A er S ci1e i] ie j can s¢ : i me Fiche + r je : S rc 20 i 7 L 2 - ae Sa OT - Li } : , 7 © ERICAN FISHERIES SOIT Y ioatiiehieeenemnetietemtenes od TRANSACTIONS Volume 18 1889 R) fs Bio / 4 TRANSACTIONS OF, THE AMERICAN EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING. HELD AT THE ROOMS OF THE ANGLERS ASSOCIATION OF EASTERN PENN’A, PHILADELPHIA, MAY 15TH AND 16TH, 1889. Reprinted with the permission of the American Fisheries Society JOHNSON REPRINT CORPORATION Jounson Reprint Company Limrrep 111 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10003 Berkeley Square House, London, W. 1 a P aA ~ t .7 q 2. R iN < “2 Gobi * OFFICERS FOR 1889-90. 11456'79 PRESIDENT, EUGENE G. BLACKFORD, New York City. V.-PRES’T, HERSCHEL WHITAKER, Detroit, Mich. TREASURER, HENRY C,; FORD, Philadelphia, Pa. Rue. SEC’y, FREDERICK W. BROWN, z Cor’c SEC’y, C. V. OSBORN, Dayton, Ohio. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. Dr. W. M. HUDSON, CHAIRMAN, - Hartford, Conn. HOYT POS, - - - - - Detrott, Mich. PHILO DUNNING, - - - : Madison, Ws. Dr: H ELACaARs - - - - Atlanta, Ga. JAMES V. LONG, - . - - Pittsburg, Pa. S. P. BARTLET 4, - - Bano Ouincy, [lls. HENRY BURDEN, - - - - Troy, N. ¥. Reprinted from a copy in the collections of The New York Public Library First reprinting, 1965, Johnson Reprint Corporation Printed in the United States of America EIGH TEE IN Ld ANNUAL MEETING —OF THE— American Fisheries Society. FIRST DAY. The Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Society was held in the rooms of the Anglers’ Association, of Eastern Pennsyl- vania, No. 1020 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pa., on Wednesday and Thursday, May 15 and 16. There was also an evening session, on Wednesday, at which various subjects were dis- cussed in an informal manner. The meeting was called to order at 11 A.M, Both the President, J. H. Bissel, and the Vice-President, S. G. Worth, being absent, Dr. W. M. Hudson, of the Connecticut Fish Commission, was unanimously called to the chair. He ac- cepted the position with appropriate remarks and was followed by Mr. A. M. Spangler, President of the Anglers Associa- tion, of Eastern Penna., who extended the hospitalities of the Anglers Association in a brief address of welcome as fol- lows: Gentlemen of the American Fisheries Society : In the name and on behalf of the Angler’s Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, it affords me great pleasure to extend to you a most cordial welcome to the city of Philadelphia 4 and to these, the headquarters of our Association. At the same time, permit me to tender to you the unrestricted use of these rooms during the sessions of your society, requesting also, that if the services of the members of our Association can, in any way, be made to contribute to your comfort or convenience, you will unhesitatingly command them. These tenders gentlemen, are the more appropriate on the part of the Anglers’ Association, from the fact, that notwith- stand our name, the primary objects of our organization, are identical with those of the American Fisheries Society, namely, the promotion of the great fishery interests of the country. While your body deals mainly with the ichthyolog- ical, we have assumed a more practical position ; supplemen- ting to the fullest extent of our abilities, the good work in which you are engaged, by securing the enactment and enforcement of rigidly protective fishery laws. While in our membership there are many keen and skill- ful anglers—gentlemen possessing and exercising all the in- stincts of true sportsmen—they have ever been mindful of the important fact, that in order to have fish for catching, there must be fish propagation and protection. True, our labors have been confined to the eastern portion of our own State only, but we know that they have not been in vain. The success of the past incites to renewed efforts; your presence here, gentlemen, giving additional stimulus to them. In view of these facts which so clearly demonstrate the unity of our purposes, we feel that we can extend the right hand of good fellowship, and again bid you cordial welcome ; trusting and believing that your deliberations will be profit- able to the great fishery interests of the country, and your sojourn in Philadelphia pleasant to you all. Allow me in conclusion to direct your attention to the fact, that a day or two since, a fine Kennebec or Atlantic Salmon was taken in the Delaware river, a few miles below the city, and can be seen in an adjoining room. We will be pleased to 5 have you examine it and if possible, determine whether it is an estray, or a result of the salmon planting made in the river several years since, To-morrow you will have an oppor- tunity of discussing its table qualities at the planked shad dinner at Gloucester. Once more, gentlemen, a cordial welcome. Dr. Hudson replied on behalf of the Society. It was fur- ther announced that, through the courtesy of Hon. Marshall McDonald, Commissioner of Fisheries of the United States, the U. S. Steamer “ Fish-hawk” had been placed at the dis- posal of the ‘Anglers’ Association,” for the purpose of afford- ing the Fisheries Society an opportunity of observing the process of hatching shad, and they were invited to participate in a trip on the Delaware River, for that purpose, to proceed to Gloucester, N. J., where they would witness the hauling of the large shad seine, and partake of a Planked Shad Din- ner, as guests of the “Anglers Association ”—which invita- tion was duly accepted. Mr. Mather then suggested that a Recording Secretary should be appointed or elected, before further business was transacted, in order that he could begin to take notes for his report. He said, “I did not expect to be with you at this meeting, and had mailed my resignation to Mr. Ford which is as follows: CoLp SPRING Harsor, SurroLk Co., N. Y., May 14, 1889. Henry C. Foro, Eso. Corresponding Secretary American Fisheries Soctety, My Dear Sir: I herewith transmit my resignation as Recording Secretary of the American Fisheries Society. My manifold duties to both the New York and the United States Fish Commissions deprive me of the pleasure of much other congenial work in the line of fish culture which I might desire to do. 6 Elected to the office of Recording Secretary in 1883, I feel that I have served the society faithfully and ask tobe relieved from further work, The office which I have held, involves more labor than any other in the society, requiring the special knowledge of a journalist in the preparation of papers and reports, and if I can be of any assistance to my successor he has only to name the manner of it. Very truly yours, FRED MATHER. After some discussion, Mr. Mather consented to act as Re- cording Secretary until the election of officers. PRESIDENT BISSELES ADDRESS, The following address by President Bissell was then read by Dr. Hudson :— Gentlemen of the American Fisheries Society :— It may not be inappropriate, on opening this Annual Meet- ing of the Society, for the President to comment briefly upon affairs of the Society, or other subjects which he may deem suitable for the Society’s consideration. OF MEETINGS. As we all believe that some good may accrue to the cause of fish-culture in this country from the proceedings of this Society, it is important to make the meetings of the Society as interesting and practical as we may; and to secure each year as large an attendanceas possible of the persons within reach who are to some extent interested in the topics dis- cussed. To that end I advise that, in future, at least two members of the Executive Committee should be selected from the locality where the meeting of the year following is to be held, and that those members, with the President and Corresponding Secretary, should be constituted a sub-com- mittee having special charge of the Annual Meeting. We cannot always meetin Philadelphia, nor always have the dis- 7 interested and valuable services of the present Corresponding Secretary. Even if these conditions were permanent, it is hardly fair to throw an undue proportion of the work in ar- ranging for the meeting upon a ae officer, however efficient and willing. STATE FISHERY COMMISSIONS. You are probably all familiar with-the organizations em- ployed by the different states in carrying on the business of fish-culture. Nearly all the states, where there is much being done in this art, have commissions composed of from three to seven commissioners. These gentlemen are not always selected on account of their special aptitude for discharging the duties required of them, although generally they are per- sons having some interest in the general subject. My pur- pose is to suggest that a little interest taken in the appoint- ment of new members to the various State Commissions, by persons really interested in fish-culture, as the members of this Society are, would often result in the appointment of really capable men. Any of us who have had the oppor- tunity to see what energetic and intelligent men can accom- plish, when appointed to such a place—having, of course, a thorough interest in fish-culture and believing in its immense ultimate importance to the states—need not think twice to appreciate the need of urging upon the appointing power the selection of the most capable men who can be persuaded to accept the duty. The office of a Fish Commissioner is as much a “public trust” as any other, and is one where the service rendered by a man whom the office seeks is many-fold more fruitful, than of the man who has sought the office for the pleasure to be got of it or the slight patronage which its