phod'd es sv deg giNN Oy neat" errant «ue? j ee Js gee we ssdicuaet ee ack ) MmGU Oe”. . Aee Tapco wel Shy dd bs eta ok) Ae revte ewig javeviy® “eee gto ee Nyveiioee’ SN peice 3 Sa uoe ee MD, ae r eae - hae ob aaa baal; OL. Wu Wei — ve ‘ Batter Se, TY ON Cy He M08 A AIO nas EN RSE v =] Y ~ } Wis v v yyw iD) ,D> wD, eS BD > DD. 2 Dowd Dew: > oP Ted Die ie > ee } EMD Sy > >> Se DS >: Dw DDD D> ooo > DBD > Diep DP _. ED 2D DY? 2D)» P22 DOUY DDMDDD| D> D> » ID D2D 22 2D > > DDD>p 2 > Ww TD Dep D > D> >) > DDD 22D > ~W.. DDwy ee > » = =» 2P >> Po > DD» 5) > >) _»> = . 22> 2DI»YD > > > >>> ee aan IP D> DDo>Pp 5° >> ae D> JR2P DoD 2 a> DE wie») p SD Sap 50> DD LS SpyP ID LP dD 223 2DIP DD po aener ‘e Ar AAR Wal anne nnn AR ag TNR ase ~ “ete pom A NTN x ah a A Ridge meat Ahan A Ahn Mae Pez «REA AAanag ince NAM Ar AM Nal ret, shnnnn ARRAS re EN ary yy pa NA ska banana ames Ra aan Hann set Dirsaan eaten ich mea Wiliicismmene lea a WW WvanngaH ee \ Nn & op Ae i : y i tT a ae i ah ia fe any fr pal ; hen) Pee) Wohl tL eae iy roe mt oh iy Mu unter Fig A J 2 & x Nationa Museum america, Fisheries Society. 1889. ee yi areal Pe cin ri ch Ln rT i ) raat el } i ot en ! re SACTIONS OR LEE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY. EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING. HELD AT THE ROOMS OF THE ANGLERS ASSOCIATION OF EASTERN PENN’A, PHILADELPETIA, MAY 15TH AND 16TH, 1889. SPANGLER & DAVIS, 525 COMMERCE 8T,, PHILA. OFFICERS FOR 1889-90. PRESIDENT, EUGENE G. BLACKFORD, New York City. V.-PRES’T, HERSCHEL WHITAKER, Detroit, Mich. TREASURER, HENRY Cy FORD; Philadelphia, Pa. REc. SEC’y, FREDERICK W. BROWN, cy Cor’G SEC’Y, CC, V-OSEORN, Dayton, Ohio. FXECUTOVE COMME r RE Dr. W. M. HUDSON, CHarrman, - flartford, Conn. EON POST, - - - - - Detrott, Mich. PHILO DUNNING: : : : - Madison, Ws. Wire er. (CARY, - - - - Atlanta, Ga. JAMES V. LONG. - - - : Pittsburg, Pa. Sy TES Aye aoe be - - - - Ouincy, [lls. HENRY BURDEN, = : = : Troy, IN: Va BGT)? EN SVN AL MEE EIN eC —OF THE— American Fisheries society. Md cih Bye 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 State’, 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: CoLpD SPRING HARBOR, SUFFOLK Co., N. Y., May 14, 1889. Henry C. Forp, Eso. Corresponding Secretary American Fisheries Society, 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 to be 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 BISsERE S 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 single 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 g) 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 have a 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. m 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 a-naria at the central station. These beautiful fish had jus. 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 Ze Ang/er 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 The 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 TrRouT AND Brook Trout. 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 the snout. 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 area 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 stomach is very large, siphon-shaped, and the cceca 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 trout, while in coloration, general form, and number of ccecal appendages the impression came from the brook trout. In other words, in characters most subject to variation, fon¢znalis has left its impress, but in characters of greater permanence zamaycush has left its unmistakable mark. The specimen was an undeveloped male about 20 inches long. 16 Cross BETWEEN SALMO FARIO AND SALVELINUS ALPINUS. The finest 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 Sado 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 (farvio) 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 faito. 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 Sa/mo 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 ro 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 coeca 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 farzo and male saibling they are 3 7-10 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 Sa/mo fario, measure 94 inches ; the opposite cross of the same age varies from 10 inches to 1034 inches. Four-year-olds, crossed between female saibling and male farvio vary from 11% to 1134 inches; those crossed the other way are 11 inches long. Five-year-old hybrids between male saibling and female Salmo fario, range from 13 inches to 14 inches in length- Six-year- olds, between male saibling and female favzo, measure from 17 inches to 19% 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 PoweELt 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. Maruer 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. Maruer 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 hybrids 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 mancould cross the elephant with the butterfly there would be no limit to his ambition to pro- duce curiosities for dime museums. Dr. Kincssury 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. TEE LAT ENAL LINE ORGANS AND: Tee iavea LINE TissuES OF GH Enea OPE ESS rab: BY PROF, JOHN JA. 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. Kincssury approved of Washington as the best place for the meeting. Mr. MaTHer favored Washington as a permanent place for annual meetings, and thought that the largest attendance could be had there, or in New York. Mr. OssoRNE 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 meeting 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 heldin 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. MartHuer said that at the last 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: © | Co_p Sprinc Harsor, SUFFOLK Co., N. Y., May 14, 1889. Henry C. bord, Esq., Cor. Sec y Am. Fashertes Soctety. 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 DROUT? Trout Ponps AND HatcHING HouUsE Or FRED MATHER. HonetozE Faris, Monroe Co., N. Y. The prices of spawn and fish for the season of 1871-72 are as follows: Droutsspawn,. per single thousand’) 20) 5) Sie $10 OO es «s “five “ SM AS sc eee 40 OO os . =, ten iri MON atte Rac isi ba, Sade Chee aeietae 70 OO Young trout (meaning fry ready to take food) single CIVOUSANG peer hls ea ad kG a 1a te, CE ue ae ok 30 00 Young trout, each additional thousand *..). 5. 20)227, 25 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 réport 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: Wy. A. BuTLeErR, JR., DETROIT, Micu. 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 or 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. Ist to April Ist next succeeding, and the Legislature following, extended the time from Sept. Ist to May Ist. 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 numberless 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—g, 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 of 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- Zo) 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 Zad 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 in a 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 4o 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 1 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 18go0. 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. BLAckrorp 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/mzo 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 40 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. Kincsspury.—I would ask Mr. Mather if the salmon of which he speaks were the Atlantic or the Pacific species ? Mr. Matuer.—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. Kincspury.—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. Matuer.—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- Si6, 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 anexperiment 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 theory, 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. GooprE.—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. Maruer.—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. BeEan.—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 45) 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. Matuer.—A man should have nolegal 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. Ifa man 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. Ossorn.—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 ovewand 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. Matuer.—-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. a7. SECOND DAY. The meeting was called to order at 10 A. M. The Nomi- nating Committee was called upon 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. TTCUSUTER, os os a siaile HENRY C. FORD, Philadelphia, Pa. Recording Secretary, FRED’K W. BROWN, Philadelphia, Pa. Corresponding Secretary,.....C. V. OSBORN, Dayton, Ohio. ENECUIT VE, COMMIETE FE, DR Weve th DSON, Chairman... 1.444 Hartford, Conn. HOW POST 9.45%: Mera ee ee Detroit, Mich. Beret LO) NUN ENIG os costate ba Oe BS o ERR Madison, Miss TO Ped atl CPUS Vi IS Gordes Bete. solrtob wo as af seen seek Atlanta, Ga. PE NUIMIGES SPW patie ONG eth oo se dca aie gate Pittsburgh, Pa. sees eI SI eo car eivie «3.0! 9's noi marten meal Quincy, Ills. teen Ne ea acts) NGI IN gt 15:2 area os olor a Seseemererea th. Troy; Neve All of which is respectfully submitted. S Wale May, A. BURLEIGH, T. H. BEAN, Committee. 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., Philadeiphia. 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, Dee, Capt. J. W. Collins, U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, DAG: 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, Prof. A. J. Malmgren, Helsingfors, Finland. 