indicated. If, for the 1932 experiment ^ returns fro.n the southern raarket 

 area including those traced to Virginia coastal wholesalers be allocated 

 as suggested above, a total of 19 recaptures in Virginia waters is indi- 

 cated. This corresponds to 11. W of the 16? returns in 1933 and subsequent- 

 ly, for which data are available, A similar computation for the 1937 experi- 

 ment indicates that 9»U^ of the recaptures were made in Virginia waters. 



In the June 1937 experiment in Pamlico Sound, the tagging was done by 

 W. Co Neville. Most of the fish tagged were of the I-group and since they 

 were just beginning their second season's growth, they were small. The com- 

 bination of the small size of the fish and the high temi^erature of the vacer 

 In June probably accounts for the low percentage returns from this experiment. 



This experiment was particularly designed to test one detail of the hy- 

 pothesis. The observation that I-group fish are poorly represented in the 

 Virginia catches until midsummer while they are abundant in the spring and 

 early summer catches in North Carolina suggested that the late sunnner I-group 

 fish in Virginia pass through the North Carolina fishery in early summer > 

 The results of the experiment do not bear this out. It appears more probable 

 that the fish taken in the late summer run in Virginia avoid the traps until 

 midsummer. 



The October 1932 experiment at Montauk was based on 0-group iveakfish. 

 The results indicated a strong homing instinct for, as noted, moso of the 

 recaptures in 1935 and subsequently were traced to Peconic Bay. as will be 

 seen later, there is evidence from studies of the scales that a sigrdficant 

 part of the northern adult stocks cannot be identified i.vith the northern 0- 

 group stocks, hence represent immigrants which do not show a marked homing 

 instinct. Unfortunately, direct evidence from tagging that southern juven- 

 iles eventually contribute materially to the northern stocks is lacking. 

 Of the returns from southern experiments, only nine were from fish which were 

 juveniles when tagged. Five of these, tagged in North Carolina in 1932, 

 were all from southern localities or from the southern market area. Of the 

 four returns from the Virginia experiments, only one was from a northern 

 locality'- (Cape May, New Jersey) . 



The results of these tagging experiments do not bear out the hypothesis 

 in all details. The 1932 Montauk experiment indicates that only a part of 

 the northern juveniles passes through the southern fishery. Only the 1933 

 Exmcre experiment is consistent with the postulate that most of the northern 

 fish of the Il-group and older are derived from the southern I-group stocks. 

 The large stocks of this age group in the North Carolina sounds and in 

 Chesapeake Bay appear to contribute little. 



In addition to their contribution to the understanding of migration, 

 the tagging experiments cast some light on mortality rates. Percentage 

 recaptures do not indicate the percentages removed from the stocks by the 

 fishery, for the weakfish is a delicate species, subject to high mortality 

 as the result of tagging. But on the assumption that the tags are retained 



62 



