is possible to determine to what extent and in what manner the
destruction of immature fish, which is admittedly enormous, is injurious
to the permanent supply. We have already referred to Mr. Holt’s
statistics, which showed that 40 per cent. of the plaice landed in
Grimsby in the year 1893-1894 were below 13 inches in length. In 1904,
30 per cent. of the plaice landed from the North Sea on the whole East
Coast were below 11 inches in length. German statistics show that from
1895 to 1904 there was no sensible increase in the total weight of
plaice landed in that country, but the proportion of ‘small’ fish (below
14 inches in length) steadily increased from 68 per cent. in 1895 to 87
per cent. in 1904. There can thus be little doubt that the supply is
being maintained only by drawing more and more upon the fish of smaller
size and of less value.
It seems to have been too readily assumed, however, that this increasing
destruction of small plaice is the great cause of the declining catches
of better fish. Has the cart not been put before the horse? In view of
what has been said above concerning the general severity of the fishing,
does it not look as though the capture of increasing quantities of small
plaice were a consequence, and not the cause, of the general depletion
of the grounds? The people demand plaice. The proprietor of a large
fried-fish shop in the East End was a witness before the House of Lords
Committee on the Sea-Fisheries Bill of 1904. His customers numbered from
500 to 3,000 daily; and there were 2,000 other establishments of the
same kind in London. He told the Committee: ‘Plaice is the most popular
fish in our line of business; people do not care for any other.’ Owing
to the higher price of plaice, however, he was often compelled to
substitute cheaper kinds of fish. In one month he had even made five
purchases of small turbot and brill, against only two of plaice, in
order to meet the demand. ‘You must understand,’ he added, ‘that amongst
the class of people we deal with we do not sell turbot and brill as
turbot and brill; we have to sell it as plaice. Plenty of people, if
you said you had turbots, would not have them.’ It is obvious that
fishermen would not land small plaice if large were plentiful. It was
not until the large fish became scarce that fishermen began to take the
small.
If these facts are correctly stated, the remedial treatment of the
undersized-plaice problem must be taken up from a new standpoint. We
must apparently give up the expectation that by merely stopping the
destruction of small plaice we shall replenish the sea. The fishing
seems to be too severe for that. Every autumn our trawlers fish the
waters between the Dogger and the eastern grounds, confident that they
will take a good catch of medium-sized plaice averaging 12 to 15 inches
in length. These are fish which no fisherman in these days would
despise. Though mixed with a considerable proportion of still smaller
fish, no possible size-limit will prevent him from reaping this annual
harvest. These fish, as has now been shown by the North Sea experiments,
are undertaking their first migration from the coastal grounds to the
deeper waters. However much we protect the still smaller fish inshore,
this wall of nets will be interposed every autumn between the shore and
the open sea. The greater the benefits of protection inshore, the denser
will be the barrier confronting the fish outside, and the smaller the
chances of escape.
To this must be added a new disturbing element, mentioned by Dr.
Garstang in his evidence before the House of Lords Committee in 1904. It
is generally agreed that the only possible form which protection can
take is that of a size-limit, below which it shall be illegal to land or
sell fish. In the case of steam-trawlers this limit must be high enough
to render it unprofitable for the boats to fish on grounds where the
small plaice are most abundant, since the majority of undersized fish
are too much injured in the process of capture to be capable of
survival if returned to the sea. It is otherwise with the small local
sailing-boats (whether Danish, German, or Dutch) which are accustomed to
fish on the small-fish grounds. These boats catch the fish alive and
throw the undersized fish overboard in a living condition. As they can
operate nowhere else, it may be taken for granted that the Governments
of their respective countries, however anxious they may be to improve
the fisheries, will scarcely consent to impose such a size-limit as to
render it unprofitable for their local boats to fish.
The utmost possible protection of the small plaice would consequently be
attained by determining (_a_) a high size-limit for steam-trawlers,
practically debarring them from fishing on the coastal grounds; and
(_b_) the highest size-limit for sailing-boats that would be consistent
with the profitable pursuit of their calling. The first pick of the fish
would consequently fall to the local boats; and, if protection should
result, as it is reasonable to expect, in an increase in the number of
plaice on the coastal grounds, there would be every inducement for these
local boats to multiply in number, with the laudable object of catching
as many as possible of the marketable plaice before they could migrate
to the offshore waters. In practice some fish would escape; but, in the
absence of any restriction upon the number of local boats, there seems
no reason to expect that the number of emigrant plaice would, in the
long run, be any greater than at present. Even under existing
conditions, the local fishery on the west coast of Denmark has developed
from a value of about £40,000 in 1897 to nearly £80,000 in 1904.