possession may yield. Here almost every member of the Society can exercise some influence which will be of value to the art of fish-culture as well as a service to his own state. It is worth the trial of each one of us; and if the members of this Society rendered no other service to the cause of fish- culture than seeking to influence appointments of competent 8 and thoroughly interested men upon State Fish Commissions, its existence would be amply warranted, and it would deserve well of the country. In the main, the gentlemen at present comprising the several State Commissions are men of char- acter and capacity; but some of them do not give of their time and talent all the attention their work seems to re- quire of them. ORGANIZATION OF STATE COMMISSIONS. Thorough organization of the work of a Fish Commission is as essential to its greatest influence as it is in business en- terprises carried on by private individuals or corporations. (1). There must be regularity of meetings for consultation and the general planning of work. All advancement cannot be expected from the employes, no matter how capable and intelligent. When Commissioners know what is going on, and assume direction of the general plan of work, are watch- ful of, and check unnecessary expense, and by their own work secure suitable appropriations for improvement and enlarge- ment of the work, they get better service from their em- ployes, the general tone of the work done improves and the results are vastly greater to the public. Then also, regular and frequent meetings lead to frequent consultation about the discharge of official duty, the effect of which is to give a steadier and more even impulse to improve- ment in plans and methods. It secures more general interest in every member of the board and neutralizes the tendency to concentration of direction in the hands of one or of a limited number. It equalizes the responsibility. It brings home to each member of the Board the oft needed reminder that he has an actual duty to perform, requiring his thought and per- sonal attention. (2). There must be a fair division of labor among the Com- missioners. Where this is done systematically, it will result in securing the best results in many ways. It gives equal means of knowledge of the needs of the various departments 9 of the work carried on. It brings each Commissioner into personal contact with the men employed; and gives to the several departments of work the advantage of different kinds of influences all bent upon improvement and advance. (3). There should be persistent,.systematic, thorough work done with the State Legislatures, The greater part of this kind of work must necessarily be performed by the Commis- sioners. The Secretaries and Superintendents can be of more or less service, but the legislative committees, if they are in earnest, wish to have information and advice from the men who are responsible by virtue of their office, and they havea right to be resolved of their doubts by the men who do, or should, know the requirements of this department of the State’s business. This is a particular in which many State Commissions have not accomplished what seems to me their whole duty. Legislatures are not in the habit of increasing appropriations unless good reasons are advanced for it, and a good account given of the expenditure of past appropriations. The advances made in our art require of all who are to keep pace with them, increased and better facilities, better equip- ments, ever increasing operations. What State Commission is doing all that can be done for the culture of its waters? and doing it so well, there is no room for improvement. Until that point is fairly reached and maintained, there seems to be no stopping-place in continual improvement and exten- sion. To keep pace, then, with the growing requirements in the conditions of successful fish-culture, appropriations must grow. And to that end all legitimate influences must be brought to bear on State Legislatures. This is no one’s busi- ness if it be not of the State Fishery officers. And, in my judgment, it cannot be as thoroughly and successfully done by others as by the Commissioners of the respective states. WHITE FISH IN THE GREAT LAKES, Another notable success in fish-culture has been attained in the re-establishment of white fish in Lake Erie, and the 10 definite proof of success which we have froma few other points on the Great Lakes. Inthe face of the most persistent and destructive methods of fishing, the ever increasing demands of a growing and insatiable market, improved methods of preservation and transportation, the stock of white fish in Lake Erie has steadily increased for the past four or five years under the influence of artificial propagation and plant- ing. The season’s fishing in Lake Erie last year was the most productive for the past fifteen years. From 1885 the increase has been gradual and marked. The improvement had been closely watched by the fishermen, and in the season of 1888 many of them transferred their operations from the less pro- ductive, bscause over-fished grounds of the Upper Lakes to Lake Erie. The demonstration came first in Lake Erie, because there the largest quantities of fish had been planted. All the product of the Ohio hatcheries, generous allowances from the United States Fish Commission’s stations in Michi- gan, regular plants by the Michigan Fish Commission in Lake St. Clair, Detroit River and the Western end of the Lake, and the entire product of the Canadian station on Detroit River, have here concentrated, making the actual number of fish planted for the area far in excess of the amounts depos- ited in any other waters of the Great Lakes. Future fishing seasons in Lake Erie will be affected by the product of the Pennsylvania hatching station at Erie. The fishermen are to a man finally convinced, that the success of artificial methods has been proved beyond any doubt. They have ceased to at- tribute the increase of white fish in Lake Erie to the small- mesh gill-nets, and strange to relate, they no longer attribute it to the use of the beneficent pound-net. State regulation of fishing methods has done something, and in time may accomplish much more, but artificial propa- gation is the prime factor, and this fact is fully acknowledged by every intelligent observer. The re-stocking of Lake Erie shows what can be accomplished in the other Great Lakes, when the states interested can be ihduced to provide the means for it. II THE ANNUAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS, The thanks of the Society are due to the committee appointed last year to attend to the publication of the Annual Report of its proceedings, for the prompt attention given to the business committed to them, as well as for the creditable manner in which it was performed. The Society’s apprecia- tion cannot be shown more emphatically than by the re-ap- pointment of the same committee. HONORARY MEMBERSHIP, The Society last year made a graceful acknowledgement of the courtesy extended to it by the Lake St. Clair Shooting and Fishing Club, in electing the latter to Honorary Member- ship. The chair hopes to have the pleasure of entertaining a motion to elect the Anglers’ Association, of Eastern Penn- sylvania to Honorary Membership in the American Fisheries Society, in acknowledgment of its hospitality on this occa- sion, and also of its generous efforts to promote the success and pleasure of the annual meeting. JOHN M. BISSELL. On motion of Mr. W. L. May, of Nebraska, the Society then adjourned to meet at 2 P. M. On again being called to order in the afternoon, the Chair- man appointed the following gentlemen as a Committee to nominate officers for the ensuing year: W. L. May, of Nebraska; W. A. Butler, Jr., of Michigan, and Dr. T. H. Bean, of Washington. A paper on hybrids in Salmonidae, by Dr. T. H. Bean, was then announced. Dr. Bean prefaced his paper by saying that information on the subject was difficult to get. The re- ports of the New York Fish Commission are the best on the subject. Dr. Day, in England, has written something on the subject, and there is also something in the Pennsylvania Reports but it is much like that of New York. Dr. Day goes back to Willoughby, but the individuals he considered to be I2 hybrids were merely the variation of individuals, according to Day, who has seen the specimens preserved in the British Museum. I want to make it clear that ichthyologists do not believe that trout and salmon hybridize, in a state of nature. No museum has any wild trout or salmon which are hybrids, On the other hand they have been produced by fish-culturists. Hybrids between trout and charr are sterile, they have been crossed by Coste in France and by Hansen in Norway. HYBRIDS IN SALMONIDA. BY DR. TARLETON H. BEAN. A great many experiments have been: made in crossing species of the salmon family and with more or less satisfactory results. It is not yet demonstrated that any valuable econ- omic progress has been achieved by these efforts, except in the case of very closely related species. No attempt is here made to present a history of what has been accomplished by hybridization, but I have described several hybrids whose his- tory, except in a single instance, is well known. These are the result of artificially uniting brook trout and rainbow trout, lake trout and brook trout and brown trout and saibling. In all of these hybrids the coloration differs remarkably from that of both parents, the shape is modified, the variable char- acters of the parents continue to be variable in their progeny and in certain important features, the