48 REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND FISHERIES. 



in the aquarium until it died on June 24th. It yielded fluid milt on 

 March 17, but the specimen itself was evidently degenerating, since 

 it had become quite blind and its body was covered with abrasions 

 and inflamed patches. It had taken no food since its first examina- 

 tion on December 13 — that is, for a period of six months — and before 

 its death had become very thin and feeble and somewhat crooked 

 as well as blind. 



Eigenmann (1901) described accurately the eggs and early stages 

 of the conger which were taken off the American coast, in the tile-fish 

 area, by Doctor Porter E. Sargent, of the U. S. Fish Commission, on 

 July 31, 1900. The ripe conger egg had not previously been de- 

 scribed, though Hermes and Schmidtlein had both seen it. The 

 eggs taken by Doctor Sargent were 2.4 to 2.75 mm. in diameter, and 

 the yolk was made up of transparent spheres like the eggs of certain 

 fishes of the herring family. It contained from one to six oil spheres 

 of variable size. The first of these eggs hatched on August 3. The 

 larvae developed from 65 to 71 segments in front of the anus. On 

 August 5 color spots began to develop. Among their most striking 

 characteristics were, the large fourth ventricle of the brain, a large 

 (^esophageal pouch, long fang-like teeth projecting forward, the 

 position of the anus near the body and remote from the margin of 

 the ventral fin fold. The identification of these eggs rests on purely 

 circumstantial evidence. The egg of the common eel having been 

 previously identified as the egg without an oil globule, these eggs with 

 the oil sphere must be those of the conger, since the conger and the 

 common eel are the only eels in this region. Adult congers were 

 abundantly taken on the trawl at the bottom over which the eggs 

 were secured. 



Eigenmann, 1901, identified the larva of the American eel. He 

 found that one of the species which he had under consideration, 

 which he named Leptocejihalus grassi, was identical with the larva 

 of the European eel, except that it had only 105 to 110 segments, 

 while the Leptocephalus of the common eel of Europe had 116. 

 This corresponds with the difference in the number of segments of 



