Carolina and Virginia dealers. Consequently, in allocating reports from 

 retailers and consumers and from Virginia coastal wholesalers, reports 

 from both sources may well be grouped and allocated in approximate propor- 

 tion to the numbers definitely assignable to the fisheries of the two states. 



The October 1932 experiment at Montauk, N. Y. on Long Island (Table 

 21^ Figure 9) was designed to test the postulate that part of the 0-group 

 weakfish from northern areas are included in the stocks of I-group fish 

 observed in the South the following season. In this experiment^ 1,859 

 0-group fish were tagged. They were taken from pound nets at Montauk, They 

 probably represent a group of fish which spent their juvenile summer in 

 Peconic Bay and which had formed into schools for seasonal migration to 

 southern winter grounds. 



In 1933, 18 of k9 returns were from southern waters or from the southern 

 market area. Of the remainder, known or presumed to have been taken in the 

 North, Delaware Bay and southern New Jersey contributed most to the definite- 

 ly located recaptures. Conspicuous is the absence of definitely located 

 recaptures from the tagging locality in eastern Long Island. 



In 193U, only two were reported from the southern area. In contrast to 

 1933, most of the definitely located recaptures were in northern New Jersey 

 or New York rather than in southern New Jersey, and four of the New York 

 recaptures were in Peconic Bay near the tagging locality. 



In 1935 and subsequently, not only were nearly all of the returns from 

 New York, but most of these were from fish taken by anglers in Peconic Bay. 



The remaining experiments were conducted in southern waters. Most of 

 the fish recaptured were adults (l-group or older) when tagged. 



Two experiments were made in Virginia waters. In the October-November 

 1931 experiment in lower Chesapeake Bay (Table 22), the tagging was done by 

 W. C.Schroeder. All of the few returnes from this experiment were from 

 southern localities or from the southern market area. To the extent that 

 migration ^as observed at all, it was southward rather than northward. 



Results of the 1933 experiment off Exmore, Virginia ''Table 23 and 

 Figure 10) were more nearly in accordance with those to be expected from 

 the hypothesis. Of 6? returns in 193U and subsequently, for which data 

 are available, 20 or nearly 30^ were from northern localities or from the 

 northern market area. 



The two experiments in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina (Tables 2U and 

 25) indicate that the North Carolina sounds do not contribute materially 

 to the northern stocks. Of the 18U returns from these two experiments in 

 ■years subsequent to the years when the fish were tagged and for which data 

 are available, only 3, or 1.6^ were from northern waters or from the 

 northern market area. A somewhat larger movement to Virginia waters is 



61 