39 SALMON IN THE HUDSON RIVER. BY FRED 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.” A notable proof of this fact is that the U. S. Fish Commission planted shad in the Sacramento river, where they now abound, and stragglers from the main army have been taken as high up the Pacific coast as Puget Sound. With these facts in view I regard the successful planting of the Hudson river with salmon as of especial importance to fish culturists, as one of the cases in which the entire credit can be clamed for artificial propagation. To the Commusstoners of Fisheries of the State of New York. Gentlemen :—After investigating the catch of salmon in the Hudson river, and before making my report to Colonel Marshall McDonald, Commissioner of Fisheries for the 40 United States, under whose direction the stocking of the river with fish is done, I asked his permission to furnish your board with a copy of it, which was granted in the following letter :— UNITED STATES COMMISSION OF FISH AND FISHERIES, MARSHALL McDonatp, Commissioner, WASHINGTON, D. C., Nov. 30, 1888. Fred Mather, Esq., Cold Spring Harbor, N. Y. Dear Mr. Mather :—I think it desirable that information of general interest, prepared under the auspices of the United States Fish Commission, should have as wide circulation as practicable. The matter of your report should interest very much the people of New York, and by being published early would tend to awaken and increase interest in regard to the protection and improvement of the salmon fisheries of the Hudson. You are authorized therefore, to furnish a copy of the same to the State Fishery Commission for their information, and for printing if they so desire. Very truly yours, M. McDonatp, Com’r. Col. M. McDonald, Commiss’r of Fisheries, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir :—In compliance with your order of July 11th, 1888, I have made an examination of the Hudson river from its mouth to the tributary trout streams of Warren County, N. Y., with a view to learning the number of adult fish captured during the last season; the possibilities of taking salmon eggs in sufficient numbers to warrant the establish- ment of a temporary station for this purpose; to also learn the character of the small streams, and determine which give promise of the best conditions for developing the young fish during their river life; and to ascertain the height and character of the natural and artificial obstruction to the ascent of salmon, and herewith forward my report on this work. 4I PLANTING OF SALMON. With the exception of some quinnat, or chinook, salmon planted in the Hudson ten or a dozen years ago by the New York Fishery Commission. which have never been heard from, I believe that all the plantings of S. sa/ar in the river have been done under my immediate supervision. In 1880, I suggested to the late Professor Spencer F. Baird, then Commissioner of Fisheries, that the streams of the upper Hudson had all the requisites for growing young salmon, and he agreed with me that it might be possible that the river had never been a salmon river because of the natural obstructions to the ascent of the parent fish. On January 16th, 1882, I was ordered to try to obtain a hatch- ery near New York City, for the purpose of hatching sal- mon for the Hudson, and secured one from Mr. Thomas Clapham, at Roslyn, on the north side of Long Island, about twenty-three miles from the city, and in the spring planted 225,000 fry in the streams of Warren County, as well as some in other waters (see Report United States Fish Com- mission, 1882, page 876). In January 1853, I was appointed superintendent of the new hatching station of the New York Fishery Commission at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, and transferred the work of salmon hatching there, where it has since been conducted. The following plants have been made in the tributaries of the river :-— FRY. LSC Boh, Os a He 225°000 OO BIA ONP. e Riict .. 5 Sciah oie Sean nee 244,900 COA Revered Site Che 2. doh a Recreate 424,700 CHEE! AIRS A Aoi re ear ea 319,100 [Neo Os taht er A A rr rr 8) AE 207,575 BOO pe tr eee. se 8's, 45s a Cae 140,450 RO HOMe eae Peas acts." 015.0. ae en 440,000 sot alts api t uitaen ee. o: 2,091,733 * And 150 yearlings 42 Where the odd figures occur, I would explain that there was no pretense to actual count, but from the meas- | ured number of eggs there was an actual count of the losses of eggs and fry, my men being instructed to keep such a record, and the loss being deducted, left odd numbers which were always added in the last shipment; except in cases of loss in transportation, when they are deducted from that particular shipment. The streams in which the fry were placed are good trout streams, but there exists great confusion as to their names. For instance, while on this investigation I asked Nate Ben- nett, a well known Adirondack guide, where “Roaring brook” was, and he said that it was only another name for “ Thir- teenth brook.” This happened at the North River Hotel, and the latter brook empties into the Hudson about one hundred yards above, but others said that “Roaring brook” was a tributary of North creek. As it will be found that a brook by this name was stocked in four different years, I cannot say which one received the two plantings of 1883, made by O. B. Hewitt; nor in 1884, by F. A. Walters, because the men are no longer in my employ and I do not know their ad- dresses. The plantings in “ Roaring brook,’ made in 1886, by C. H. Walters, and in 1888, by O. V. Rogers, were in the stream emptying into North creek. Depending as we must, on the natives for the nomenclature of these little mountain streams, we find the names are much mixed, and the maps do not name these little brooks. My foreman, C. H. Walters, tells me that Eldridge brook, stocked by him in 1886, is the stream also known as “ Balm of Gilead,’ and that it had two plantings in that year in consequence of its double name. I have now a better knowledge of the smaller brooks, and will try to avoid confusion of this kind in the future. The follow- ing is a list of the brooks, with the number of salmon placed in them :— Carr’s brook, also called “Deleby brook,” comes into the Hudson from the east, a mile or two above North Creek, 43 the northern terminus of the Adirondack railroad, is a good trout stream and is one of the best for planting salmon, as it contains insect larvae and crustaceans in apparent plenty. It received the following plants :— TM MRS take 6 elias Yo) emi kon U2 ial RA ORNL 35,000 OR t tes Eye oct ps ata ndn lear ae oes 49,800 TSG ya bE RS A eS A aA Ae 29,200 THs Sk Pesan ees cake? 5 sipay athe a Aretent apeleuoueeth 69,800 TINE So uttie fies os st a dig!-c sig wl dee ees 49,800 OS) et | ARR Se sid, cadehaymmerntn wid Sospeee th aye 49,000 HO OM EMER? ooo ocd steers OREE econ 50,000 Ota eres er sta: Svea . . 342,600 Glen brook comes in from the west at the station of the Adirondack railroad called the Glen, and is some twenty or thirty miles below North Creek. It received 50,000 in 1882 and 39,000 in 1884. It is said to be a good trout brook. Balm of Gilead brook, also known as “ Eldridge brook,” is a fine stream which comes into the river from the west, half a mile below the village of North River, received the follow- ing plants :— We epee Ramee NN cP aN way cs nates woe sea Mus 40,000 Mo SRM ate pies en ears ec iek-)| Sees ay ny of MS 49,700 Vos 2 a a ae te Ch 39,000 BOO Gee ae od eee cs, at se AR Saat sien O yas TLS) 3) Alea pt Ue ed a PR . *59,800 LOGS ERAN AS! he aR aR SEE SAC 49,700 ICGLS CMR CRA Ge ACH a ao REO Sc cae ECS od 50,000 Slob AD lish. / 2 2a eee zat 73 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:— TOO 2 yee ates, stayin i ales eer meme tiohe se a xo%= 45,000 | choy: Se Rae MMT Tete aed e nS. Sk 4 ce SRNRuS aan 39,000 | (oo) Sea PMO PARTS oe, Of Sa anny aN 38,000 MOO Sc alse atone Rochas ia ces aaa ae Reet acs 49,800 ae OE area PTR ERP ar iRaRr oe,'ove 7-4 nario deca 49,500 WOOO. 08 hy ee ce a ner eee 50,000 Wotaly2 ata e mane teeta 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 adam anda tannery at its mouth, in the village of that name. It directly received :— TOS As re Sy brtya teneesecie tas ean ee eee ae ee 38,900 TOC Wa te Sua satin ere a de . 41,750 LOS 8 oe ees his inire eee eters ae wisi mee nt ae 55,000 otal ie es ee a ove ne hee ene 135,050 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 :— Pesen(two. plants)s onan ees oe. a ee 67,400 POO Ae ts cc tes SS ay bs nphaag eR 6, 38,800 193 oO) gee Rat as haa. 082 Rom 59,800 TS Orsi ests: chide jo 0.-tar ol ies a ROR REE eae 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 -— Sees eed x its @ais,e.5 © shot te ens 79,900 BSS Pee raed occ 4 a aly, mansions 50,000 plvotaleiss .. ey scealeig arate ewan: 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 Schroon 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 : Uo) bad tls 2a CAE A ei RS 41,000 “RACISM 59.700 TORS. CR a a Lode ti 19,700 TORS Chath ecco DS I A AR pea CN Ue LO, 50,000 71a) #21 pee eee De Ne a en 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. (Ge Tila 3) 010) fing A Pig h . 342,600 balovot Gilead’ brook. ...)2. 5.4) 2c: 347,175 MirerGlentbraok.) 0) Sede n 89,000 IMOrrm Cre ckay 200. 8) ae ode 135,650 Kay ie iGe pricy. i.0 algo yy Get 271,300 * And 150 yearlings. 48 RECAPITULATION OF PLANTINGS SINCE 1882.—CONTINUED. Grate TOOK! .s).)s:,) 50h eee ae eae cache tens 55,000 Reoblee brook.) fh V eyes ee ee ak ese. 50,000 Minerva (including Kelso).......... 72,000 Beaver Meadow broek .7-:........... 39,000 Roaringbrook tol le. See lene eee 5 Ets SQMMCAEY . 7.0. a a vielen sok eee EPEC ie. 6 5.0 lhe ge ey merge ae 8 LOCI OR Ee ias «. ence) © Un Re Yt tino eevee erred! ARMAS AR Ses ivehtwefiet me ae = ENN Nt po Ki SoS BA | T APId ‘T68T ‘AleIo0g sarreysiy updiueluy SUOTODSUDII Ue meee Transactions American Fisheries Society, 1891. Plate Il, 00000000 ° oF onvon2rn07 000700 00000 GROUND PLAN OF THE FISHERIES BUILDING. 33 muck is absolutely necessary to keep the trout in the best of health and to avoid fungus. Three times per week the refuse from the fish, as well as the muck which does not run off, is removed by the use of syphons, and once per week the tanks are rubbed down with brushes. I enter into the details of this matter more particularly, because I do not call to mind that any one has ever given this subject publicity. THE FISHERIES AT THE: WORLD'S FAIR; By J. W. Cottins. It is doubtless safe to assume that all who are promi- nently identified with commercial fishing, with angling, with fish culture, or with the scientific study of questions relating thereto, will feel an interest in that section of the World’s Columbian Exposition which will be specially devoted to an exibition of all that pertains to them. It may well be a matter of special gratification that the fish- eries will receive more consideration at this exposition than has ever been accorded them elsewhere under similar cir- cumstances. And it should be all the more satisfactory to Americans, because heretofore there has never been ade- quate and suitable provision made at any exposition in this country for a fishery exhibit, and all attempts in this direction have been limited by small appropriations and inadequate space. It is true that there have been numerous fishery exposi- tions in different European countries, some of which have been national and others international. It is also well known that the United States has participated in two of these, and that the highest honors were awarded to America. 