THE REPRODUCTION OF THE LOBSTER. 65 



"As regards the first three entries, which relate to July 25th, August 

 13th, and September 14th, 1892, it cannot be maintained that the catches 

 still retained sufficiently closely the natural composition which they 

 possessed when first taken. In the summer the dealer sorts his wares, in 

 order to render selection for sale more easy. He divides the small from 

 the large, puts such lobsters as are about to moult in a special part 

 of the cage (it is in this way that the animals enumerated on the 25th 

 July, 1892, are divided), and prefers to sell the females without eggs 

 on the abdomen first, in order to guard against their becoming " black." 

 The latter circumstance is the cause of the percentage of egg-bearing 

 females, in the first three entries on the list, being somewhat higher 

 than in the following. In calculating the mean, however, this is hardly 

 noticeable. The last ten enumerations are all made, on the other hand, 

 on material which had not yet been sorted, and which therefore 

 possessed the original constitution of the catch. Care was also taken 

 that nothing should be counted twice, for each time new cages which 

 had not previously been looked through were examined. 



" Eeckoning the whole thirteen entries, the mean percentage of 

 egg-bearing females is 25*4 per cent. ; the last ten, it is only 23 

 per cent. 



" It will not, therefore, be an error to maintain that never more than 

 the fourth part of the female lobsters capable of reproduction actually 

 carry eggs ; or, in other words, that a female lobster, as a rule, actually 

 produces eggs only once in every four years." * 



Few will be inclined to object to the author's exclamation, "Das 

 ist eine Thatsache, die allerdings zu denken giebt ! " but whether, as 

 a result of the thinking, all will be ready to accept the conclusion 

 arrived at, is another question. At first sight, the argument presented 

 appears to be conclusive, but a little consideration will, I think, lead to 

 the conclusion that at least one other explanation of the facts is 

 possible, for it must be borne in mind that Ehrenbaum was not dealing 

 with the number of lobsters living in the sea, but with the number 

 caught in the traps. It is, to say the least, not improbable that a 

 female bearing eggs would be much more wary of entering a trap than 

 one not so encumbered, especially if the trap already contained other 

 lobsters, including females without eggs. The pugnacious habits of these 

 animals are matters of common experience, and I have, on several 

 occasions, known two of them, conihied in one tank, continue their 



* "A false interpretation of the facts can only be possible in so far that perhaps, some- 

 times, females may have been counted as 'not egg-bearing,' altliough they were slightly 

 uiuler 24 cm. (9^ inches) long, and therefore not yet capable of reproduction. So far as 

 could be judged by the eye, however, the young animals not yet capable of reproduction 

 during the enumeration, were always left on one side." 



New Seiues.— Vol. IV. No. 1. F 



