, which <br /> <br />plotted near loadings for "roundtail" chubs. At least 3 of <br /> <br />the Horseshoe Canyon fish appeared to be "bony tail" :rorph3 <br /> <br />9 <br />