34 and Americans at Berlin and London. But, while the National Fish Commission succeeded so well in securing recognition for our fisheries abroad, and though all honor is due Prof. G. Brown Goode, who so ably represented this country on those occasions, it nevertheless will be apparent to all that, while it was then practicable to illus- trate the principal features of American fisheries and fish culture, it was not possible, with the means and time available, to make a thoroughly exhaustive presentation of them. Never before has the occasion presented itself to do this, and, as has been stated, it should be a matter of much satisfaction that the management of the World’s Fair have arranged to construct a group of buildings specially de- signed for the purpose of a fisheries exhibit—an action which should result in the most hearty co-operation of all who are interested in fishing and the industries dependent thereon, and the inauguration of such an effort on their part as will result in making this section of the Exposition equal to any in completeness and attractiveness. Before’ proceeding to a more detailed consideration of these buildings, permit me to say that the exhibit of the United States Fish Commission, illustrative of its work and functions—including scientific exploration, fish cul- ture and fisheries, but exclusive of live fish—will be located in the Government building immediately opposite the cen- tre of the main fisheries building, with which it will be connected by a bridge crossing the ornamental lagoon. For the reception and accommodation of general exhibits of fish, fisheries, and fish culture, both domestic and for- eign, there will be a group of three buildings, most admir- ably and appropriately located on an island in the lagoon at the northern part of Jackson Park near the outlet to Lake Michigan. These buildings have been designed in the Spanish Romanesque style by the well-known architect, Mr. Henry Ives Cobb. They will be somewhat unique, but 3D unexceptionally graceful and pleasing to the eye, while their ornamentation, form, and dimensions have been con- sidered with the special object of adapting them to the purposes for which they will be erected. Withal, they will have a warm tone of color, which will offer a pleasing con- trast to the other Exposition buildings. The illustrations herewith presented will doubtless render unnecessary any elaborate description, since a consideration of them will enable one to form a correct estimate of the leading features of Mr. Cobb’s design. The main or central structure is rectangular in form, 450 feet long and 150 feet wide. This will be the great central hall, where will be displayed all that pertains to com- mercial fishing and fish culture, including apparatus of capture, boats, vessels, products, models of fish-breeding establishments, ponds, etc. Connected with each end of the main hall by an elegant curved arcade is a polygonal building about 135 feet in diameter. The one at the east, nearest the lake shore, will be devoted to an exhibit of living specimens of fish and other forms of aquatic life. Let me say that this building will havea grand central rotunda 180 feet in circumference, around which will be placed the largest aquaria that it is practicable to-use; while in the centre will be a pond twenty feet in diameter, with a beautiful fountain, beneath the spray of which will disport many ornamental fishes. Entering the galleries near the side of the building, the visitor will pass between two rows of large aquaria, in which, as in those previously alluded to, there will be representations of the fauna of the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific and interior waters, including the Great Lakes. No words of mine will, I believe, convey anything like an adequate idea of the beautiful archi- tectural effect of this aquarial building, to the construction and equipment of which the Exposition authorities have very generously contributed. I will not, therefore, attempt 36 a description, but will content myself with the hope that all present will be there to see it in the summer of 1893. In this building the United States Fish Commission will make a great national exhibit of our fishery resources, .em- bracing many varieties of fish, marine invertebrates, ete. And right here let me say that it is the purpose of the Commission, as it is of the Exposition Management, to give consideration to species that are economically important, while the occasion will be improved to call attention to the great work that has been done by the State and National Governments in the artificial propagation and acclimatiza- tion of fish and other aquatic species, thereby restoring and maintaining abundance in waters that had become depleted by over-fishing or other causes. It is impossible to over-estimate the consequence of this work, either in the present or future, and it is beyond question desirable that this opportunity should be improved to make the public better acquainted with it than ever before. The western building of the group is similar in form and construction to that devoted to the live-fish display. Here it is expected there will be assembled a magnificent and exhaustive exhibit of all that pertains to angling; and let us hope that the thousands of enthusiastic and public- spirited anglers in America and other countries, as well as all those interested in the manufacture and sale of angler’s outfits, will join hands in making this the grandest display of this kind that has ever been seen. For never in the world’s history has there been such satisfactory provision for showing all the details of the gentle art. Not only will there be ample room for installation of exhibits, but here, right in the shadow of the building, fly-casting and bait- casting tournaments can be held, and the art of the angler may be tested, from shore or boat, in friendly trials of skill, and in the exhibition of the various modes and methods of angling. As to what may be embiaced in this fisheries exhibit, I 37 believe the classification adopted is sufficiently broad in its scope to permit the inclusion of anything which will be strictly germane to fish or fishing. This seems to cover the whole field, and under it not only will it be proper to show living and mounted specimens of all forms, from micro- scopic animals to whales, together with aquatic or marine vegetation, and the apparatus for their capture, but it will also include the products of the fisheries and their manip- ulation in all their varied forms of methods and material. Beside this, there will be ample opportunity to illus- trate angling of every description, together with fish cul- ture and the literature of fishing and all that pertains thereto. Indeed, I can think of nothing which would be of value to the fisheries exhibit which cannot properly be included under the classification referred to. I have thus briefly outlined what has been and will be done by the Exposition Management to provide for a great fisheries exhibit. It now remains. with others to make this one of the most attractive and successful features of the World’s Fair, as I believe it will be; for it must be fairly assumed that those who are interested in fishing, and all that relates to it, will not permit this grand oppoitu- nity to pass unimproved. From information now at hand we have reason to expect marked enthusiasm in this mat- ter on the part of all the fisheries interests in this country, and that as a result there will be gathered at Chicago, in 1893, a magnificent and exhaustive display illustrative of angling, commercial fishing, fish culture, and the science of the seas. It will thus be possible for the citizens of other countries who are our customers to find there an infinite variety of fishery products—the harvest of the seas, lakes, and rivers—and the whole world may see object- lessons which will convey in the most emphatic manner information concerning the methods and magnitude of our fisheries, and their history and development from the earli- est settlement of the country. In the same way the world 38 may learn what has been done in America by the States and Federal Government to maintain and increase the supply of fishes by artificial propagation, etc., and may become familiar with the results which have been achieved here by scientific exploration of our inland waters and the ocean depths. I have reason also to believe that the fisheries of several foreign countries will be fairly illustrated. It is not nec- essary to speak of how much this will add to the interest or importance of this part of the Exposition, since lam sure this will be understood by all. But it is certain that it must be of great moment to us as a nation to gather here the arts and appliances which are used for the capture and preparation of fish in other lands; for, in addition to the interest we may naturally feel in seeing the exhibits of foreign countries and comparing them with our own, it must be assumed that our fishermen can learn many things of value and importance to them by a study of such ex- hibits. But, aside from the mere question of trade and the enthusiasm which comes from recollection of sport we have enjoyed in angling, or the official zeal felt by those who are charged with great responsibilities, there is a peculiar reason why our love of country should prompt us to a special effort to bring prominently to the notice of the world an American industry which has played so promi- nent a part in the history and development of this nation. It is not, perhaps, so well known as it ought to be that fishing was the first industry prosecuted in the Western World, and that it led to the settlement of regions that offered small attraction of other kinds. It is, nevertheless, an historical fact that fleets of fishing vessels followed close in the wake of Columbus, and, within a few years after his discovery of America, fishermen of Spain, Portu- gal, England, and France were plying their lines on the banks of Newfoundland. The very names of some of our 39 headlands, islands, and bays are suggestive of fishing and the abundance of fish in their vicinity. Captain John Smith gave'the name of Cape Cod to that famous arm of Massachusetts, because, as he said, cod were so abundant near there that they ‘‘ belabored ”’ the sides of his ship. It was fishing that led to the settlement of New Eng- land. When the delegates from the Puritans went to King James and asked for permission to settle America, he, with true Scottish thrift, asked what profit might arise. They answered, ‘‘ Fishing.”’? This seemed to impress the King very favorably, for he said: ‘‘So God have my soul, tis an honest trade; *twas the Apostles’ own calling.”’ And so this little band of pilgrims established themselves on the rugged, rock-bound coast of New England, in a harbor which they described as being in the shape of a fish-hook. The free school, one of the grandest and most important heritages of American children, was first established and maintained from the income of the fisheries at Cape Cod. The part which our fishermen took in the establishment of the independence of this country forms one of the most striking and glorious pages in the history of the Revolu- tion. Indeed, it is perhaps not too much to claim that. the result of that struggle might have been very different had it not been for the courage and aggressive energy of the men who had been trained in our fisheries. On more than one occasion they saved the American army from defeat, and enabled it to achieve important victories. I will not stop to recount them in detail, but will simply say that we have it on so high an authority as General Knox, Wash- ington’s chief of artillery, that the victory at Trenton—one of the most important of the Revolution—was due, more than anything else, to the part taken in it by fishermen. Years after the close of the war, when General Knox was a member of the Massachusetts Legislature, Marblehead ap- plied for a charter for a bank. There was opposition to it. 40 Then General Knox arose and stated the claims of Marble- head and the reasons why they should be recognized. ‘‘I am surprised,” said he, ‘‘that Marblehead should ask so small a privilege as that of banking, and that there should be opposition to it. Sir, [ wish the members of this body knew the people of Marblehead as well asI do. I could wish that they had stood on the banks of the Delaware River in 1777, in that bitter night when the Commander-in- Chief had drawn up his little army to cross it, and had seen the powerful current bearing onward the floating masses of ice, which threatened destruction to whomsoever should venture upon its bosom. I wish, that when this occurrence threatened to defeat the enterprise, they could have heard that distinguished warrior demand: ‘Who will lead us on?’ and seen the men of Marblehead, and Marblehead alone, stand forward to lead the army along the perilous path to unfading glories and honors in the achievement of Trenton. There, sir, went the fishermen of Marblehead, alike at home upon land or water; alike ardent, patri- otic, and unflinching, whenever they unfurled the flag of the country.”’ The privateers of that period were manned mostly, by fishermen, and their captures of British merchantmen un- doubtedly had much to do with the conclusion of the war and the establishment of American independence. Sabine remarks that the books of Lloyd’s Coffee House show ‘that from May, 1776, to February, 1778, the American privateers (173 in number) made prizes of 733 British ves- sels, which, with their cargoes, were worth more than $25,000,000, after dedueting the pus af the Liat. re- taken and restored. x mS “ * The mercantile interests became at last se clamorous as to render the war unpopular, and to embarrass the Ministry in their measures to continue it.”’ I deem it unnecessary to enter into a fuller discussion of the public services of our fishermen, who, in the second 41 war with Great Britain, manned our war ships and swarmed in every sea on privateers, and who, at all times, whenever the oceasion demanded it, have ‘‘rallied ’round the flag”’ to maintain and uphold it against all aggression. But I will say that this is a matter that should not be passed unnoticed, and is one that should prompt us to make an additional effort, if need be, in gathering and placing on exhibition at the World’s Fair all that may tend to illus- trate every phase and condition of those industries in which we are especially interested, and for the conservation and maintenance of which we are in duty bound to exert our- selves to the utmost of our ability. KENNERLY’S SALMON. By TARLETON H. BEAN. The smallest known of the Pacific salmons was first de- scribed by Dr. George Suckley, in 1861,* under the name of Salmo Kennerlyi—Kennerly’s Trout, or Chiloweyuck red salmon trout. In 1862+ Dr. Theodore Gill proposed for this species the new generic name Hypsifario, because of its ‘compressed. body, projecting snout,” etc. The re- markable changes in the genus Oncorhynchus during the course of spawning were at that time less known than at present. About 1882 Dr. David 8. Jordan examined the Salmonide in the National Museum, inWashington, D. C., and came to the conclusion that Kennerly’s salmon is iden- tical with the common red salmon, or blue back of the region (Oncorhynchus nerka),and this belief was generally accepted as final. The material bearing on this relation- * Annals Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y., 1861, page 307. + Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1862, pagef330. 42 ship, however, was chiefly the actual red salmon collected by Captain Charles Bendire, U. 8. A., and the individuals were considerably larger than the Kennerly’s salmon to be discussed in this article. Since the time of Dr. Jordan’s study of the Museum specimens, we have received new ma- terial and recent information which enable us to place the species, as I think, in a different light, and to contribute something of interest to its life-history. On November 26, 1888, and October 8, 1889, Professor O. B. Johnson, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., collected for the Smithsonian Institution a large series of these small salmon ina little stream, tributary to Lake Washington, near Seattle. In March, 1891, Dr. George M. Dawson, of Ottawa, Canada, sent the writer a photograph of one of the fish which he found in Nicola Lake, British Columbia, September 7, 1890. Each of these gentlemen added some- thing to our knowledge of the habits of the species. This recent material includes only salmon in or near the Spawning condition, yet it seems to me now sufficient to warrant the separation of Kennerly’s salmon from the red salmon as a sub-species at least, and I would write its name Oncorhynchus nerka, sub-species kennerlyt. In the first place, Kennerly’s salmon becomes sexually mature when only eight inches long,and seldom exceeds ten inches at any time of life. It has about thirty gillrakers, while the red salmon has about forty. Its fins are much larger than those of the red salmon. It lives permanently in fresh water, most of the year in deep parts of lakes, from which it runs up small tributaries in autumn to spawn. Names. —The describer of the species called it Kennerly’s Trout ; he records also the name Chiloweyuck red salmon trout. The Indians of the Chiloweyuck Lake region styled it Tstmia. According to Dr. Dawson, ‘‘The Kamloops In- dian, or true Shuswop name of the fish, is Awk-en-owh. The Okonagan Indian name, Awk-en-eh, slightly differs.” S1zE.—In Dr. Suckley’s original description the size of 45 adults is stated to rarely exceed ten or eleven inches. Among the examples forwarded by Professor Johnson were mature males and females little more than eight inches long; the spermaries of the males were well developed, and the ovaries were full of large and apparently ripe eggs. Dr. Dawson wrote as follows: ‘‘This salmon is probably seldom over a foot in length, generally about ten inches.” DisTRIBUTION.—Kennerly’s salmon was first described from Chiloweyuck Lake, near the Frazer River (latitude, 49°), east of the Cascade Mountains. Mr. Gibbs had it from the Nahoi-al-pitkun River, west of the Cascades. It has been reported also in Sweltscha and Pekosie Lakes. Dr. Dawson saw it in ‘‘ Nicola, Francois, Fraser, and Okonagan Lakes, the first three tributary to the Fraser, the last to the Columbia.’’ Professor Macoun informed Dr. Dawson ‘that he caught it with a spoon-bait on Arrow Lakes, Kootanie Lake, and on the Columbia River a few miles below Arrow Lakes, in June and July last. All the lakes mentioned are in part of their extent deep and clear, and all are or may be reached by the salmon from the sea (generally, I think, the saw-gut), except Kootanie Lake, which is cut off by a fall.” Ina letter dated April 8, 1891, Dr. Dawson writes: ‘ Shus- wop Lake may be added as another certain locality for the little land-locked salmon. In one of my note-books for 1877, under date of August 6th, the following note occurs : ‘Indians now spearing by torch-light in the ee of Eagle Creek a species of small salmon, which they assure me does not go to or come from the sea, but is now ascending from the lake to spawn. * * * * Kagle Creek flows into Shuswop Lake near the present position of Sicamous Station on the Canada Pacitic Railway. The date here given is nearly a month earlier than those previously quoted. * * * * * Nicola Lake is about ten miles in length ; it is on the course of the river of the same name, which is ¢ tributary of the Thompson. The lake is a little north of latitude 50°. From Nicola Lake it runs up the Upper Ni- da cola River(scarcely more than a large brook); and * * * on September 7, 1890, the run was just beginning. About the same date in 1876 I found the fish running up the little river which connects Fraser Lake with Francois Lake (lati- tude, 54°). In the first week in September, 1877, they were very abundant in streams along the west side of Okonagan Lake, and last autumn, September 16 and 17, 1890, I noted them again in these streams, particularly in that known as Bear’s River.”’ The saw-qui mentioned by Dr. Dawson is the red salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka.) Professor John- son’s specimens were obtained from the vicinity of Seattle, Wash., which is now the most southern locality known for the fish. The species will doubtless be found in many other large lakes of British Columbia when these waters are examined. CoLors.—Dr. Suckley described the color in the follow- ing terms: General color of body red, dingy along the back, paler on the sides, and fading into pure white on the belly. Small, irregular black spots above the lateral line. Pectorals bluish, their tips slightly grayish. Dorsal and ventrals red. Tail spotted. Dr. Dawson’s description states ‘the back is dark gray, slightly reddish ; the belly bright silvery, shaded with gray. Flesh red, about the same as that of the saw-qui (Oncorhynchus nerka).”’ In June and July, when captured by Professor Macoun, the back was « steel-gray color, with no trace of red. HaABIts AND ABUNDANCE.—Dr. Kennerly found this sal- mon running up small brooks from August 10 to Sept. 1, when they suddenly disappeared. Vast numbers of the fish were seen ina small tributary of Chiloweyuck Lake. In company with Captain Woodruff and several men Dr. Ken- nerly went to the brook August 17, and the party caught 180 of these fish. He was informed by an Indian that these salmon never descend into smaller streams and never go to the salt water. At the mouths of all the small streams emptying into Chiloweyuck Lake they appear about Au- « 45 gust 10 in such immense numbers that they can be caught with the hands. The chief enemy of the little salmon was the chewagh, or salmon trout of the region. The chewagh is the Pacific red-spotted salmon trout of Dr. Suckley (Salmo Campbelli), now known as the Dolly Varden, or malma. In trying to escape from their enemies, accord- ing to Dr. Kennerly’s belief, the small salmon crowded into shallow brooks, where they were readily taken in hand nets. Their real mission in the brooks was probably to spawn. Professor Johnson observed that Kennerly’s salmon was not accompanied by any large fish except an occasional silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Out of a thousand or more taken the females were as plentiful as the males. The Professor states further that the large red salmon (O. nerka@) is not so common at the mouth of Lake Washington as the little salmon, and does not run up the stream much south of the Noohsack River. Dr. Dawson wrote me as follows: ‘The Indians all affirm that this salmon lives throughout the year in the various lakes in which it occurs, only leaving them to run up certain streams to spawn in the autumn. In my note-book, under the date of September 16, and referring to Bear’s River (again a small stream), I find the following: ‘A great num- ber of little salmon-like fish, apparently running up to spawn. It is singular that though they have evidently been long in the stream (from the livid red color of many of them, their frayed fins and tails, with white fungoid growth in places), they have not got farther up the river, which offers no particular impediment to their ascent. They cannot all have spawned, as many still hold spawn and milt. Indians say that they all die in the streams and do not return to the lake. Many were dead along the stones, and the crows had collected in great numbers in the vicinity. This was within a quarter of a mile or less from the mouth of the river on the lake.’ ”’ CaprurE.—Dr. Dawson continues: ‘‘ Wherever these 46 fish occur, the Indians make a special business of catching them in weirs and traps each autumn.”’ AssocratEes.—In Kootanie Lake, according to Dr. Daw- son, “there is also a larger fish, different from the lake trout,’ which he considers a land-locked variety of the spring salmon (Oncorhynchus chouicha). On this point I have been informed by Captain Bendire that occasionally, in great freshets, the obstructions on Kootanie River are passed by salmon from the sea, and these become land- locked when the floods subside. Wasuineton, D. C, May 25th, 1891. TRANSPLANTING FISH. No branch of fish culture, in my opinion, deserves more ‘areful attention and study than transplanting, which is now being so successfully conducted by the U. 8. Fish Commission, under the able management of Dr. 8. P. Bart- lett. Much valuable time and considerable sums of money have been wasted because of a want of knowledge in this work. I have suffered my share of the discomfiture in this direction—therefore this paper. Chagrin River, on which my home, Chagrin Falls, O., is situated, has two branches of about equal size, each con- taining clear water, coming chiefly from springs running from the conglomerate sandstone of the vicinity. On each branch, about a mile above the forks, is a fall sufficiently high to prevent fish from ascending. Eight years ago the north branch was stocked with less than 100 small-mouth black bass fry, taken from the stream below the falls. The south branch was stocked the same year with 3,000 47 fry of the same variety from Lake Erie. Four years ago the north branch was found to be well stocked, while not a small-mouth black bass could be found after diligent search in the south branch. The south branch was then stocked with fry from the north branch, and the stream is now well stocked. The lake fish undoubtedly returned to the lake as soon as they could get there. The same experiment was made with channel cat-fish with the same result: all went to the lake, or at least never showed up, while the same fish, taken from the same water, Chagrin River, near its mouth on Lake Erie, placed in Geauga Lake, a small pond, practically land-locked, mul- tiplied and did well. A pond on Chagrin River, into which the cat-tish were placed, is nearly as large as Geauga Lake. The lesson is obvious: fish taken from large lakes and planted in small waters with outlets will not remain, but will return to the larger water or try to; while if taken from waters similar to those into which they are to be placed, good results will follow. Transplanting for the purpose of crossing is now ac- knowledged to be highly beneficial, as fishes, the same as other animals, become dwarfed by inbreeding in confined waters. J. J. STRANAHAN. RELATION OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY TOY; PROTECTIVE FISH LAWS: By A. N. CHENEY. The American Fisheries Society is now, according to Mr. Mather’s corrections of the proceedings, twenty-one years old, or, rather, this is the twenty-first meeting of the So- ciety, under one name or another. During that time it has given rise to excellent suggestions, or birth to worthy 48 ideas which have spread abroad and borne fruit .all over this land, and the one across the sea, and to every one of them the members point with becoming pride. Ido not mean that resolutions have been offered and passed to carry into effect any certain plan for the benefit of fish eul- ture or fish propagation; but the good has emanated from the papers read before the Society, and the discussions which followed them, just as certainly as though it came from formal resolution attested by president and secre- tary. It seems to have been an unwritten law that this Society should take no part in framing laws for the protection of fish in any State or Territory, and no member, as such, has ever been seen in the lobby or before a legislative com- mittee seeking to influence legislation of any kind. The Society has come to be a power and an authority by its own right. In the article numbered ‘‘one,”’ reciting the name and objects of the Society, as amended, we read : ‘* Its objects shall be to promote the cause of fish culture ; to gather and diffuse information bearing upon its practical success; the interchange of friendly feeling and inter- course among the members of the Society ; the uniting and encouraging of the individual interests of fish culturists, and the treatmeut of all questions regarding fish of a scientific and economic nature.”’ Now, the question arises in my mind, admirable as the work of the Society has been, has it done its whole duty in the ‘‘treatment of all questions regarding fish of a scien- tific and economic nature.’’? I do not now propose that the Society shall resolve that any particular legislation is best, nor that any member, as such, shall appear as an advocate before any fish-law committee of a State legislature, but there isa way to make the power of this Society felt in every State, in the direction of proper laws for the protec- tion of our fishes. . The members of this Society gather here, or at the ap- 49 pointed place of meeting, from nearly every State. They are Fish Commissioners, fish culturists, fish experts, ex- pert fishermen, ichthyologists, and men generally who have made and are making an intelligent and accurate study of our fishes. No body of men knows better the habits of the fishes in their own States and in other States, and when gathered here discussion will draw from them the spawning-time of every fish protected by law, and these recorded spawning-times will become a part of the proceed- ings of the Society by authority. With the spawning seasons defined as closely as may be, the law-makers of any State in making a close season for any particular fish need not go wrong. I firmly believe that to-day there is less known about the spawning seasons of our game fishes by fishermen gen- erally than about the playing of the crack ball-teams. I speak feelingly and from experience on this subject. As Angling Editor of Shooting and Fishing I often write privately to correspondents who ask about the spawning season of our best-known fishes, rather than expose their ignorance in print. The saving of a grand game and food fish from extinction is certainly a ‘‘question of an economic nature,’ and I believe the black bass is slowly being wiped from the wa- ters of this country because of inadequate laws, or no laws. This is partly through cupidity, partly through ignorance. Take the case of New York State. The black bass sea- son opens on the border May 20th; the general law opens the season May 30th, and special laws open it in different waters from July Ist to August Ist. These special laws were obtained by sportsmen who real- ized that June fishing was doing a great injury to the bass, and while these laws were being obtained the general law of the State, which was then June Ist, was changed to May 30th; and the only reason ever given, to my knowledge, was that it enabled fishermen in New York City to make 5O use of Decoration Day, a legal holiday, to fish in a neigh- boring lake. I canvassed the State some years ago and found that everywhere black bass spawned thoughout the month of June; and Mr. Mather, of the New York Fish Commission, informed me that on Long Island, our most southern waters, bass were not through spawning June 25th. But black bass require something more than a mere close season to cover the act of spawning, for they watch over their young after they are hatched—the only fish pro- tected by the law that does, for lam not aware that the suntish and bull-head are protected. If black bass are taken a week after the ova is hatched, every black bass fry will be eaten by other fishes always in waiting to do this very thing. Last year we had a Commission in New York to codify our fish and game laws, and one of the Commis- sioners asked my opinion regarding the protection of certain fishes. I urged with all mv power that the black bass season should not open anywhere in the State before July Ist. He agreed with me fully, but said the Commis- sion had been obliged to compromise on June 15th as opening date. Compromise on the question of the exter- mination of a fish! Well, the code went to the Legislature, and one of the first acts of that body was to knock the compromise into a cocked hat and make the opening sea- son as before, May 30th. It is my opinion that a game- law committee would hesitate about taking such a respon- sibility upon itself, if it could be shown that this Society had put on record the fact that such action merely legal- ized the taking of black bass from their spawning beds or from their helpless voung. As a fact, I have seen a bass with young just hatched on the 25th day of August, but this was probably an isolated case. I have known a bass to remain with its young for six weeks, and this is prob- ably not an unusual thing. I certainly hope that this Society will take steps to define, as closely as may be, the spawning seasons of our 51 game fishes, feeling sure that such action will have great weight with our law-makers. And this will but lead to other and similar fields of usefulness, in which the Society may be of great service in aiding to keep up our stock of fishes by common sense methods. I will refer to but one, and that is the short trout law. The object of a short trout law is that the trout may have the opportunity to spawn at least once before they can be legally captured. I am aware that a number of trout of the same age are not all of the same size; but one State has a six-inch law, an- other a five-inch law, and still another asks for a four-inch law. This Society could determine, between its fish cul- turists and fishermen, from their observation of tame trout and wild ones, what the average size of a trout