and older smelt from relatively deep 

 water had consximed Mysis almost ex- 

 clusively, but these larger fish cap- 

 tured from July 31 through Oct. 31 had 

 a varied diet. Insects (principally 

 Hexagenia ) made up 46 to 63 percent 

 of the food volume. Crustaceans (pre- 

 dominantly cladocerans and copepods) 

 contributed 4 to 37 percent. Thevolunne 

 percentages for fish were nil to 49; the 

 only forms identified were young snnelt 

 and Notropis. 



GRAHAM, E. S., vide: S. L. DANIELS. 



GROSSLEIN, MARVIN D., and LLOYD L. 



SMITH, JR. 



1959. The goldeye, Amphiodon alosoides 



(Rafinesque), in the commercial fishery 



of the Red Lakes, Minnesota. U.S. Fish 



Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 60:33-41. 



The validity of age determinations 

 from scales is proven, and a body-scale 

 regression is set up for the calculation 

 of growth from scale nneasurements. 

 Males and females have equal growth to 

 the end of 3 years of life when both 

 average just over 11 inches; then the 

 fennales grow the faster. In 6 years 

 males averaged 13.6 and fen-iales 14,6 

 inches. The substantial annual fluctua- 

 tions of growth are correlated positively 

 with summer air temperature. A recent 

 sharp decline of abundance has been 

 correlated with increased fishing pres- 

 sure (directed prin-iarily at walleyes 

 and yellow perch). The paper includes 

 data on the length-weight relation and 

 sex ratio. 



HALL, A. E.. JR., and OLIVER R. ELLIOTT. 

 1954. Relationship of length of fish to in- 

 cidence of sea lamprey scars on white 

 suckers, Catostomus connmersoni , in 

 Lake Huron. Copeia 1954( l):73-74. 



Percentages of white suckers with 

 lamprey scars at various lengths were: 

 5.0-10.9 inches, 11.0; 11.0-14.9 inches, 

 40.1; 15.0-20.9 inches, 70.6 percent. 

 Incidence of multiple scars also in- 

 creased with length of fish. These rela- 

 tions are attributed to: nnechanical dif- 

 ficulty of lamprey attachment to the 

 smaller fish; greater ability of the 

 larger fish to survive attack; and greater 

 length of time larger fish have been 

 exposed to attack. 



HALL, ALBERT E., JR., vide: VERNON C. 

 APPLEGATE; HOWARD A. LOEB. 



HANSON, LEE H., vide: JOHN H. HOWELL. 



liARRIS, VIRGIL 

 APPLEGATE. 



vide: VERNON C. 



HIGGINS, ELMER. 



1928a. Conference of Lake Erie biologists. 

 Science 67( 1734):309-310. 



Report on nneeting at Cleveland on 

 February 6, 1928, of representatives of 

 Federal, State, and Provincial re- 

 search agencies and of scientific and 

 educational institutions to formulate 

 and coordinate plans for limnological 

 and fishery investigations of Lake Erie. 



HIGGINS, ELMER. 



1928b. Cooperative fishery investigations 

 in Lake Erie. Sci. Mon, 27(4):301-306. 



General discussion of problems and 

 goals of fishery research and an out- 

 line of cooperative researches on Lake 

 Erie under the three general divisions: 

 analysis of statistics of yield in rela- 

 tion to fishing intensity; life-history 

 studies (age, growth, mortality, nnigra- 

 tion, food. . . .) of important species; 

 and limnological and ecological in- 

 quiries with special reference to pollu- 

 tion problems. 



HIGGINS, ELMER. 



1929. Can the Great Lakes fisheries be 

 saved? Outdoor Amer. 7(8):34-35. 



Comments on the unique value and 

 importance of the Great Lakes fisheries, 

 explanation of decreasing productivity 

 as the result of overfishing, and state- 

 ment that adequate and uniform regula- 

 tions are needed to conserve and restore 

 the stocks. 



HIGGINS, ELMER. 



1938a. Fish outlive officials. State Govt. 

 ll(3):53-54, 58. 



Summary of arguments in support of 

 belief that overfishing caused depletion 

 of Great Lakes fisheries, review of 

 past failures to attain adequate regula- 

 tions through voluntary cooperation of 

 State and Provincial agencies, and rec- 

 ommendation for establishnnent of cen- 

 tral control by nneans of international 

 treaty. 



HIGGINS, ELMER. 



1938b. The ineffectiveness of regulation of 

 the Great Lakes fisheries by the indi- 

 vidual states. Proc. Great Lakes Fish. 

 Conf., Detroit, Mich., Feb. 25-26, 1938, 

 Counc. State Govt., p. 48-60. 



16 



