and the nane porasite is therefore not quite correct. But it still 

 hns sor.e hnrnful influence . on the eggs or the larvae, although I 

 cannot say hovf» In the following table I* have suinm6d up the nunber 

 of young that' v:e have obtained fron trie spaim lobsters. You v;ill 

 see that there are a taw hundred per individual, while -vre should 

 expect several thousands according to tJie nunber of spavm on a vrell 

 egged lobster. , ■ '.' , 



Kvmber of brood per spawn lobster for the year^ 1920-1936: 



Year • Noo of Young ■ Year llo. of Young 



•The question as to the reason why the lobster loses the exter- 

 nal spawn, a'/hich is alnost ready for hatching, is of rather great 

 importance in judging what night be gained Tay a protection of the 

 spawn lobster by storing it until the beginning of the closed 

 season. The net profit bjr this procedure will undoubtedly be very 

 smalle Conditions are different in regard to protecting the spar/n 

 lobster in such a way that it is iinraediately released in the sea. 

 As far as I can understand, the spavm 'lobster in this way keeps its 

 eggs to a nuch larger extent than it does if it is kept in confine- 

 laent. The question is also of great importance for the rearing work. 

 I'le have to try to get n.ore eggs from each lobster. 



The rearing of lobsters started on June 17, but had to be dis- 

 continued in the middle of July in order to get the reservoir 

 cleaned. Up to this time about 50,000 young lobsters had been 

 gathered. Of these about 21,000 v/ere liberated in th^e sea on July 

 173 Between July 18 and August 25, about 56,000 young lobsters were 

 gathered. Of these a little more than 10,000 were released in the 

 4th and 5th stage, while the rest, about 2,000, wefe liberated in 

 earlier stages. The rearing work proceeded normally. The best 

 apparatus produced 37 per cent in the 4th stage. The reared lobster 

 young were "released at Xrager3., 



102 