If, however, we are right in assuming that a given area of ground can
only produce a given weight of fish per annum, it is fairly certain
that, under protection, the increased density of the fish inshore will
result in a retardation in the average rate of growth, an example of
which we have given on a previous page. This must produce one or other
of two results: either the small fish will remain longer on the inshore
grounds before emigration, or they will emigrate offshore at a smaller
size than at present. Judging, therefore, from the evidence available,
it seems probable that legislative restrictions on the lines indicated
can do little to replenish the offshore fishing-grounds, while such
restrictions may lead to a slight, and possibly a substantial, increase
in the number of small boats fishing along the coasts affected.
While Great Britain can grudge no benefit to the fisheries of other
countries, it is the improvement of the deep-sea fisheries which is the
paramount interest of this country. Doubts, it has been said, are
resolved by action; but if we have correctly analyzed the complicated
factors which affect this problem, we have also shown how essential to
right action is the fullest possible knowledge concerning all the
factors involved. Grave as the North Sea problem undoubtedly is, it is
equally certain that the condition of the fishing industry generally was
never more prosperous than at the present time. The figures quoted in an
earlier part of this article prove this statement to be no paradox.
Interference of some kind, whether by legislation, transplantation,
artificial culture, or some combination of all these means, seems
ultimately to be inevitable. But, if we are to interfere with the
fishing industry more successfully than our predecessors, we should take
advantage of the present time of prosperity to increase our knowledge on
every side--scientific, statistical, experimental--so as to be able to
act with conviction when the whole circumstances are clearer and the
adequacy of our proposals is less open to doubt. Moreover, in view of
the growing interest of other countries, especially Germany and Holland,
in deep-sea trawling, and of the international character of the most
critical problems, there can be no two opinions as to the desirability
of continuing these investigations on some kind of international basis,
a basis which has already been productive of very promising results.
Before turning our attention to the various bodies which administer and
investigate the fisheries of England, a short consideration of what is
done in the two great countries which have scientifically developed
their fisheries may be profitable. In Germany we have the Kiel
Commission, and in the United States the Commission of Fish and
Fisheries. The Kiel Commission exists for the scientific investigation
of the German seas. It was established in 1870 at the suggestion of a
German sea-fishery society--an interesting example of the belief which
the German layman has in science. It consists of four Kiel
professors--Hensen representing physiology, Karl Brandt zoology, Reinke
botany, and Krümmel geography--and of Dr. Heincke, director of the
biological station on Heligoland. An annual grant of £7,500 is made by
the German Government for the maintenance of the laboratories at Kiel,
the cost of steamers for investigations, the cost of the handsome
reports published under the name of ‘Wissenschaftliche
Meeresuntersuchungen,’ and for salaries; of these the five members of
the Commission divide but £270 between them. The German Government has
also spent considerable sums on the biological station in Heligoland,
and make it an annual allowance of about £1,000.
The American Commission, like that of Kiel, is not an administrative
body, but concerns itself with the acquisition and application of
knowledge concerning fisheries; like it, too, it is independent of
official control. It reports directly to Congress. It was established in
1871. Its work is, however, of a more practical kind; besides general
scientific investigation, it collects fishery statistics and undertakes
commercial fishery inquiries, assists in finding markets, and generally
advises the trade and the Legislature when diplomatic action is
indicated; finally, it is by far the most energetic fish-breeding
institution in the world. Much of its work is concerned with the vast
system of inland waters--rivers and lakes--which traverse the Continent.
The work has been carried out on a scale unknown elsewhere, and Congress
has supported it with ample funds. The appropriation in 1897-1898
exceeded £97,000, of which £41,000 was spent on salaries, £16,000 on
scientific investigations and upkeep of steamers, £37,000 on
fish-culture (mostly fresh-water), and £3,000 on administration and
statistics. Besides this central body, many of the States possess fish
commissions of their own. The commissioners control numerous
laboratories and fish-hatcheries, two sea-going vessels, and many
railway-cars specially designed for the transport of fish-fry.
Space does not permit our dealing with the Scottish and Irish Fishery
Boards. The former has existed for a century, and, being independent of
departmental control, while enjoying a moderate income and the advice of
such zoologists as Goodsir, Allman, Sir John Murray, Cossar Ewart, W. C.