impression is stronger from one parent than the other. The union of a large-scaled species with a small-scaled one produces a large-scaled cross in all the specimens which I have examined. As a rule, hybrids between members of distinct genera are Sterile. SUPPOSED Cross BETWEEN Brook AND RAINBOW Trout. “About the middle of April, 1887, the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries called my attention to some curious living trout 13 in aquaria at the central station. These beautiful fish had just arrived from the United States ponds at Wytheville, Vir- ginia, where their origin and relations were unknown. We do not know to this day how the cross was produced and in what establishment, but it is believed the fertilized eggs were obtained from Northville, Michigan, and that the fish, of which a few still remain alive at Wytheville, are the progeny of the female rainbow and the male brook trout. I have pre- viously intimated in 7e Angler of November 10 my inability to prove the assumption as to the nature of the hybrid which I am about to describe, but there is no doubt in my mind that the theory here adopted is justified by what we know of hybrids in general. In form and to some extent in coloration the fish represented in the following illustration resembles the brook trout. In the character of the teeth and the size of the scales the resemblance to the rainbow trout is very strik- ing. Two noteworthy features are, the absence of red spots and the presence of whitish vermiculations on the sides. None of the fins are mottled except the large fin on the back. It will be remembered that the brook trout has dark bands and irregular blotches, or mottlings, on the tail. The rainbow has black spots on the body, the tail and the back fins, and many adults have a broad band of crimson along the middle line. The hybrid is ten and a half inches long, or about two and a half times the length of the illustration. The line shown under the tail represents one inch of the length of the fish; the same system of indicating length is applied in the plates of the “ Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States.” The scales are as large as in the rainbow, number- ing 135 rows from the head to the tail. The row of teeth in the middle of the roof of the mouth is double in the first half of its length and single posteriorly ; it is longer than in the brook trout and shorter than in the rainbow. There are four pairs of teeth on the tongue; the root of the tongue (hyoid bone) is toothless. The large back fin has ten split rays and 14 the fin behind the vent nine rays ; in this respect the resemb- lance is to the brook trout, but the difference from the rain- bow is slight. The height of the body is about one-fifth of the length excluding the tail, and the length of the head about two-ninths. The large back fin and the fin behind the vent are higher than in the brook trout and more nearly like the fins of the rainbow. The coeca at the pyloric end of the stomach are fewer in number than in both of the reputed parent species. The re- productive organs are short and thin, the sex not discernible, which is the usual condition in hybrids of this kind. The air- bladder is very large, nearly as long as the abdominal cavity. This is a graceful and active fish and one that is worthy of the attention of fish culturists. Our examples were so full of life that some of them jumped out of the aquarium. Under favorable circumstances, if the cross continues to exhibit sterility, it should grow rapidly and reach a great size. If any of the readers of Zhe American Angler can furnish information about the fish here described or about experiments in hybridizing species of the salmon family, it will be received with much interest.” Cross BETWEEN LAKE TRouT AND Brook TRovuT. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission has been experiment- ing for some years, at the Corry station, with hybrids between the lake trout, sa/velinus namaycust, and the brook trout sa/- velinus fontinalis. A very brief account of the experiments is to be found in the report of that commission for 1886. Some fine specimens of these artificially produced hybrids have been received by the United States Fish Commission. A large one measuring about twenty inches in length is ap- parently a male as the lower jaw has a small cartilaginous tip. The end of the maxilla extends behind the eye a distance nearly equal to the length of thesnout. The scales are larger than in the brook trout and about equal in size to those of the lake trout. The caudel is deeply forked, about as deeply as 15 that of the lake trout. In shape the hybrid is similar to the lake trout, as also, in the general pattern of coloration ; but the very numerous spots on the sides are somewhat smaller and a pale lemon in color, instead of whitish. The spots be- low the middle line of the body have a center of orange. The pectorals, ventrals, anal, and the lower lobe of the caudal have a broad white edge. The ventrals and anal are a pale vermilion orange. The outer half of the upper surface of the pectoral is dusky. There is a narrow black line limiting the white of the ventrals and a similar trace bounds the white of the anal. The ground color of the sides is greenish, olive. The sides of the head have numerous spots of lemon-yellow, some of them larger than the largest of those on the sides. The lips are yellowish, flesh colored; the eye is golden, with a dusky border; the top of the head and back have some scattered vermiculations like those of the brook trout, but much less developed and not so plentiful. The caudal and dorsals are spotted with lemon-yellow, like the sides. A smaller one, supposed to be a male, has the back slightly elevated as in old male brook trout, but its caudal is forked and it has the large scales and peculiar coloration of the bybrid. The vomerine teeth are as in the lake trout and the hybrid teeth are in a well developed band. The stumach is very large, siphon-shaped, and the coeca number about 60, being more numerous than in the brook trout, which has 44‘; but not nearly so abundant as in the lake trout. In all characters of great importance, as in the shape of the tail, size of the scales, and the dentition, the cross has received its impression from the lake truut, while in coloration, general form, and number of coecal appendages the impression came from the brook trout. In other words, in characters most subject to variation, fontinalis has left its impress, but in characters of greater permanence xamaycush has left its unmistakable mark. The specimen was an undeveloped male about 20 inches long. 16 Cross BETWEEN Satmo FARIO AND SALVELINUS ALPINUS. The tinest and largest series of hybrid trout which we have seen is in the United States National Museum. It is the re- sult of crosses between the saibling and brook trout of Nor- way, artificially produced at one of the Norwegian fish cul- tural stations, some years prior to the International Exposi- tion at Philadelphia in 1876. These hybrids were exhibited in the Norwegian section at the Centennial Exhibition, and at the close of the Exhibition, were presented to the United States National Museum. The collection contains individuals ranging in age from one year to six years, and includes the re sults of crossing both ways between the two species. In no instance does the hybrid resemble either parent in general appearance. In shape there is a compromise between the two parent forms. The saibling (Salvelinus alpinus) has a forked tail, while the Salmo fario has the tail nearly truncate when expanded. In the hybrid, until five years old at least, individuals all have the tail more forked than in the brook trout (farzo) and less so than in the saibling. One of the largest six-year-olds has the tail-fin truncate, about as it is in salmo farto. The proportions of the hybrid have already: been hinted at above. The height of the body equals more than the height of the head, and is contained four and two-thirds times in the length of the fish measured to the end of the scales. The head is one-fourth of this same length and contains the dia- meter of the eye about six times. The snout is half again as long as the eye and one-half as long as the upper jaw. The maxilla extends far behind the eye, the length of the upper jaw being somewhat more than one-half the length of the head. The teeth in the vomer are invariably similar to those of the Salmo fario. In all but six individuals of this large series, teeth are present and well developed on the base of the 17 tongue, their absence occurring in both crosses and in speci- mens five and six years old, although it is more common in yearlings. The peduncle of the tail is one-third of the length of the head. The first dorsal fin is somewhat in advance of the middle of the total length, its anterior two-thirds being in front of the belly fins. The base of the first dorsal is nearly as long as its longest ray. The anal fin is very long; its longest ray is much longer than the length of its base and somewhat larger than the longest ray of the dorsal fin. The short and stout adipose dorsal fin is placed over the end of the anal. The belly fin reaches almost or quite to the vent, when laid backward. Its appendage is one-third to two-fifths as long as the fin. The breast fin is about three-fourths as long as the head. A six year old hybrid, produced by fertilizing saibling eggs with milt of Sa/mo fario, has the breast fin of the right side produced into a long tip, three fifths of an inch longer than its fellow of the opposite side. There are 142 scales in the lateral