is that spawns for the first time, and thereafter law-makers would have a guide as in the case of spawning seasons. BREEDING HABITS OF THE PERCH. By Frep MATHER. When I agreed to write something about the breeding habits of the ‘‘ yellow perch,” the local name of boyhood days came to the front, and it now seems best to call the fish fhe perch. This is the old English and the modern English name ofa fish that inhabits both continents, if you accept the dictum of some of our savants, or, is an American fish closely related to the European perch, if you follow others. In the northern and western States it is known as ‘*‘ yellow perch,’’ from its prevailing ground color; in the Carolinas it becomes ‘‘ barred’ or ‘‘ brown”? perch, because of the color of its vertical stripes; in Vir- ginia it is the ‘‘ringed”’ perch, for the same reason, while 52 in Louisiana the bars or rings have suggested the name of ‘‘raccoon perch.” So, take your choice between Perca pluviatilis, P. Americana, or other names, we know just what fish we are talking about. This is the first fish that I hatched, and it came about this way. In 1867, just. twenty-four years ago, after a period of some six years’ hunting and trapping in what was then the north-western frontier, and some three years ser- vice with the Union army, I met my old tutor in Biology, Professor Porter Tyler, on our old stamping ground the Popskinny Creek, some few miles below Albany, N. Y. I call him ‘‘ Professor’? Tyler; he was an illiterate man, who by turns was a hunter, trapper, and railroad brakeman, just as the season required his services, and the irreverent spoke of him as ‘‘ Old Port. Tyler,’ and called him a shift- less old vagabond who was too lazy to work. Now ‘ Port.”’ was a bachelor of perhaps forty when I first met him ina swamp where he was shooting woodcock without a dog, and had over a dozen, while I, a boy of fifteen, with two dogs, had only one bird. But we had many a hunt together after that, and I learned to love the old man, and from him the knowledge of how fish-eges were impregnated was first brought to my notice. ‘‘ Freddy,” said he, ‘‘when a fish lays her eggs, there aint nothin’ in ’em, and the old he-fellow goes over "em and fills’em up. I’ve seen these perch spawn in the nets and on bushes, on moonlight nights, and have seen the he-ones go over’em and fix ’em.’’ This was too late to look up the perch-spawning that year, but the words opened up a new field. Next spring, 1868, I gathered some strings of perch-eges from the nets and bushes and tried to fertilize some taken by hand. On application, Professor James Hall, New York State Geologist, gave me the privilege of aquaria with run- ning water, in the State Geological Rooms on State Street, 53 Albany. Some fish hatched, but whether from the natural or artificial impregnated eggs is not known. Last year some perch were received from Dr. 8. P. Bart- lett, Dlinois, among a lot of black bass, five females and one male, and again an opportunity offered to note their breeding habits. The eggs of this fish are laid in a long ribbon, which is perhaps a foot long and two inches wide, double and wrinkled, the eggs being encased in a mass of jelly, or vis- cid envelop, which is laid over twigs or other objects, but does not adhere to them. The perch spawns early in spring, and the eggs require from ten to fifteen days to hatch; the young swim from the start,and take food in three to four days after hatching. The fish which I had this year spawned in an aquarium, but only two lots were impregnated. My foreman, Mr. C. H. Walters, watched them three nights to see the spawn- ing of a pereh, but did not chance to be there when it was done; for the wonder is how such a great mass comes from so small a fish. None of my fishes were over seven inches long, but they cast a spawn that was larger than they were, and the only way to account for it is that water is absorbed and the mass swells. From what Mr. Walters tells me and from the testimony of Professor Tyler, added to my own observations among the nets, where the spawn is often laid, I believe that this fish casts its spawn between midnight and daylight. The Popskinny (old way of spelling this aboriginal name was Popsquinnea, but it is now known to the boys of Green- bush as “the island creek’’), was an arm of the Hudson River, or bayou, that made an island between Douw’s Point and Castleton, and in my early days was a famous fishing ground for such coarse fish as perch, pike, black and rock bass, cat-tish, suntish, eels, etc., and as late as 1868 I took a pike of ten and a half pounds in it, as an extract from the Albany Hapress of March 31st, of that year, tells a 54 reader of my scrap book. The Hzpress calls the fish a ‘*pickerel,’’ and the bayou the ‘‘dead creek,’’ a name given it since the N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. filled in its roadway across it and stopped the flow which kept its channel deep. To- day it is merely a couple of stagnant arms of the river and not worth the wetting of a school-boy’s line. Some ten years ago I visited this scene of juvenile angling triumphs in early spring, and where we used to cut down hundreds of bunches of perch-eggs and drop them in the water after a fall of a spring freshet, and before the sun had injured the embryos, we only found two small bunches of eggs to return to the water. About three days before hatching the embryo of the perch is not only interesting to the naturalist, but attracts the attention of the casual observer by its motion; with the regularity of a pendulum the many embryos in a mass move with a succession of beats or jerks that are almost as much in unison as the strokes of a drum-corps. ‘The perch is a fish that I have derided as a game and a table fish, in years a-gone, but at a dinner given to this Society by the St. Clair Flats Shooting and Fishing Club, of Detroit, at its annual meeting in 1889, they were served in a style that met the approval of the dwellers by the sea, who say that all fresh-water fish taste ‘‘ muddy.”’ On investigation it was found that the fish had been skinned before cooking, and as this was a new thing to an old duffer, like the writer, it is possible that some younger ‘*duffers’’ may not know of the dodge. When I came to Long Island, in 1883, at the early age of fifty, it was strange to hear everybody say that ‘‘ fresh- water fish are muddy.’ Having seldom eaten any other fish than those of fresh water, and never perceiving a flavor of mud, I marvelled thereat, but, after a year’s sojourn and a diet of salt-water fish, a change came o’er the flavor of my piscine palate,and even the aristocratic brook trout tasted muddy—the only exception being the whitefish 5D (coregonus) of the Great Lakes; but when fresh-water bass or perch are skinned, this muddy, or weedy, taste is not found, and therefore some things which I have said of perch and of skinning fish a dozen years ago should be, and hereby are, recanted. That the perch is a very predaceous fish nobody can deny, but, like the black bass, its menu comprises many things beside fish, and as gravel is not necessary for it to spawn in, it can thrive where the latter cannot. It was a favorite with Walton as it is with many an inland angler to-day, and where trout will not live it is worthy of cultivation. TRANSPORTATION OF LIVE FISHES. By WI .iiAm P. SEAL. The problems involved in the transportation of fishes, owing to the rapid fouling of water thus used, and of the difficulty in procuring suitable water in transit in some parts of the country, especially as sometimes happens where recourse must be had to the water of artesian wells, are among the most interesting and perplexing encountered in the practical work of fish distribution, as well as in the collection and transfer of specimens for exhibition and ob- servation. In the case of the transportation of salt-water fishes inland it is impossible to provide for a change of water, and thus artificial aeration alone must be relied on. A patent recently granted for a system by which it is claimed fish may be transported in hermetically sealed vessels by charging the water with air under compression has led to considerable discussion and speculation. The varying conditions resulting from differences of tempera- 56 ture, the original character or quality of the water, the size and character of the fish (some species requiring more oxygen than others, and large fish needing more than small ones), and many other variable influences, tend to make the consideration of such a method a very complex problem. A series of experiments conducted for the purpose of de- termining the value of such a system would have to be very comprehensive indeed. Numbers of expensive chemi- ‘al analyses would have to be made, and the comparisons would have to be very careful, all involving a long period of experiment and observation. The researches through which our knowledge of the diffusion of gases in the at- mosphere have been derived have occupied the minds of eminent physicists through long periods of time, devoted to patient and laborious experiment. It is probable, however, that for all practical purposes the question can be discussed and its practicability deter- mined by examination from a purely theoretical stand- point. It is an undoubted fact that fish may be kept in hermeti- cally sealed vessels for a considerable time without the action of plant-life or artificial aeration. The possibilities in this direction increase with decrease in the temperature, the number and size of the fish, and with fish requiring a smaller amount of oxygen. Whena certain proportion of oxygen is exhausted of course the fish must die. As to whether the idea can ever have a positive practical value, however, is at least very doubtful. In the first place, any apparatus developed in accord- ance with such a system, and adapted to purposes of dis- tribution, would tend towards complexity in construction and manipulation, whereas simplicity is the great desid- eratum. ‘ The advantage that would apparently arise from the adoption of hermetically sealed vessels is that as air is absorbed and held in suspension in water, or expelled 57 therefrom, in direct accordance with its temperature, ‘there would be no escape for whatever air might be forced into it under compression, as would be the case in an open vessel. It would be absolutely retained there until con- sumed by the fish, while if not so controlled it would immediately escape to the atmosphere until the water would hold only its normal proportion in accordance with its capacity under the existing temperature, and the charg- ing with air would have to be constant. The great advantages offered by this aspect of the ques- tion—the storing of an excessive amount of air in the water, and air-space of the vessel—would naturally at first thought appear, to those engaged or interested in any way in the carrying or transportation of live fish, whether the angler