McIntosh--who has done more than anyone in the Empire to elucidate the
life-histories of marine fishes--and D’Arcy Thompson, together with an
able staff, the Fishery Board for Scotland has done much thorough and
useful work. The fisheries of Ireland suffered from the economic
disturbances which overtook Ireland during the nineteenth century, and
reached, perhaps, their lowest ebb in 1890. The industrial revival, with
which the name of Sir Horace Plunkett is so indissolubly connected, has
included in its scope the Irish fisheries. The fishery branch of the
Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction receives an annual
grant of £10,000, and, under the guidance of the Rev. S. Green and Mr.
E. W. L. Holt, is already doing much to promote the fishing of the
well-stocked Irish seas.
The English official fishery staff seems to have sprung from the
requirements of the Salmon Fishery Act of 1861. To carry out the
regulations over fresh-water fisheries recommended by that Act two
inspectors were appointed, and these were at first attached to the Home
Office; a further Act in 1886 transferred these inspectors to the Board
of Trade, and extended their duties so as to include the preparation of
annual reports on sea-fisheries. In 1903 another transfer took place;
and the inspectors were transferred to the Board of Agriculture, which
then became the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
At present the central staff consists of an assistant secretary and two
inspectors, in addition to a body of statistical experts. Their duties
are far too numerous for so small a staff. Much of their time is taken
up with the comparatively unimportant fresh-water fisheries; and these
are the subject of a separate report. Without actually administering the
byelaws of the local committees, they exercise a certain supervision
over their actions. They have to attend numerous inquiries all over the
country, and to prepare annual reports; and they are responsible for the
collection of the statistics which have recently assumed so extensive a
development. Besides the central authorities at the Board of Agriculture
and Fisheries, there are local fisheries committees established by an
Act of 1888. These committees can be established by the county and
borough councils on application to the Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries, which defines the area over which a committee shall have
jurisdiction. One-half of such a committee is chosen by the local
councils, and one-half by the central authority. The necessary money is
raised by a local rate. A committee may draft byelaws; but these only
become operative if confirmed by the Board. These byelaws differ,
according to conditions, in different parts of England. They deal
largely with restrictions on trawling. No steam-trawler is allowed to
trawl within the three-mile limit around the coast of England; even the
sailing trawler is forbidden. The byelaws also deal with the sizes of
the meshes of nets, shrimping, crabbing, etc.
Neither the central authorities, whose chief function is to administer
the law and collect statistics, nor the local committees, whose
expenditure is limited to the ‘shell-fisheries’--and, stretch the Act to
the breaking point, you still cannot make a flat-fish into a
shellfish--have either the time or the money for scientific experiment.
This has to a large extent been left to local or private enterprise, and
is mainly confined to three centres--the Northumberland coast, the
Lancashire and western district, and the Channel and North Sea. The
first-named area has recently been supplied by a private benefactor with
funds for an efficient laboratory at Cullercoats, from which much useful
work may be expected.
It is difficult to disentangle the Lancashire and Western Sea-fishery
Committee from Liverpool University on the one hand, and from the
Liverpool Marine Biological Committee or Society on the other. The
Committee owns a handsome marine station at Port Erin, on the Isle of
Man; here and at the fish-hatchery at Peel, in Cumberland, the largest
fish-breeding experiments in England are carried out. In 1904, 5,000,000
young plaice were reared and put into the sea from Port Erin alone. The
Committee publishes annual reports and a series of ‘Memoirs.’ It is
probably to this Committee that the University owes its connexion with
the local sea-fisheries authorities. In the laboratories and museums of
the University the scientific work of the local districts is carried on
by officials paid by the Fisheries Committee; and special rooms in the
handsome new zoological department have been assigned to these two
organizations. The connecting link between the three bodies is the
professor of zoology, Dr. Herdman, who is honorary director of the
scientific work, and to whose untiring energy the University and the
district owe a large debt. With him work two trained naturalists, Dr.
Jenkins, the Superintendent of the District Committee, and Mr. James
Johnstone, whose lucid and admirable work is mentioned at the head of
this article. From it many of our figures and facts have been taken.
The third and last body occupied with original marine research is the
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. It is the most
important of these institutions, and aims at a national rather than a
local activity. The fine laboratory which dominates the eastern end of
Plymouth Hoe was erected at a cost of £12,000, and opened in 1888. The
object of the Association is to ‘promote researches leading to the
improvement of zoological and botanical science, and to an increase of
our knowledge as regards the food, life-conditions, and habits of
British food-fishes and molluscs.’ Although a high average of scientific
work has been displayed in the published ‘Memoirs’ connected with the
Plymouth laboratory, great attention has also been paid to matters of
practical interest. In a list of some 350 papers published, with the aid
or under the auspices of the Association, between 1886 and 1900, nearly
one-half deal directly with economic problems. From 1892 to 1895 the
officers of the Association carried on at Grimsby extensive
investigations into the destruction of immature fish; and it is
gratifying to find that the Select Committee of 1893 extended its
recognition to the ‘facts and statistics’ submitted by the Scotch
Fishery Board and by the Association. In the summer of 1902 the
Association, at the request of the Government, undertook to carry out
the English portion of the International Investigation of the North Sea.