line, of which 122 are tube-bearing. There are 14 rows of scales from the end of the anal fin obli- quely upward and backward to the lateral line; 16 rows from the end of the adipose fin obliquely downward and backward to the lateral line; 23 rows from the end of the dorsal obli- quely downward and backward to the lateral line. The branchiostegal membrane is supported by 12 rays. The dorsal fin has 10 divided rays; the anal 8 ; the breast fin 12, and the belly fin 8. The number of gill-rakers is 21, of which 13 are below the angle; the longest raker is nearly one-half as long as the eye. There are 58 pyloric coeca in one individual, and 60 in another example crossed the op- posite way, that is, by fertilizing saibling eggs with milt of the Salmo fario. The latter trout has 42 cceca and the saibling has 42 to 45 in specimens examined. The general color is vandyke brown, the lower parts lighter. The sides are profusely vermiculated with narrow, pale mark- ings and with small blotches of the same color, the vermicula- 18 tions or blotches, and sometimes both, extending on the head, The fins are usually pale; occasionally the dorsal and anal have several faint, band-like, brown markings, and the tail fin is inconspicuously banded. Hybrids one year old, between female saibling and male Salmo fario, are four inches long; between female fario and male saibling they are 37-10 to 4% inches. Two-year-olds vary from 634 inches to 8 2-5 inches, Three-year-olds, pro- duced by fertilizing saibling eggs with the milt of Salmo fario, measure 91% inches ; the Opposite cross of the same age varies from 10 inches to 1034 inches. Four-year-olds, crossed between female saibling and male fario vary from 111% to 1134 inches ; those crossed the other way are 11 inches long. Five-year-old hybrids between male saibling and female Salmo Jario, range from 13 inches to 14 inches in length- Six-year- olds, between male saibling and female Jario, measure from 17 inches to 191% inches ; those between male fario and female saibling are from 17 to 18 inches long. None of the specimens examined by me show any develop- ment of the reproductive Organs, and it is probable that this hybrid, although a large and beautiful animal, is uniformly sterile. Dr. Kincssury.—I would ask if the flesh of hybrids is better than that of either parent ? Dr. Bean replied that the specimens with which he was familiar are alcoholic, but; Mr. Hansen, of Norway, recom- mends a cross between a saibling and the brown trout as an excellent fish for the table. Mr. Forp could answer the question. He had eaten a fish which was a cross between a lake and a brook trout, and, While it was not quite as good as a brook trout, it was a good table fish. Mr Power thought that such hybrids would revert to brook trout, if placed in trout streams. Dr. Hupson considered that the cross between lake and brook trout is the one most able to resist adverse influences, 19 like the mule, and they resemble the patient and much-abused mule in being sterile. The cross between the buffalo and the domestic cow is fertile but is hardy. Mr. MarTuer did not approve of bastardizing fish further than to see what could be done as a scientific curiosity. He had used the milt of the alewife on shad eggs, when no male shad were at hand, hoping that a fish of some kind might re- sult from eggs that would otherwise be wasted, but that was as far as he would plead guilty to bringing any living thing into the world with the bar sinister on its escutcheon. Nature has placed a barrier between the crossing of the brook and lake trout of Eastern America by fixing the spawning time of the former in the day and the latter at night. There is throughout all nature, an abhorrence of miscegenation, and a law that if it is practiced, its fruits shall not perpetuate the crime. If this were not so, there would be no such thing as species, or even genera, for the late Seth Green claimed to have crossed a shad with a striped bass. Ido not believe such a cross to be possible, any more than you can cross a dog anda cat, two animals nearer alike in structure than the fishes named. Dr. BEAN had examined specimens which were said to be a cross between the California or Chinook, salmon, and the brook trout, sent to the Smithsonian Institution by Mr. Green, but could find no difference between them and other fish sent by Mr. Green, which he claimed were the progeny of the rainbow and brook trouts. Possibly Mr. Green made a mis- take. Mr. MATHER called attention to the fact that Mr. Green claimed his hybrids to be fertile, and that specimens had been exhibited at Mr. Blackford’s on the opening of the trout sea- son in New York, labelled from 34 to 7% blood of brook and lake trout. Just which species was alleged to predominate in these crosses was not remembered, perhaps Mr. Blackford might furnish the information from the newspaper chips con- cerning his annual displays, of which he has a full line. Dr. Bean has declared hybrid’ between the trouts and the sal- 20 mons to be sterile, and also those between the trouts and charrs. If this is so, and I hope it is, then the violation of Nature’s laws by man in his efforts to perpetuate monstrosi- ties will be a failure. If man could cross the elephant with the butterfly there would be no limit to his ambition to pro- duce curiosities for dime museums. Dr. Kinessury asked if the food of fish did not color the flesh, and if it was not possible that the rich, red-fleshed trout had not fed upon food of that color. Dr. BEAN replied that once he had believed that the red flesh of salmon came from crustacean food, but the mackerel and other white-fleshed fish feed on the same food, and at present he thinks that the color of the food does not affect the color of the flesh of the fish which eats it. Pror. Joun A. Ryper, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, spoke on the embryology and histology of the shad. THE LATERAL LINE ORGANS AND THE HYA- LINE “TISSUES OF THE HEAD OF THE, SHAD. BY PROF. JOHN A. RYDER. The common shad of our markets is in many respects one of the most strikingly characteristic fishes amongst the variety of native species exposed for sale in the spring months, The lateral line system of these fishes is interesting from a number of points of view. First, from the consideration of its possible relation to the annual migration of that species into fresh water for the purpose of spawning, and secondly, on account of the very singular histological structure of the skin over a considerable portion of the extent of the system and over the head. Whether or not this part of the nervous system of the shad enables that fish to appreciate very slight differences of tem- perature at two points in the water separated only by the 21 distance between the anterior and posterior ends of that sys- tem, and to thus enable the fish to appreciate and determine the direction of its migration according to the temperature differences, is an open question. While such a suggestion may seem far-fetched and improbable, there is enough of the barest possibility of the lateral line system having such a function to warrant serious consideration. The other point in relation to the lateral line system, which seems to me to be of sufficient interest to be worth noting, is the following : Every one, upon carefully examining the sides of the head and opercles of the shad for the first time, will have the attention arrested by the large amount of clear tis- sues in front of and behind the eyes and over the gill-covers, forming a quite considerable layer over the latter, which is traversed in its deeper parts by five canals, which open to the surface. Similar canals traverse tissues covering the space between the eyes over the front of the head. In these canals, many of which are exceedingly narrow and repeatedly branched before reaching the surface, the cephatic portion of the lateral line system is lodged. The terminations of the nerves are at the bases of little clusters of cells, adherent to the -walls of the canals, surmounted by five hair-like proto- plasmic processes. These fine processes of the cells are prob- ably the terminal elements of an exceedingly delicate special sensory apparatus. The fine processes project into the fluid in the canals, and when the fluid is set in motion by even the slightest vibration, sensory impressions are conveyed to the brain of the fish. In the present state of our knowledge it is probably useless to speculate as to the uses of this delicate mechanism, which is many times more complex than the sys- tem of labyrinths found in the human ear. Some idea of the complexity of the system of canals may be obtained by care- fully inspecting the manifold branchings of this system on the opercles, where they may be readily made out with a pocket magnifier, embedded in the considerable layer of clear substance already mentioned. An examination of this clear substance with the aid of sec- 22 tions and the microscope shows that it is made up of a clear matrix, in which elongate or spindle-shaped cells are em- bedded at pretty wide intervals apart. Its remarkably cartil- age-like, clear aspect is due to the large amount of clear sub- stance between the cells already mentioned. ‘This peculiar structure undoubtedly belongs to the skin, yet it is a most singular type of dermal tissues, probably not found in any type of vertebrates except fishes. It is most largely de- veloped over the opercles or gill-covers and over the region in front of and behind the eye in the shad. In fact the eye- ball seems to be partly embedded in it. Its great transpar- ency, although covering in