Mahimahi vs. Muckamuck; "Limited Resources"

[Bapopik at AOL.COM]

    It doesn't serve "any useful purpose" to tell readers about that 1836
"mahimahi" on a first citation of 1905?  Again,  I think the book is a close
call.  "Mahimahi" is defined as "a species of fish," not "dolphin" or
"dorado."  And again, DARE included similar in brackets on "muckamuck."
   On "muckamuck,": OED is putting the 1847 citation in the etymology (where
the first citation is 1852)?  Is there some doubt that the word is from
Chinook jargon?  This same "erymology" treatment couldn't be done for
"mahimahi"?  People would ommediately cancel their OED subscriptions if you
give a more detailed etymology?
   Ah, I don't care.  It doesn't affect my pay.