The scope of this inquiry is immense; and its importance to the largest
fisheries available for our fishermen is incalculable. Some idea of the
kind of work accomplished has been furnished in the preceding pages.
What now seems to be most required, in addition to the maintenance of
the work already in progress, is a closer co-operation of these various
bodies with one another and with the central authority now established
under the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The
outlines of some such scheme seem plainly indicated by the existing
constitution of these various bodies. The Fisheries Department is
responsible for administration, statistics, and general advice to the
President of the Board on fishery matters. The Marine Biological
Association undertakes general marine investigations of a national as
distinct from a local character, as well as such local investigations
and experiments as can conveniently be carried out at its laboratories.
The Sea-fishery Committees need additional powers to enable them to
carry out local scientific investigations more fully in their respective
areas. Perhaps an annual conference between the representatives and
experts of these bodies and the officials of the Fishery Department, for
the express purpose of drawing up plans of work for the ensuing year,
would, in the first instance, be the best means of leading up to more
intimate co-operation and organization.
The Reports on the North Sea Investigation so far published deal only
with the work of the earlier years of the investigations; but already
the great prospective value of the results is fully apparent. The Marine
Biological Association has carried out the portion of the general scheme
entrusted to it with energy and success; and Englishmen have no need to
fear comparison with the work done in other countries.
ZEBRAS, HORSES, AND HYBRIDS
_This matchless horse
Is the true pearl of every caravan._
SIR F. H. DOYLE.
The views and writings of Darwin have influenced in an unexpected way
the nature of the work carried on by biological investigators during the
past fifty years. To a great extent, whilst generally holding the
doctrines he held, they have forsaken his methods of inquiry.
If animals and plants have arrived at their present state by descent
with modification from simpler forms, it ought to be possible by careful
searching to trace the line of ancestry; and it is this fascinating but
frequently futile pursuit which has dominated the minds of many of our
ablest zoologists for the last thirty years. To such an extent has this
pedigree-hunting been carried that there is scarcely a group of
invertebrates from which the vertebrates have not been theoretically
derived; and one of the ablest of our physiologists has used his great
powers in the attempt to trace the origin of the backboned animals from
a spider-like creature, and has exercised his ingenuity in a plausible
but unconvincing effort to equate the organs of a king-crab with those
of a lamprey. This appeal to comparative anatomy and the consequent
neglect of living animals and their habits are no doubt partly due to
the influence of Huxley, Darwin’s most brilliant follower and exponent.
He had the engineer’s way of looking at the world, and his influence
was paramount in many schools. The trend which biology has taken since
Darwin’s time is also partly due to a fervent belief in the
recapitulation theory, according to which an animal in developing from
the egg passes through phases which resemble certain stages in the past
history of the ancestors of the animals. For example, there is no doubt
that both birds and mammals are descended from some fish-like animal
that lived in the water and breathed by gills borne on slits in the
gullet, and every bird and mammal passes through a stage in which these
gill-slits are present, though their function is lost, and they soon
close up and disappear. In the hope, which has been but partially
realized, that a knowledge of the stages through which an animal passes
on its path from the ovum to the adult would throw light on the origin
of the race, the attention of zoologists has been largely concentrated
on details of embryology, and a mass of facts has already been
accumulated which threatens to overwhelm the worker.
The two chief factors which play a part in the origin of species are
heredity and variation, and until we know more about the laws which
govern these factors, we cannot hope to arrive at any satisfactory
criteria by which we can estimate the importance of the data accumulated
for us by comparative anatomists and embryologists. Signs are not
wanting that this view is beginning to be appreciated. The publication
of ‘Materials for the Study of Variation’ by Mr. Bateson some years ago
shows that there exists a small but active school of workers in this
field; and recent congresses on hybridization give evidence that in
America, on the Continent, and in Great Britain, one of the most
important sides of heredity is being minutely and extensively explored.
Professor Cossar Ewart’s experiments, which we shall attempt to
summarize, deal with heredity and cognate matters, and although they
are so far from complete that the results hitherto obtained cannot be
regarded as final, they mark an important stage in the history of the
subject.