the eye in large part and even en- croaching at times upon the pupil, would not interfere with the lines of vision either backward or forward. This trans- parent tissue thus forms a sort of imperfect anterior and posterior immovable transparent eye-lid, thus also affording a not inconsiderable amount of protection to the eye-ball without obstructing vision. Such an arrangement of a trans- parent anterior and posterior eye-lid is met with in a good many other types of fishes in which the microscopical struet- ure is probably very similar, At any rate, whatever its func- tion , its histological structure would afford an interesting field for more exact histological observation. The lateral line system of the front of the head of the sea- bass is also exceedingly complex and also seems to be em- bedded in a peculiar kind of tissue. These types, the shad and sea-bass, therefore present complications of the lateral line system over the head and the investing’ tissues, which would well repay further and more elaborate biological and microscopical investigation than has been bestowed upon them in this brief note. Mr. May brought up the subject of a place for the next meeting of the Society and moved that the place be now de- cided on. Mr. BLACKFORD seconded the motion and named Wash- 23 ington as the place where the most successful meetings had been held, and where there was the greatest collection of fish cultural apparatus and the greatest collection of material of interest to fish culturists. Dr. KinGssury approved of Washington as the best place for the meeting. Mr. MaTuer favored Washington as.a permanent place for annual meetings, and thought that the largest attendance could be had there, or in New York. Mr. OsBoRNE moved to amend Mr. Blackford’s motion by substituting Put-in Bay, on Lake Erie, as the place of meet- ing. The United States Fish Commission will put up a large hatchery there and it will be in operation. Mr. BLAcKFoRD—A ballot on this question will be the best way to settle it, and I move that the question be so decided. This motion was carried, tellers were appointed and the result was seven votes for Washington and eight for Put-in Bay. The Chairman announced that the meeting wuuld be held at the latter place, the time of mieeting to be decided upon adjournment. A long discussion then took place on the advisability of holding an evening session. Mr. May argued against as not only uncustomary but unnecessary, and coming so far (Nebraska) to attend the meeting he regretted to lose a word of the discussions, but if an evening session was held he, for one, would be unable to attend. Not anticipating an even- ing meeting he had made other engagements; that if a meet- ing was held in the evening he could not be present. He, therefore, was opposed to an evening meeting. Dr. Hupson said that it was now a question of courtesy to the members of the Angler’s Association, whose guests we are, to hold an evening session. Several of them wished to meet with us and they had been given to understand that there would be such a session. The question was called for and it was decided to hold an evening meeting. 24 Mr. SPANGLER Called attention to a 12-pound salmon which was caught in the Delaware river the day before, which he had bought purposely to have served at the dinner the following day, and which had just been brought into the room for exhibition to the members present. Mr. MATHeER said that at the iast moment he had decided to attend the meeting and had written a letter to that effect to Mr. Ford. It contained a bit of history which might be of interest, and was as follows: CoLp Sprinc Harpor, SuFFOLK Co., N. Y., May 14, 1889. Henry C. Ford, Esq., Cor. Sec y Am. Fisheries Society. Dear Sir:—I_ regret that I cannot be with you at the only meeting at which I have not been present since the first one held in New York City, December 20, 1870, in response to a call, as the first report says, of “ W. Clift, A. S. Collins, J. H. Slack, F. Mather and L. Stone.” We were then all breeding trout and selling eggs and fry, and as the prices of those days may be of interest to com- pare with those of to-day, I copy the following from my cir- cular of 1871-72. now in my scrap-book : BROOK TROUT! Trout Ponps AND HatcHING HousE Or FRED MATHER. HoneozeE Farris, Monroe Co., N. Y. The prices of spawn and fish for the season of 1871-72 are as follows: Trout spawn, per single thousand ye... srajas mar punete.s $10 OO ms a “five Pree Hore eee ee 40 OO ts Me “ ten AT ee ips gE ee 70 CO Young trout (meaning fry ready to take food) single LIU AINGE og. Foo ssog 8 Ao eee a's Stes ren 30 00 25 If the prices seem enormous now, it must be remembered that a hatchery that had 100,000 eggs ranked among the largest. Mr. Collins had the most spawning fish and had shown a disposition to cut the prices. I proposed to Dr. Slack to form a “trades union” to keep up prices, and this was our only object in forming the American Fish-culturists’ Associ- ation, which is now the society which meets to-day. At the first meeting, our ideas broadened and ran away with us, and the “trades union” never was formed. Fortunately, I have every report of this society. from the first to the last, bound in accessible volumes, and doubt if outside the Smithsonian Institution there are two other full setts. At any time that the Association should need refer- ence to these volumes, I will be glad to be of service in quot- ing from them. Very truly yours, FRED MATHER. NOTES ON TROUT WORK IN MICHIGAN. Ws. A. BuTLer, JR., DETROIT, MICH. In the earlier days of the Michigan Fish Commission— which was organized in 1873—no very careful attention was given to the raising of Brook-Trout, and this fish occupied only a small share of the time of the Commissioners, who devoted themselves principally to the propagation of white fish, and a few other varieties of fish that were by nature en- tirely foreign to the waters of our state. The fish hatchery was erected at Crystal Springs, about two miles from Pokagon Station, on the Michigan Central Railroad, in Cass County, on the grounds of The Methodist Camp Meeting Association, and here the Commissioners be- gan work with a vigor and devotion that were worthy of better results than they obtained. Here all the work was 26 done for a number of years, with some assistance from two or three private hatcheries, which for their work were under the supervision of the Commissioners. It took the Commissioners several years to thoroughly satisfy themselves that they had made a mistake in the loca- tion of this hatchery, and that all fish could not be success- fully raised in any water. It was here supposed the tempera- ture of the water could be changed in a sufficient degree to fit any case by the use of ice and the widening ar deepening of the ponds through which the supply stream flowed. All these methods were tried and eventually failed of success. Here was time wasted on Atlantic salmon, California salmon, Land-Locked salmon, Shad, Eels, White-Fish and other va- rieties of the finny tribes ;—thousands of eggs were hatched and the fry deposited in numerous streams and lakes through- out the state, only to grow for a short time and then disappear entirely. In 1874, a dozen speckled trout from six to ten inches in length, caught in one of the streams of the northern part of the state, were put into the ponds, for “ observation and com- parison with those hatched from eggs received from New York and some of the New England states.” The White- fish work was taken to Detroit in 1876, and with it was removed a great strain upon the limited resources of the Pokagon hatchery. In 1865 the Legislature had passed a law protecting Brook- Trout from capture by nets or seines in any inland lake, river or stream, but specifying no time when they might not be taken with hook and line, and a close season was not made for them until 1873, when they were protected from Oct. 1st to April Ist next succeeding, and the Legislature following, extended the time from Sept. 1st to May rst. A number of these fish, in excellent condition, were in the ponds according to the report of 1874—5, but no mention is made of planting any fry: the fish seem to have been kept— not as curiosities exactly, but as specimens of what some of 27 our northern streams contained, and do not seem to have received any special attention from the commission. The beauties of climate and scenery of the upper portion of the lower peninsula of Michigan, and the extended reputa- tion of its rivers and brooks for fine fishing, had called to their banks sportsmen, from all over our own state and from neighboring states, in such numbers as to rapidly diminish the supply of trout, and the Fish Commission, ere they had been but a few years at work, were earnestly importuned to replenish the fished-out streams that had been but a short time before the glory and pride of the man with rod and reel. The laws for the preservation of Brook-Trout were not very carefully observed, the state had no fish-wardens to look after its interests, and nurhberless anglers carried from their native streams or killed upon its waters thousands of fish that were too small for table use and only served to add volumes to the marvelous fish-stories they told when at home. In 1878—9, there were upon the trays of Pokagon about 300,000 Brook-Trout eggs; of these 250,000 had been pur- chased, as demands for trout fry had been coming in from various parts of the state. The Commission had now become convinced that this delicate fish could be raised to advantage. and had resolved to give it a greater share of their