1899] "TO COUNT THE SEAS ABUNDANT PROGENY" 399 



In the second chapter such important questions as the influence of trawlers 

 and liners respectively upon the sea-bottom and the food supplies of fishes is 

 discussed, and the results of the scientific work and the recommendations of the 

 Royal Commission are fully considered. It is useful to have all these points 

 collected and focussed by one who is so thoroughly familiar with them ; but 

 why stop short at the Commission of 1884, and not go on to consider the work 

 of the more recent Select Committee in 1893? After all that we come to the 

 statistics of the Fishery Board, arranged under the headings St. Andrews Bay, 

 Firth of Forth, Moray Firth, and Firth of Clyde. Throughout the author 

 seems attempting to demonstrate that the statements as to over-fishing have 

 been exaggerated, that no denuding or exhaustion of the fishing grounds is 

 taking place, or need be feared ; and yet every here and there we meet with 

 passages that suggest that he is himself only half convinced, or that he might 

 possibly find arguments against his own contention. Surely the following are 

 admissions of what he elsewhere denies : — " While, therefore, the present 

 statistics show no serious diminution, it may be truly said that the total is kept 

 up only by the supplies from Iceland, Faroe, and the Great Fisher Bank " 

 (p. 100). "All that need be said at present is that, so far as can be ascer- 

 tained, it would not appear that the closure of the inshore waters has made 

 any marked increase in the fishes of the offshore waters. . . . No change, 

 however, could be expected if the scarcity were due to general over-fishing " 

 (p. 101). "And while the fishes may not, taking a broad survey of them, be 

 very much reduced, and the totals in the market even increase, yet each ship 

 and boat probably secures much less than in former times " (p. 102). " Instead, 

 however, of placing the onus of the scarcity on any method of fishing, such as 

 trawling, it would be more reasonable to lay the blame on general over-fishing " 

 (p. 228). Even Dr. M'Intosh's phrases in regard to the prosperity of the 

 fisheries, and their vast powers of recuperation, clo not suggest too much 

 confidence in the belief which he advances. He uses such terms as " no grounds 

 for despairing," "condition is not unsatisfactory," "does not give rise to dis- 

 satisfaction," which somehow do not carry conviction. 



This (the main) part of the book, giving the results of the closure, experi- 

 ments, conveys to the careful reader the impression that the author has turned 

 the Fishery Board statistics inside out, gutted them, squeezed them and sucked 

 them dry — if anything, even statistics, will stand such mixed treatment — with 

 the result that he proves nothing except the insufficiency of the original 

 material. 



We must point out, however, that in his discussion and rearrangement of 

 these statistics Prof. M'Intosh seems to have mixed up two very different things 

 — the results from the closed areas and from the stations which were not closed. 

 In this way he imports into the comparison of the conditions before and after 

 closure a series of facts which have no right there. It is scarcely fair to draw 

 conclusions as to the results of the closure from statistics of grounds some of 

 which have never been closed. 



In any remarks that are made as to the insufficiency of the Garland's 

 statistics, it must be remembered that many valuable observations of other kinds 

 have been made by the vessel and the scientific staff on board ; and we should 

 have liked to have seen in this book a little more acknowledgment of the im- 

 portant work done year after year both for the fisheries and for science by 

 Dr. Fulton and by Mr. Thomas Scott. 



The final chapter, " Summary and Conclusions," is the most interesting to 

 read, and with much of it every biologist will agree. We have alluded to some 

 of the chief points in the preceding paragraphs. Here and there we meet with 

 severely sarcastic passages directed against the "practical" gentleman and the 

 "fisherman's friend." Who are they, and what have they done? Is science 

 not practical, and is Prof. MTntosh himself not the most practical of all those 

 who have had to do with the regulation of fisheries 1 And, again, who has such 



