i82 SALT-WATER FISHES 



to their habit of ceasina; to teed and preferring to lie hidden in 

 the crevices of rocks when approaching maturity. Clearly, 

 then, his theories are based entirely on the behaviour of 

 congers in captivity — a condition in which they are, as he 

 himself shows, unable to spawn. His strongest argument in 

 support of the natural death of congers after spawning is that, 

 when trying to spawn in a shallow aquarium tank, the females 

 die, and their teeth are found to fall out, and their bones are 

 atrophied — in short, they are in no fit state to procure nourish- 

 ment and thus get back their strength. That they would, 

 if thus handicapped, soon die in the natural state, not merely 

 from inability to obtain food, but also by failing to escape or 

 repulse their enemies, is morally certain ; what is not morally 

 certain is that the conger goes through the same phases in its 

 natural breeding-grounds. It is almost certain that its spawn 

 will, when identified, be found to sink to the bottom, and to 

 develop at considerable depths. It does not require any very 

 great stretch of the imagination to believe that the female 

 conger not only deposits her eggs at great depths, but that she 

 is unable to do so without the aid of the increased pressure 

 there obtainable. Cunningham, indeed, admits something ot 

 this, but not enough. He thinks that the lack of pressure 

 in the aquarium may account for her death " a little too soon." 

 Why not regard it as wholly accountable for death in such 

 circumstances .'' If his captive conger had even naturally got 

 rid of their eggs and then died, his theory would immeasur- 

 ably have been strengthened. His reasoning as regards the 

 sequence of events in the natural state amounts to this : 

 " There can be no reasonable doubt," he says, " that the 

 conger in the sea ceases to feed about six months or more 

 before spawning. ... In the sea, however, we must suppose 

 that the fish lives until it has spawned." Now, the last 

 sentence might read as an absurdity, were it not that the 

 author's meaning is perfectly clear. At the same time, who 

 says that there can be " no reasonable doubt " about congers 