attention, For some reason, which they themselves did not then understand, but 15,000 of this large number of eggs were hatched. Again in 1879—80, the Commissioners made an- other purchase of eggs, and 170,000 had the close and careful attention of the superintendent during the winter; but with the same disastrous results, “the eggs died rapidly, and after hatching, the little fish died by thousands before the food ves- cicle was absorbed.” Here was a poser for the fish-breeders. This stream which they had looked upon but a few years be- fore as one of the most desirable in the state for fish-propaga- tion had not met their expectations. The clear, limpid waters which had given every hope of success to the commissioners, contained some hidden poison that was almost certain death 28 to eggs and fry alike. Reasons for this rapid destruction existed without question, and the commissioners set them- selves to work to find out the cause of their repeated failures. A noticeable diminution in the volume of water. towards the latter part of the season, had been observed for some time back, and the temperature had gone up to 52°. A microscop- ical examination of the fry revealed “little blisters on the gill covers, distended and inflamed eyes and a fungoid condition of the gills,” and an analysis of the waters ot the creek found it “contaminated to a high degree, with decomposing vege- table matter, sewage from some slaughter house or glue fac- tory courses into it’”—said the examiner. Thus were they convinced that any more work in this line at Pokagon would would be worse than useless: from the thousands and thou- sands of eggs over which they had labored, less than 450,000 fry had been planted in eight years, and it is more than prob- able that the greater part of these were so infected with dis ease as to live but a short time after being put into the stream were it was hoped they would thrive. In July 1881, Cheney Creek, near Paris, in Mecosta County, was selected as a desirable place to which to remove the hatchery. As grayling were found in the stream and had been known to exist there for some time previous, it was deemed almost certain that the waters contained the necessary food and all other properties and accessories so essential to the success of trout work: the magnificent results obtained by the Commis- sion at this point since have fully shown the wisdom of its selection. About 39 acres of ground and a strip of land 15 rods wide, the creek meandering across 120 acres more, were purchased. A hatching house, dwelling, barn, etc., were erected at a cost of $5000 which included apparatus, and the Michigan Com- mission after eight years of hard labor, over which no one felt very much elated, virtually began afresh in the work of hatch- ing brook trout. It might be well to add a few facts in re- 29 gard to the change of location from Pokagon to Paris, which were developed sometime after the transfer was made, the ab- sence of which seemed to render the abandonment of the old hatchery so necessary. In the first place the superintendent at that time was not an educated fish-culturist, and to his want of knowledge of the work he had undertaken, was un- doubtedly attributable, in a great degree, his lack of success. He had been a Baptist minister, and had waged a continual and unceasing war with the managers of the Methodist Camp Meeting Association from his earliest connection with the work there, which state of things probably made the location distasteful to him. The water, the analysis of which showed such destructive properties to all fish-life, it has been ascertained was not taken from the spring, but from a pond some distance below the hatching house, which had not been cleaned in months, was filled with a rank growth of weeds and received the refuse from the house and ponds, and it has always been supposed that he took this means of relieving himself from neighbors that were disagreeable to him, and also of the odium of failure in his work. The truth of this seems more than probable, when we look at the present situation at Pokagon, as a private hatching house on a moderate scale has since been successfully operated on the same grounds. But in the light of more recent events, the State of Michigan has never had cause to regret the desire that superintendent had to shift the responsibility for Pokagon disasters from his own shoulders, and success never crowned the efforts of the Commission until his name was placed in the list of those that ad been connected with its work. In the removal of stock-trout from Pokagon a large por- tion were lost, and of the amount saved, over one-half were given to the Superintendent ina settlement with him when relieved from charge of the work some time after, leaving in 1883 but goo breeding trout in the four ponds at Paris. These with devoted care and attention from our present 30 experienced Superintendent have increased to such an ex- tent that now there are but few less than 14,000 on hand. From 250,000 fry planted in 1882, a large portion of which were from purchased eggs, the work has so far developed that almost 3,000,000 fry have just been put into streams in vari- ous parts of the state as the result of the past winter’s work: the eggs from which they were hatched being entirely ob- tained from stock fish in the ponds. New blood and strength has been infused into this fish by adding from time to time trout caught in neighbrring streams, by exchanges of eggs with the New York and Wisconsin Commission, and with the United States Commission at its Northville station, from which place some yearlings have also been received. | From the four breeding-ponds with which the work started at Paris, it has been found necessary to add others, until at present there are 21 breeding and four wild ponds in which the fish are kept, and the supply of water is still sufficient to add a number more as they may be required. During last year a new hatching-house, at a cost of a little over $4000, was built, which was fitted with every conven- ience that the experience of the Commissioners and Super- intendent could suggest. This house is 821% feet long by 40 feet in width. Water is brought through a 12 inch pump-log from the creek above and carried into the house by two iron pipes which discharge into two large tanks; from these it passes into the feed troughs and thence into the hatching troughs through brass faucets. The water is wasted through open drains, paved and cemented, into the creek below the largest wild pond. The hatching-troughs are 14 feet in length by 3 foot in width and placed in groups of three. The capacity of the house is about 3,500,000, and with the old one which is still available about 5,000,000 fry can be safely and conveniently handled. Thus the Commissioners hope to meet the rapidly increasing demand for trout and to furnish good sport for the angler in every part of the state 31 where suitable streams exist; as they have added about 80 acres to the original purchase of ground, which gives them the control of the wooded land about the sources of Cheney Creek, thereby making more permanent the water supply. it looks as if their object might be accomplished from the Paris station alone. Fishing is prohibited by law in any stream into which trout has been put by the Commission under three years from the date when first planted, and under these regulations, about two hundred streams have been opened for sport in the last two years, and the number will be largely increased in 18g0. Trout in lower Michigan were discovered about forty years ago, and were then confined to an extent of country em- braced by six or seven counties in its extreme northern por- tion, none being found south of the Boardman River which empties into Grand Traverse Bay after coursing through the counties of Kalkaska and Grand Traverse, and as at the present time this fish is found in about forty counties of the lower Penninsula, one can readily see that the efforts of the Fish Commission have not been devoid of gratifying results in this line of work at least. On motion the meeting adjourned to 8 P. M. EVENING SESSION. There were no papers read in the evening, but several sub- jects were discussed in an informal manner. Mr. BLackFrorp had been looking over the Delaware river salmon which Mr. Spangler had bought. Some had raised a question about the possibility of this fish being one of the Quinnat, or Chinook salmon which were planted in the river years ago. There was no possible doubt about it; it was an Atlantic salmon, sa/mo salar, and from its small size and trim shape was not an old fish. Dr. Hupson.—From our experience in the Connecticut river it is well established that for years after planting has 32 been discontinued, there were straggling salmon caught. After the salmon had been restored to the Connecticut river they were freely taken by the fishermen. Fora number of years there was a marked falling off in the numbers of fish caught after the plantings had been discontinued for four or five years, and then followed straggling fish in more or less num- bers every year. Mr. SPANGLER.—Early in the seventies, salmon were planted in the Delaware. In 1878 about 4o fish were taken, but since that time only one or two each year. Mr. MATHER.—As I have before stated, I made a plant of 100,000 salmon, on account of the U. S. Fish Commission, in some tributaries of the Delaware river in 1885, and it is possible that the fish purchased by Mr. Spangler may be one of that planting. The fry were put in in two New Jersey streams, the Pequest river and the Paulin’s Kill, in May of that year, and would now be four years old. An account of this planting will be found in the report of U.S. Commis- sion of Fish and Fisheries for 1885, page 115. Dr. Kinespury.