BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 307 



Of these 242 reports, 38 only contain the slightest reflection upon carp 

 (Nos. 141, 144, 149, 151, 159, 106, 176-194, 195-204, 208, 209, 210). Many 

 of these objections are declaredly slight. All but one (No. 194) of the 

 criticisms have already been explained away, and I believe we possess 

 the clew to that one. 



1. Moderate praise— very fair to very good.— In this list are 

 included 10 testimonies, entirely satisfactory in character; 21 of which, 

 in speaking of the edible qualities of carp, pronounce them "good." 

 14 " very good," and 5 " fair," " very palatable," &c. These statements 

 come from thirteen different States of the Union; but rather largely from 

 Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Ohio. Messrs. Wil- 

 mot (5), White (21), Peirce (22), and Duke (39) are men of very large 

 experience with fish, and weight should attach to their testimonies. 

 The method of cooking most frequently named is frying, though all 

 methods are included in this group of statements. 



2. Unequivocal praise and very emphatic expressions of 

 approval.— Under this head are grouped 96 different testimonies. Of 

 these, 15 speak of carp as " very fine," and 21 as "excellent"; and others 

 ring the changes on such expressions as " very good indeed," " first rate," 

 "first c'ass," " extra," " splendid," " very superior," " superb," " delicious'" 

 "the best offish"; while quite a good many go on to say that carp are 

 equal or superior to any other fish, or that they never ate anything more 

 delicious. Such testimonies in so large number are, of course, verv 

 gratifying, although the Fish Commission has never pretended that carp 

 would take as high a rank as many of these people have given it. These 

 assurances come largely from Maryland, Virginia, Texas, Kentucky, 

 and Mississippi— sixteen States in all. Among the writers are several 

 men of distinction, such as State fish commissioners, editors, physicians, 

 and farmers and planters of wide experience. In many cases the single 

 testimony represents the opinions of whole families or neighborhoods. 

 3. Comparisons with other fish.— Some 39 correspondents have 

 chosen to express their opinions by comparisons rather than in absolute 

 terms ; and here we have carp successively declared equal to buffalo, mul- 

 let, suckers, mud-fish, croakers, mill-roach, perch, rock-fish, drum, bass, 

 trout, sun-fish, red-horse, mackerel, red snapper, and shad.* Of course 

 the Commissioner, in bringing carp from Germauy, did not for a moment 

 suppose that he was introducing a fish equal in delicacy to trout, bass, 

 or shad ; but he has always claimed that its edible qualities were equal 

 or superior to those of such fish as suckers, catfish, perch, buffalo, mul- 

 let, and sun-fish, and that by reason of its rapid growth, hardihood, 



* Most of the fish with which carp have been compared unfavorably are carnivorous 

 species. To raise these on mea^, s expensive. Carp are vegetable feeders, and adapted 

 to districts where fish are scarce and so remote from the ocean that sea fish cannot 

 be obtained, but where corn, cabbage, pumpkius, squashes, potatoes, &c, are abun- 

 dant and cheap. The Commission does not otfer nor commend carp to those who have 

 access to the better sea fish, such as salmon, trout, whitefisb, &c. Compared with 

 vegetable feeders, there is no question of the great superiority of carp. 