with his live-bait supply, in the extensive opera- tions of fish cultural distribution, or in the supply of aquaria, as offering strong possibilities of usefulness. But there is another aspect of the case. While the oxy- gen which affords the life-giving principle would be stored up and held in confinement for the use of the fish, ina sealed vessel, the carbonic acid gas, and the gases gen- erated by decomposition of organic matter (the excretions and exhalations of the fish), the death-dealing principles, would also be prevented from escaping and held there like the choke-damp in mines to promote death and destruc- tion when they became excessive, and, at the same time, the amount of oxygen would be constantly diminishing. The proportions in which most of the gases are dis- solved by water seem to be but little known, the text- books dealing with the subject in a general way only, but it is certain that they are more readily absorbed at low than at high temperatures. In the case of air it has been stated by a competent authority that for every sixteen degrees of lower temperature double the volume would be taken up. As the noxious gases, as well as oxygen and air, are thus 58 only held in suspension in a certain proportion in accord- ance with temperature, it is evident that they are not likely to collect in amount sufficient to be injurious, except in the absence of a normal proportion of oxygen. It is prob- able also that the gases resulting from decomposition are very largely oxydized in water, and the only element of danger with which we have to deal to any extent is car- bonic acid gas. In the atmosphere, on the contrary, it is thought by Dr. Angus Smith that the injurious effects resulting from the presence of noxious gases are due to those generating from decomposition, rather than from carbonic acid gas. Suggestions tending to the elimination of the carbonic acid gas from water used in fish transportation by the use of lime-water, or other chemicals, have been advanced, but these are in the same line, inducing complexity of method and requiring almost scientific accuracy and judgment on the part of the persons employed. It seems to me a rational conclusion that any form of close confinement or of chemical elimination of noxious gases in the shipment of fishes is not only complex and useless, but may be either positively injurious or danger- ous, and that whatever improvements are made in our systems will be in the direction of more efficient and auto- matic aeration. According to Parkes, ‘‘ As it falls through the air, rain becomes more highly aerated (average twenty-five cubic centimeters per liter), the oxygen being in larger propor- tion than in atmospheric air (thirty-two per cent. or a little more); carbon dioxide constitutes two and one-half or three per cent. of the gas.’? The same results in aeration are attained by an efficient method of passing air through the water. The use of much ice in carrying fishes must undoubtedly induce inflammation of the gills and mucus membrane to a greater or less extent. Ice-water is heavy and non-aerated, - 59 as the air is expelled in freezing, and it must be well aerated before it is capable of supporting life. The one advantage that it offers is that it will hold the air longer in suspension when once introduced, and will retard de- composition and consequent generation of noxious gases, but amore rapid and constant means of aeration will prob- ably produce better results. Recent experiments made by the U. 8. Fish Commission show that trout and other fish which require a very large amount of oxygen will live comfortably at quite high tem- perature—70° to 80° F.—if the water is constantly charged with air by artificial means, demonstrating that it is not strictly the high temperature that affects them unfavor- ably, but that the water when it reaches a certain elevation of temperature does not contain enough air in suspension to supply them with the amount of oxygen they require. In the transportation of fishes for the live fish exhibit at the World’s Columbian Exposition, it is proposed to adapt a car to the purpose, on which will be constructed a tank holding if possible 3,000 gallons of water, the inner sides of which will be so protected with soft material that inju- ries to the fish from striking against them will be reduced toa minimum. There will also be an efficient system of aeration. It has been found through experiments made by the U. S. Fish Commission with salt-water fishes, that as the area of environment is increased the tendency to fear and nervous excitement, and consequent liability to injury, are reduced, and fishes which in small aquarium tanks had be- come diseased, and sometimes apparently at the point of death, on being placed in the reservoir were restored to health. Large fishes in transportation are generally very much bruised and torn, and in fresh water they are soon infested with fungus. The handling of them with nets in trans- ferring them to medicated baths, to destroy the fungus 60 and heal the skin, is, with the more tender and excitable species, more productive of harm than good. Strong salt water is the bath most frequently used. It has been found since the establishment of a salt-water aquarium at Central Station that any of our fresh-water fishes will live and thrive in-brackish water at least one- fourth the strength of sea-water (say 1.007), and this treat- ment appears to be a sovereign remedy for the attacks of fungus and animal parasites and diseases common to them in fresh water. Some of the cases in which injuries have been healed by it were very remarkable. It appears to be certain also that many, and perhaps all, marine fishes will live in brackish water, and as many species pass into and live for considerable periods in fresh water, it is quite possible that some of them might be per- manently established in our great lakes and rivers. In the handling of large fish a piece of cheese-cloth passed around them and grasped at the corners is superior to any net, as it is soft and even in texture and clinging closely to them prevents their floundering about in such a way as to injure the skin or tear off the scales. In Europe and especially in Germany many ingenious devices have been developed for the transportation of live fish, and the custom of taking their fish to market alive is no doubt a stimulus in this direction, and deserves our commendation and emulation. The subject is an interesting one and offers a fine field for the inventive genius of American fish culturists. 61 COWS TYE UTION. ARTICLE I. Name and Objects.—The name of this Society shall be ‘‘The American Fisheries Society.”’ It object shall be to promote the cause of fish culture; to gather and diffuse in- formation bearing upon its practical success, and upon all matters relating to the fisheries; the uniting and encour- aging of the interests of fish culture and the fisheries; and the treatment of all questions regarding fish of a scientific and economic character. ARTICLE II. Members.—Any person shall, upon a two-thirds vote and the payment of three dollars, become a member of this So- ciety. In case members do not pay their fees—which shall be three dollars per year—after the first year, and are delinquent for two years, they shall be notified by the Treasurer, and if the amount due is not paid within a month thereafter, they shall be, without further notice, dropped from the roll of membership. Any person can be made an honorary or a corresponding member upon a two-thirds vote of the members present at any regular meeting, ARTICLE III. Officers.—-The officers of this Society shall be a President and a Vice-President, who shall be ineligible for election 62 to the same office until a year after the expiration of their terms, a Corresponding Secretary, a Recording Secretary, a Treasurer, and an Executive Committee of seven, which, with the officers before named, shall form a council and transact such business as may be necessary when the So- ciety is not in session—four to constitute a quorum. ARTICLE IV. Meetings.—The regular meeting of the Society shall be held once a year, the time and place being decided upon at the previous meeting, or in default of such action, by the Executive Committee. ARTICLE V. Changing the Constitution.—The Constitution of the So- ciety may be amended, altered, or repealed, by a two-thirds vote of the members present at any regular meeting, pro- vided at least fifteen members are present at said meeting. 1 i Aig pl yah gt OF THE AMERICAN. FISHERIES . SOCIETY, HONORARY MEMBERS. Behr, E. von Schmoldow, Germany; President of the Deutschen Fischerei Verein, Berlin, Germany. Borne, Max von dem, Berneuchen, Germany. Huxley, Prof. Thomas H., London; President of the Royal Society. Jones, John D., 51 Wall Street, New York. ; St. Clair Flats Shooting and Fishing Club, Detroit, Mich. Anglers’ Association of Eastern Pennsylvania. CORRESPONDING MEMBERS. Apostolides, Prof. Nicoly Chr., Athens, Greece. Buch, Dr. S. A., Christiana, Norway; Government Inspector of Fisheries, Birkbeck, Edward, Esq., M. P., London, England. Benecke, Prof. B., Konigsberg, Germany ; Commissioner of Fisheries. Brady, Thomas F., Esq., Dublin Castle, Dublin, Ireland ; Inspector of Fisheries for Ireland. Chambers, Oldham W., Esq., Secretary of the National Fish Culture Association, South Kensington, London. Day, Dr. Francis F. L. S., Kenilworth House, Cheltenham, England late Inspector-General of Fisheries for India, 64 Fedderson, Arthur, Viborg, Denmark. Giglioli, Prof. H. H., Florence, Italy. Hubrecht, Prof. A. A. W., Utrecht, Holland; Member of the Dutch Fisheries Commission, and Director of the Netherlands Zoo- logical Station. Juel, Capt. N., R. N., Bergen, Norway; President of the Society for the Development of Norwegian Fisheries. K. Ito, Esq., Hokkaido, Cho., Sapporo, Japan; Member of the Fish- eries Department of Hokkaido, and President of the Fisheries Society of Northern Japan. Landmark, S., Bergen, Norway; Inspector of Norwegian Fresh Water Fisheries. Lundberg, Dr. Rudolph, Stockholm, Sweden ; Inspector of Fisheries. Macleay, William, Sydney, N. S. W.; President of the Fisheries Commission of New South Wales. Maitland, Sir J. Ramsay Gibson, Bart., Howietown, Stirling, Scotland. Malmgren, A. J., Prof., Helsingfors, Finland. Marston, R.B., Esq., of London, England; Editor of the /zshzng Gazette. Olsen, O. T., Grimsby, England. Sars, Prof. G. O., Christiana, Norway; Government Inspector of Fisheries. Smith, Prof. F. A., Stockholm, Sweden. Sola, Don Francisco, Garcia, Madrid, Spain; Secretary of the Spanish Fisheries Society. Solsky, Baron N. de, St. Petersburg, Russia; Director of the Imperial Agricultural Museum. Trybom, Filip, Dr., Stockholm, Sweden. Walpole, Hon. Spencer, Governor of the Isle of Man. Wattel, M. Raveret, Paris, France; Secretary of, they,Spcietie d’Acclimation. Young, Archibald, Esq., Edinburgh, Scotland; H. M. Inspector of Salmon Fisheries. NEW