—I would ask Mr. Mather if the salmon of which he speaks were the Atlantic or the Pacific species ? Mr. MATHER.—They were the Atlantic salmon. The Pacific salmon plantings have been abandoned on this coast for over six years, and possibly more. I can’t say just how long, at this distance from my books. Dr. Kincsspury.—Is there any known reason why the millions of California salmon which were planted in our At- lantic streams some years ago never returned ? Mr. Matruer.—Nothing is positively known of the quin- nat salmon in Eastern waters after the fish went to sea. They seemed to thrive in our rivers and many “parr” were caught, or seen, but the adult fish never returned. I have a theory to account for this, and it may be briefly stated thus: Mr. Stone recommended this salmon as one that could, or would, pass through warmer waters than our Eastern fish and consequently might thrive below the limit in which the At- 33 lantic salmon is found. A glance at the map shows that sal- mon streams of the Pacific coast are very short, and we know that they are snow-fed. My theory is that those streams are colder at the bottom than ours and that when this Western salmon matured, if it ever did. it could find no suitable stream to enter on our coast. Temperature is the thing which in- fluences the migration of fish more than even food, and if there is a strata of cold water in the Sacramento river, com- ing down from the perpetual snows that feed tributaries a short distance above, as I think very probable, then the rea- son why the fish did not enter our warm rivers in May and June is plain. It is possible that there may be a difference of thirty degrees, Fahrenheit, between the bottom and the surface of the Sacramento river in June. I know nothing of these temperatures and this statement is mere theory, but it is the only theory which I can frame to fit the facts. Dr. Hupson.—The planting of the California salmon in the rivers of the Atlantic coast was an experiment that many of us watched with great interest. We believed that it was adapted to warmer waters than our own salmon, and the young swarmed in our rivers and went to sea in good condi- tion and in fair size, giving hope of their return, which was never fulfilled. Why they did not come back has been a puzzle to us and this th.ory, which has just been stated by Mr. Mather, seems to be the only solution of the question. Dr. Cary.—We planted thousands of them in the rivers of Georgia, but none returned. My theory accords with that of Mr. Mather, the rivers are too warm. Pror. Goopr.—The Germans have kept this California salmon in ponds and report that they thrive under pond cul- ture ; their success seems to be better than ours. It is cer- tain that if this species was at all adapted to live on our East- ern coast it would have lived in some of the streams between Maine and Georgia, for no fish that has been introduced has had a greater chance to find suitable conditions to live in than this one. Every condition of food and temperature that 34 our Atlantic streams possess was offered it, but none of them were favorable and the fish was unable to accommodate itself to any of the rivers. Mr. MAarHer.—The aquatic fauna of our Western coast more clearly resembles that of the west coast of Europe than that of our Eastern coast, and this fact may be a bar to the acclimatization of some species of fish, here or in Europe Our Eastern charr, which we call the brook-trout, does not thrive in England, while the rainbow trout does. The latter fish lived with us, in the East, but its eggs do not impreg- nate well, and I do not believe that it would perpetuate itself in our streams if left to itself. Attempts have been made to introduce the sole from Europe, but I doubt if the rocky coast of Massachusetts will ever prove a home for them. In my opinion this fish will never thrive north of New Jersey, and if I were asked where to plant them I should say South Carolina, and I would not insure their success there, because of this difference between the Eastern and Western shore of the Atlantic. Dr. Bean.—Our brook trout, when introduced into English Waters, seems inclined to migrate, much as the rainbow trout does with us. There is a movement among the trout before the spawning season, usually in September. With us the fontinalis starts up stream for the spawning beds, but in England the movement seems to be down stream. Just what this different habit of this fish means we do not know, but there seems to be a great difference in the habit of fontinalis when transplanted from Eastern America to Western Europe, as there are in other fishes which Mr. Mather has cited. The European carp, when transplanted to America, has thrived, and, in places, exceeded its rate of growth in Germany. Mr. May.—In our new country, where almost every stream has a saw-mill on it, the effect of sawdust is a question for the fish culturist to consider. On many streams the fish have been destroyed, or driven away by sawdust. Dr. Kincssury.—The evil effect of sawdust in our streams 35 is well known to every angler, and the erection of a saw-mill on a stream means the destruction of the trout, and perhaps other fish, within a few years. Mr. MatHer.—A man should have no legal right to make a sewer of a stream in which he can flow refuse of any kind that is detrimental to the fish in it. The public have rights in the fish, and if the saw-mill man cannot afford to take care of his refuse then he should not run his mill. Saw-mills may be a necessity, but fish are also needful, and the fish were there before the mill. If aman can’t run his business with- out ruining the streams he should be compelled to shut up shop. He should not be allowed to maintain a nuisance in order that he may make money. It is not a public necessity that he should make money, but it is of general benefit that the streams are filled with fish. I have said that sawdust does not kill the adult fish but does ruin the spawning beds. Mr. SPANGLER.—The theory that sawdust kills adult fish is not a true one, but that it kills the eggs and the young fry is indisputable. The great injury from sawdust comes from the smothering of the spawn and from the decay of the finely comminuted wood, which rots in the water and injuriously affects the fry. The pollution of our streams should be stopped. Mr. Osporn.—We have had some experience with poison in our Ohio streams, but the paper mills are not turning in as much chloride of lime as formerly, they now use this ma- terial over and over. The straw-board mills send quantities of fine pulp into the streams, and this kills suckers by adher- ing to their gills. The crayfish march up when fermentation takes place from this pulp, and perhaps sawdust also fer- ments and has the same effect. Dr. Hupson.—As the sawdust question seems to have been exhausted I would like to say a word on a matter that is troubling usin Connecticut. This is the decrease of shad in our rivers. Some years ago we increased the shad by hatching, so that the fishermen begged us to desist because 36 the prices were too low. Now shad are scarce in our rivers, but seem to be plenty in other waters. This is not merely this year, but has been the case for several years past. Mr. Forp.—The catch of shad in the Delaware this year has been one of the largest known. The fish have been cheap, have wholesaled for $12 per hundred, and at times the local market has been glutted. Mr. MATHER.—-This may be the question of temperature. For some years the Connecticut streams may have been too low for the spawning fish to enter and they may have gone elsewhere. Ina paper which I will read to-morrow I will show that shad have strayed from California to Oregon, and perhaps they were after the temperature that they required. Dr. Kincspury.—The temperature of the water may have more or less effect upon the migrations of fish, just how much I am not prepared to say, but it is possible that there are other conditions which also affect their movements, such as food, turbid waters and floods. It is a difficult matter to define the causes of the migrations of fishes because we can- not follow them. The meeting then adjourned until 9 A. M. the next day. 37 SECOND DAY. The meeting was called to order at 10 A. M. The Nomi- nating Committee was called i for their report which was as follows: PHILADELPHIA, May 16th, 1889. To the American Fisheries’ Society : Your committee appointed to nominate officers for the en- suing year beg leave to report the following : President... EUGENE G. BLACKFORD, New York City. Vice-President, HERSCHEL WHITAKER, Detroit, Mich. TREGEUTCT, O. hO eS . HENRY C. FORD, Philadelphia, Pa. Recording Secretary, FRED'K W. BROWN, Philadelphia, Pa. Corresponding Secretary,.....C. V. OSBORN, Dayton, Ohio. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. ew. M. HUDSON, Chairman,. +.s.5.e.- Hartford, Conn. Pee POST os 3 2% + iis baw peel eee Detroit, Mich. eee OU NNING Rice ae A Madison, Miss LE Ae bl 0211228 8A Atlanta, Ga. I IN ii ig cen oy OR Se Pittsburgh, Pa. eR TL. ts, x. 6 saihudaacle eiae seein Quincy, Ills. TET Tx FO EGIN >. Go pink ub bia dtmrncete aul Pe aes Troy, N. Y. All of which is respectfully submitted. W. L. May, A. BURLEIGH, T. H. BEAN, Commtittee. These officers were duly elected. 