THK GEBMAK CABP IX THE DTTITED STATES. 595 



than from definite information. It i- ;i noticeable fact that this senti- 

 ment is orach less general, or may be largely replaced by one almost 

 as unreasoning in favor of the carp's entire barmlessness, in regions 

 where this fish is commercially valuable on a large scale. The chai 



may in a general way be divided into four headings: 0) That carp eat 

 the spawn of other fish; i'l) that carp eat the young of other fish; (3) 

 that carp prevent the nesting of such fish as the b \) that carp 



produce unfavorable conditions chiefly roilinese of the water that 

 drive other fish away. 



In the Great Lakes region the fishes that are generally conceded to 

 be in most danger from the carp are the bass and other members of 

 the same family (crappie, sun-fish, bluegill;. and the white-fish. It is 

 obvious that they can hardly affect directly such other commercial and 

 game fishes as the wall-eyed pike and sauger (Sti2o#tedion, commonly 

 called "pickerel" on the Great Lakes), or perch" {Percajlavi . or 



trout; nor do I know of specific complaints of damage to the herring 

 (ArgryroeoTmis), sturgeon, or the true pike- (Esocidae, "pickerel" of 

 the inland water-/. Most of these do not lay their • here they 



aii- likely to be troubled by carp, and some are probably considered 

 able to take care of themselves. Still it seems that carp might easily 

 affect wall-eyed pike, in cases where the egg^ are attached to water 

 plants; and if they affect white-fish they probably also affect herring, 

 whose eggs are laid at the same time and presumably in the same pla 



The first of the complaints enumerated above, viz, that carp eal the 

 .spawn of other fish, is perhaps the one that 1, istently 



maintained. One can scarcely read a communication by one of the 

 opponents of the carp without finding in it a statement to that effect. 

 Nevertheless, few, if any. direct observations are recorded. The argu- 

 ment i- something like this: Other fish, such as the bass, are decre 

 ing, while the number of carp is, or at any rate has been, steadily on 

 the increase; carp will eat practically anything: therefore, the decn 

 of certain other fish must be due in large part to the fact that the carp 

 devour their spawn. What I wish to point out i- that while the two 

 premises may be true, the conclusion i- by no mean- a necessary one. 

 It can not be deduced from the above prem - ithout other fact-. 

 and those facts have not been supplied. They might be of two kind- 

 first, direct observation of the eating of the -pawn of other fish by 

 carp: and. second, by the finding of the -pawn of other fish in the 



a With regard to the perch, at the thirtieth annual meeting of Fisheries Sociel both 



Mr. Dicker-on. of Detroit, and Doctor Parker, of Grand Rapids, Mich., expressed their opinion th. I 

 carp is indirectly harmful to the perch through the des iition. Doctor Parker 



remarks (Transactions of the Society, 1901, p. 1 reha- 



bilitation of waters. If you desl >n and the larvae, yon the minnows, and the 



perch have no minnov I on, unk an eat the young of the carp, which they do not 



appear to do, but the black bass will eat the young of the carp and will thriv<-. T you may 



look for an increase of the black bass, a decrease of the minnows, and also of those fish that feed upon 

 the smaller minno' 