MEMBERS. Amsden, F. J., Rochester, N. Y. Babcock, C. H., Rochester, N. Y. Barnum, William, Rochester, N. Y. Dean, Prof. Bashford, New York. 65 Huntington, L. D., New Rochelle, N. Y. Huntington, W. R., Cleveland, Ohio. Kimball, W. S., Rochester, N. Y. 2 Lamtson, Giles H,, U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Lynch, Peter W., New York. Porter, B. P., San Francisco. Sherwin, H. A., Cleveland, O, Smith, Hugh M., Washington, D. C. Stelwagen, Weightman, Philadelphia. MEMBERS. Adams, Dr. S. C., Peoria, Ill. Agnew, John T., 284 Front Street, New York. Anderson, A. A., Bloomsbury, N. J. Annin, James, Jr., Caledonia, N. Y. Atkins, Charles G., Bucksport, Me. Atwater, Prof. W. O., Middletown, Conn. Barrett, Charles, Grafton, Vt. Bartlett, S. P., Quincy, Ill. Bean, Dr. Tarleton H., National Museum, Washington, D. C. Belmont, Perry, 19 Nassau Street, New York. Benjamin, Pulaski, Fulton Market, New York. Benkard, James, Union Club, New York. Bickmore, Prof. A. S., American Museum, New York. Bissell, J. H., Detroit, Mich. Blackford, E. G., Fulton Market, New York. Booth, A., Chicago, II]. Bottemane, C. J., Bergen-on-Zoom, Holland. Bower, Seymour, Deerfield, Mich. Brown, F. W., N. W. corner Broad and Cherry Streets. Brown, J. E., U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Brown, S. C., National Museum, Washington, D. C. Bryan, Edward H., Smithsonian Institute. Bryson, Col. M. A., 903 Sixth Avenue, New York. Burden, Henry, Troy, N. Y. Butler, W. A., Jr., Detroit, Mich. Butler, Frank A., 291 Broadway, New York. Butler, W. H., 291 Broadway, New York. Carey, Dr. H. H., Atlanta, Ga. Cheney, A. Nelson, Glens Falls, N. Y. Clapp, A. T., Sunbury, Pa. 66 Clark, Frank N., U. S. Fish Commission, Northville, Mich. Clark, A. Howard, National Museum, Washington, D. C. Collins, J. Penrose, 850 Drexel Building, Philadelphia. . Collins, Capt. J. W., U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Comstock, Oscar, Fulton Market, New York. Conklin, William A., Central Park, New York. Cox, W. V., National Museum, Washington, D. C. Crook, Abel, 99 Nassau Street, New York. Crosby, Henry F., P. O. Box 3714, New York. Dewey, J. N., Toledo, Ohio. Dieckerman, George H., New Hampton, N. H. Donaldson, Hon. Thomas, Philadelphia. Doyle, E. P., Secretary New York Fish Commission, New York. Dunning, Philo, Madison, Wis. Earll, R. E., National Museum, Washington, D. C. Ellis, J. F., U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Endicott, Francis, Tompkinsville, N. Y. Evarts, Charles B., Windsor, Vt. Fairbank, N. K., Chicago, III. Ferguson, T. B., Washington, D. C. Fitzhugh, Daniel H., Bay City, Mich. Foord, John, Brooklyn, N. Y. Editor Harfer’s Weekly. Ford, Henry C., Philadelphia, Pa. French, Asa B., South Braintree, Mass. Frishmuth, E. H., Jr., 151 N. Third Street, Philadelphia. Garrett, W. E., P. O. Box 3006, New York. Gay, John, U.S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Gilbert, W. L., Plymouth, Mass. Goode, G. Brown, National Museum, Washington, D. C. Gunkell, J. S., Toledo, Ohio. Hagert, Edwin, 32 N. Sixth Street, Philadelphia. Haley, Albert, Fulton Market, New York. Haley, Caleb, Fulton Market, New York. Harper, Thos. B., 709 Market Street, Philadelphia. Harris, Gwynn, Washington, D. C. Harris, W. C., Editor Amerzcan Angler, 10 Warren Street, New York. Hartley, R. M., 627 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. Hasbrouck, C. T., Cleveland, Ohio. Hayes, A. A., Washington, D. C. Henshall, Dr. J. A., 362 Court Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. 67 Hergesheimer, Wm. S., 1119 N. Eighth Street, Philadelphia. Hessell, Rudolph, U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Hicks, John D., Roslyn, Long Island, N. Y. Hill, M. B., Clayton, N. Y. Hinchman, C. C., Detroit, Mich. Hofer, J. C., Bellaire, Ohio. Hudson, Dr. Wm M., Hartford, Conn. Humphries, Dr. E. W., Salisbury, Md. Hutchinson, E. S., Washington, D.C. Isaacs, Montefiore, 42 Broad Street, New York. Imbrie, Charles F., New York. James, Dr. Bushrod W., N. E. corner Eighteenth and Green Streets, Philadelphia. Jessup, F. J., 88 Cortlandt Street, New York. Johnston, S. M., Battery Wharf, Boston, Mass. Kauffman, S. H., Evenzng Star Office, Washington, D. C. Kellogg, A. J., Detroit, Mich. Kelly, P., 346 Sixth Avenue, New York. Kingsbury, Dr. C. A., 1119 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. Lawrence, G. N., 45 E. Twenty-first Street, New York. Lawrence, F. C., Union Club, New York. Lee, Thomas, U. S. Fish Commission. Little, Amos R., Philadelphia. Loring, John A., 3 Pemberton Square (Room 8), Boston, Mass. Lowrey, J. A., Union Club, New York. Lydecker, Major G. I., U. S..Engineers. Mallory, Charles, foot Burling Slip, New York. Mansfield, Lieut. H. B., U. S. Navy, Washington, D. C. Mather, Fred., Cold Spring Harbor, Suflolk Co., N.Y. Marks, Walter D., Paris, Mich. May, W. L., Fremont, Neb. McDonald, Col. M., Fish Commissioner of the United States, Washington, D. C, McGown, Hon. H. P., 76 Nassau Street, New York. MacKay, Robert M., 1517 N. Thirteenth Street, Philadelphia. Middletown, W., Fulton Market, New York. Milbank, S. W., Union Club, New York. Miles, Jacob F., 1820 Arch Street; Philadelphia. Miller, S. B., Fulton Market, New York. Miller, Ernest, Fulton Market, New York. 68 Miller, A. H., 1020 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Miner, C. Harry, New York. Moore, Geo. H. H., U. S. Fish Commission. Moon, George T., New York. Nevin, James, Madison, Wis. O’Brien, Martin E., South Bend, Neb. O'Connor, J. J., U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Osborn, Hon. C. V., Dayton, Ohio. Page, George S., 49 Wall Street, New York, Page, W. F., U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Parker, Dr. J. C., Grand Rapids, Mich. Parker, Peter, Jr.. U. S. Fish Commission. Pease, Charles, East Rockport, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio. Pike, Hon. R. G., Middletown, Conn. Post, Hoyt, Detroit, Mich. Post, W., Knickerbocker Club, New York. Potter, Emory D., Sandusky, Ohio. Powell, W. L., Harrisburg, Pa. Rathburn, Richard, U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Ray, Hon. Ossian, M. C., New Hampshire. | Redmond, R., 113 Franklin Street, New York. Reinecke, Theodore, Box 1651, New York. Reynal J., 84 White Street, New York. Reynolds, Charles B., 318 Broadway, New York. Ricardo, George, Hackensack, N. J. Robeson, Hon. George M., Camden, N. J. Schaffer, George H., foot Perry Street, New York. Schieffelin, W. H., 170 William Street, New York. Schuyler, H. P., Troy, N. Y. Seal, William P., Washington, D.C. Sherman, Gen. R. U., New Hartford, Oneida Co., N. Y. Simmons, Newton, U.S. Fish Commission, Washington, D, C. Smiley, C. W., Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D. C. Spangler, A. M., 529 Commerce Street, Philadelphia. Spensley, Calvert, Mineral Point, Wis. Spofford, Henry W., Smithsonian Institute. Steers, Henry, to E. 38th Street, New York. Stone, Livingston, Charlestown, N. H., U. S. Fish Commission. Stone, Summer R., 58 Pine Street, New York. Stranahan, J. J., Chagrin Falls, Ohio. 69 ‘\ Swan, B. L., Jr., 5 W. 20th Street, New York. Sweeney, Dr. R. O., Duluth, Minn. Streuber, L., Erie, Pa. Thompson, H. H., Bedford Bank, Brooklyn, Wes Tomlin, David W., Duluth, Minn. Walton, Collins W., 1713 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia. Ward, George E., 43 South Street, New York. Weeks, Seth, Corrie, Erie Co., Pa. West, Benjamin, Fulton Market, New York. Whitaker, Herschel, Detroit, Mich. Whitney. Samuel, Katonah, N. Y. Wilbur, H. O., Third Street, below Race, Philadelphia. Wilbur, E. R., Forest and Stream, New York. Wilcox, Joseph, Media, Pa. Wilcox, W. A., 176 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Mass. Willets, J. C., Skaneateles, N. Y. Williams, A. C., Chagrin Falls, Ohio. Wilmot, Samuel, Newcastle, Ontario. Wilson, J. P., U. S. Fish Commission. Wood, Benjamin, 25 Park Row, New York. Woodruff, G. D., Sherman, Conn. Woods, Israel, Fulton Market, New York. Worth, S. G., U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. > ips f ‘ ? } , t i * y 3 i= ¢ Ls ‘ ’ Sit ft i \ ty " 4 . i a 4 P ' il 4 ‘ i : Rae tei ’ i=! i t i y + (Sry i ives ’ ‘ i ‘ a 7 ‘ 3 . ’ «yt y + ¥ Nae £ a Se, i et - f ! i , . P ; as i i . i it, i -— 4 ae . t f ' ¥ : v af “ . b, : : Dh uty \ 2 4 iS ty an} oé » i i Vv * J me 1 y 7 7 j 4 ce ‘> : 7 4’ . , ' r a ., is ‘ ; 1 j . 4 % i *% a 4 j a4 iy ! ¥ i er ¢ : F Y s ee Ge . J iM he Co! ey AS ees i pare Arh i law ne i he wae amiga he ay 1 Syinnt2, BY abe? ' rq ig i i - a y 7 id ' eeeaie: sf w sf aa, ‘ito Wi ace ad Pe ee. RR Same fast nari ay i Po) 1a 8 rmsd re yi "Amy! indies, twat | Hy, paral wt? a) tye ft, ber te 77 arising ‘ . ' 2 =O i f ‘ . Oo hd ? . ' 1 ' , m ‘ ’ : 1 a . aR ss as , i " 4 f = wl \ “ f . a | , wi si 4 rt i a : , Ry 4 Lae ' ' f ¢ 7 ‘ We, . 4 * f , ¥ + = ’ ; * by r \ % 4 tr . ’ . - i f ‘ ‘ .- rs py aTOGY ’ > 7. ‘ ‘ ; bad } x - : . ; F . 4 ‘ ‘ . ’ i 1 5 7 ! . + ‘ i % » ey it aid) A Uen re “ aid aa SES lati CEES TE and “yooh tala? ON Bi nee AES LAny A satin an aa ny ge hiss nc i ah spd 7 ee i ind RED DCD DLT ee asi von ae ee he cede, tral: 1a ics Vane | in ins MIG? sis) eitanielt doses ee OE WS ae Sa oul PARES is Weatsuh 23 tee 2S 7 MRE a0 fas ‘ Hi, Ose We ny, ee RD Wahe’h oA cal wah I 4 pith : ang! ‘ at, han Hig rRae SOS Se of bitg ike WR A aN At VEE 2ak angen eee singe \ Piva y eee Wes arp “Wy Wiper, / NON coh 7% is eo et BAL tes me “at ie fae oe are a 2: ni * Pr ous - i & oe a) Fey, ak Rtg a a a Baw eo. oft pe Agel a oe eRe 2k Ph eT ba att eH! ie re Si hea et bed vs via we pen aah 2 ore ad wha 0 Der 2 i. Sa aee nor 3 ay : nef Ni se Ais oe ne ira | We a. TU Oe Ae ART du 4 Bint iD! a h ey fT) A tea.” : ; ye h me) oP { ' ‘ * peek a? yah! i eats B y 7 4 a. : \ ‘ F iM a V ’ . 1 * z r . i , 5 ‘ heyhey i), | ' » MY SMe LA ge ‘ , “agk ’ y ' ‘ i i at t ‘ ya } - as j (ne ) rs ‘ { ’ iy ‘ u \ i i's ‘ Pit ' 4v ' . i) + ‘ + ’ H ‘ ‘ { ‘ ri ‘ ‘ . 2 ty ‘ j ——— = = — ‘ \ i 1 ‘ pS » ‘ ‘ ‘ s r ' * ‘ 4 +f ‘ ' \ ‘ ; ° ‘ ; * ‘ . Sires - i ' at ‘ : ‘ - rs a ’ i ' * 4 2 5 1 , . ¥ ‘ . yee ae OUBUEE UN “eM yu UUEN YM uli yyet "eiguai yi eveve WN Mids 8 ¥ ou * Gere vel Miia Wve. ds a AERA euen vet, SVR Wi, Wi cc, Soave We soot Wii WW yey ch ih poe ecot'e uae Wig aus eee WU ae vv oa Wylie il Mi petse tr WY 1 TAN WIRY wey ; w ty vw uy way ouuubg BYE Ye | iS - SY elas Tee Soe | Ww 3 Phd me Yy SNS OO ANN Ww 2 . Preacetirhn See ys v we Woy wae adh aye . “uy, | ey ivceweeogs Wy vy Y LY AL TAR IVY YW ¥ 2 SIMI RON OAV Se eee ou. vi We oe : W Oe, We vye yi yuk YY j WY tote ual yi As Yy “yy 0 Wig yo yee eteeeo! Wie yy Wy Miiae Sie! “yi Mv) iia Sawn y Sus ROLAU IVIL Fe Wc’ Yu du ju vy Neeyeetey Sd wn \ . iC JUree se VUCUeED Muu Ue tad 1 VU U veneer UUM Man le vet Wcoicl iW EU gedolu nee a Sakae Mis ic WOU MV ee Wu we wy a ms Vive : v th oe aac: yi wii vi o « o Re : Suiwat Wg Vee: wy ove Youve Wy iS YW, Vv ve { bu! Very. y | : ; wy oO eS eee vig e et < << wats ov oN MT Meee WN €.. ph Wi «_ Te, Ga CR MS GRE oie a « ite (<=