38 NEW MEMBERS. At different times during the sessions, the following new members were proposed and elected : Frederick W. Brown, N. W. cor. Broad and Cherry Streets, Philadelphia. William S. Hergesheimer, 1119 N. 4th St., Philadelphia. H. O. Wilbur, 237 N. 3rd St., Philadelphia. R. M. Hartley, 627 Walnut St., Philade'phia. J. Penrose Collins, 850 Drexel Building, Philadelphia, Collins W. Walton, 1713 Spring Garden St., Philadelphia. Dr. Bushrod W. James, 1719 Green St., Philadelphia. E. H. Frishmuth, Jr., 151 N. 3d St., Philadelphia. John Gay, U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Richard Rathbun, U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, DC. Capt. J. W. Collins, U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, B.C. Edwin Hagert, 32 N. 6th St., Philadelphia. Robert M. Mackay, 1517 N. 13th St., Philadelphia. Thos. B. Harper, 709 Market St., Philadelphia. Jacob F. Miles, 1820 Arch St., Philadelphia. A. M. Spangler, 529 Commerce St., Philadelphia. Amos R. Little, Aldine Hotel, Philadelphia. H. C. Miner, New York City. Henry Burden, Troy, N. Y. Hoyt Post, Detroit, Mich. The following gentlemen were elected to be corresponding members : Mr. O. T. Olsen, Grimsby, England. Prof. F. A. Smitt, Stockholm, Sweden. Dr. Filip Frybom, i Prof. A. J. Malmgren, Helsingfors, Finland. 39 SALMON IN THE HUDSON RIVER. BY Frep MATHER. Mr. President and Gentlemen: I would preface my report on the stocking of the Hudson river with salmon by saying that it has not, at present writ- ing, been published. } When we hatch and plant any species of fish in a stream that already contains them, it is impossible to prove to what extent the work has been beneficial, and we can point to but few instances, such as the planting of shad in the streams of the Pacific coast, the introduction of carp and brown trout, where the whole credit of all fishes taken, can be claimed for fish culture. The stocking of the Hudson with salmon can now be pointed to as the result of hatching and planting, for there were no salmon in the river until 1886, four years after the first planting, barring a stray fish caught at intervals of years. These stray fish would have stocked the river cent- uries ago if they could have reached the breeding grounds, for it is the stragglers, the roving, restless fellows among fishes as among men, which spy out new and attractive places to settle in and “grow up with the country.” ie Ried Dahle a 49.700 Fes ik. (FARE Pewee Sa ret Be 50,000 Hotahowk euiace. yee . 347,173 Raymond brook.—This is a good stream which comes in from the west two or three miles above North Creek and * These two plants were made in the same brook owing to the confusion of names by the residents in recommending it. 44 below Balm of Gilead. It appears in the earlier reports as “Raymont.” It had:— VSS2 Ta TAS APS el ant GO. Pee eee 45,000 ISSR oe Poses Le ee ee eee 39,000 ESO oe Scare te et Mee cee ae re 38,000 he 21 ape ile Mpa nin Nolet ge ate i 49,800 LOGE e moraine Ae Cotte ct Lea cena oe 49,500 ROS pik Gee rE DS Wide, ed Pd a, Se 50,000 RTA ee eee: Li Te 271,300 Roblee brook.—This is not a good stream, because the lower portion is dry in summer. It runs through the vil- lage of North Creek and is a strong stream most of the year, In 1888 it had 50,000 fry, but I would not recommend it for future stocking. There is another brook by this name which empties into North creek. North creek.—This is a good stream. It has a dam anda tannery at its mouth, in the village of that name. It directly received :— |i 2}: RRP RY Ren thy SI Se Re eae 38,900 ol ot See eee ey Ot em 5 Ape ae ee . 41,750 LOGS) sg. sits ates a ne Ag ah oie Ss 55,000 Totals. sete ee 135,6:0 Besides this it had plants in one of its tributaries, known as roaring brook, given below. Roaring brook.—This stream is referred to in the sixth paragraph above, and I have reason to believe that all the plants made were in the tributary of North creek, and not in the Thirteenth brook. Those of 1886 and 1888 certainly were, The stream received :— 1883.(two plants) tao) cigk eigeh weston 67,400 13844 secs -oteda saan aot. ho>ne?d: 38,800 LSGO:. i. hice: ae a. id a Be 59,800 POSSU.2) Bera tert, oes Vw) pei Fee Oe 50,000 45 Thirteenth brook.—A rapid stream which comes from the west and empties at the village of North River. It is some- times dammed for logging purposes, but was avoided on the years when it was so used. It received :-— reog TOO Ae eee 79,900 EGS et eee eae OTe Lee ee 50,000 Total/¢2 1! 25. Peas, Af 129,000 Beaver Meadow brook is a tributary of Indian river, which enters the Hudson in Essex county. The brook crosses the stage road from North river to Blue Mountain lake about eight miles from the former place, and if the roads were bet- ter in the spring this would be a good point of deposit. In 1883 there were 39,000 salmon planted in this stream. Indian river received 36,200 in 1884. Minerva brook was stocked in 1888, with 35,000 salmon at Olmsteadville, Essex county. It is a tributary of the Schroun river which enters the Hudson at Warrensburgh, some twenty miles, as the crow flies, below, but by the course of the river is nearly double that distance. This stream is a celebrated trout brook, and I strongly recommend it for salmon. Loon lake empties into the Schroon at Starbuckville, War- ren county. It received 38,600 salmon in 1884. I am not certain that lake plantings are good for these fish. I prefer mountain brooks. Gulf brook and Hokum pond received 55,000 fry in 1882, Hokum pond is in the town of Johnsburgh, Warren county, southwest of the village of North Creek. Its outlet is Mill brook (not Mill creek, in the same county). which is tributary to North creek. Gulf brook empties into Mill brook near the outlet of Hokum pond. Kelso brook was stocked with 37,000 in 1884. It empties into Minerva brook a mile above Olmsteadville, in Essex * In the reports this plant was credited to North River. 46 county, and is therefore tributary to the Schroon river. An- other stream, with the same name, empties into Carr’s brook, in the town of Chester, Warren county. Cedar river comes from the southwest and joins the Hud- son in Essex county, about three miles above the point where Indian river comes in. It rises in the Cedar lakes, near the middle of Hamilton county, and flows northeast. Within a mile or two of its source the West Canada creek rises and flows off southwest to the Mohawk, and the south branch of Moose river, another tributary of the Mohawk, via Black river, rises within a mile and a half of the Cedar. In 1885 I made a plant of 59.900 salmon in the Cedar, where the stage road from North river to Blue Mountain lake crossed it, just be- yond the village of Indian Lake. There was no logging on the stream that year,,and the fish could have a run of a dozen or more miles up the river. Clendon brook flows into the Hudson about five miles above Glens Falls, and is an excellent stream for salmon. I have already recommended this stream, and, at the meeting of the American Fisheries Society, in Washington, have shown young salmon from it, which were caught and sent by Mr. A. N. Cheney, who, I think, also sent some to Mr. E. G. Black- ford. It is a good trout stream, and is protected by its owners against public fishing. On the 23d of August, 1888, in company with Mr. Cheney, I visited the brook and we fished in it for about half a mile. In an open spot we took a few chubs and a few little trout, which we returned to the water. Following down the stream through a dense growth of alders, we found a pool in which was a school of perhaps twenty fish, which Mr. Cheney said were salmon, and on casting his fly in it he took one which proved to be a salmon of seven inches in length. In another pool he took a second one, and by letting my fly drift down under the brush, leaving the rod back on the ground and holding the line in my hand, I brought one up where I could identify it before it broke loose. Mr. Cheney’s fish were both returned to the 47 stream. We then stopped. I had seen enough to assure me that the fish were there in numbers. Clendon brook has received the following plants : Pea: Pe 9s ey eee 41,000 Raa 8h, 2 OPT ey eee ee 59.700 Tae.) . SLUR Oe. A eee 19,700 £988. B02. Te eee 50,000 Fotaly . 2) Sacre eae 170,400 I can strongly recommend this brook for future plantings. It not only is a good stream for rearing the fry in, but is be- low several of the falls, especially the great one at Jessups Landing, which is a formidable one for fish to go over but which is dry in summer, owing to the water being used in the great paper mill at that place. (See account of Palmer Falls, under the head of “ Dams and Obstructions.”) When I began the work Professor Baird left the selection of streams to me, as I had a slight knowledge of the Adiron- dack region, but some of the brooks I did not know and de- pended on the opinions of the natives, judging that if they were good trout brooks they would do for salmon. I am, how- ever, more indebted to Mr. Cheney than to any other man, for this information as well as for the dams and obstructions lower down, as he has fished that country very extensively and is one of our best informed anglers. Stoddard’s excellent map of the Adirondacks was also of use, but its scale does not permit the naming of the smaller brooks. RECAPITULATION OF PLANTINGS SINCE 1882. Gareiatbropk 10: 09 Atetel aid . 342,600 Balm of Gilead brook .............. 347,175 ko-Glem: brook tsi 5 dis saat Ee 89,000 Month Caeekiiin. 6d: Ts Qa ee 135,650 Raymond brook ...........0+++0005 271,300 * And 150 yearlings. 48 RECAPITULATION OF PLANTINGS SINCE 1882.—CONTINUED, GuiftbrapkriwolQ fdr oo yee. Ba & 55,000 IRB DIES WGOK Mt caso tir Susie ante: 50,000 Minerva (including Kelso).......... 72,000 Beaver Meadow brook... .- . 22... .« = 39,000 PADIS COO Cire cla