372 CORRESPONDENCE [NOVEMBER 1899 
with it. All possible room for prevarication is removed by Dr. Gilchrist’s 
answer to Q. 724. Here it is— 
“724. Is anything definite really known about the spawn of our South 
African fish ?—Nothing. Several people have seen the spawn of some species 
of fish. It is said to discolour the sea for many miles” (p. 68). 
In view of such evidence as this I fail to see the point of Dr. Gilchrist’s 
letter, in which he implies that it was only the fishermen who stated that 
nothing was known about the spawn, and that he had facts up his sleeve 
bearing upon the question, or at least had not confessed his ignorance to the 
Commission. 
When we recall to mind the conditions under which the spawning habits of 
our British fishes have been investigated, by the help of small sailing vessels or 
excursions on commercial trawlers, we feel quite justified in our remarks. The 
Pieter Faure appears to have been free to trawl whenever and wherever was 
most desirable, and we have only to conclude that for three breeding seasons 
she has caught thousands of fish which must have been in various stages of 
maturity, yet at the end of this time the scientific expert has to own that 
nothing definite is really known about the spawn of our South African fish. 
Doubtless there may be a good enough explanation forthcoming, but Dr. 
Gilchrist’s letter does not shed any further light upon the matter. 
We may take Dr. Gilchrist’s word for it, in answer to the Chairman, that 
the Pieter Faure has not been used for “picnics and pleasure-trips,” and can 
quite believe that the ‘‘ people who came for picnics did not find it very agree- 
able” (Q. 680, p. 65), for the deck of a trawler is not an ideal place for such 
proceedings, but we feel that if more of the scientific results of the trawling 
had been produced on evidence there would have been no occasion for such a 
question. 
The only other remark I made was that ‘‘ the scientific voice seems to lack 
decisiveness.” Here perhaps the term “accuracy” would have been preferable 
to ‘‘ decisiveness,” for a very few days’ sojourn in any of our marine laboratories 
should have been sufficient to convince Dr. Gilchrist that it is not a “ theory 
that the spawn of most fish” floats at the surface (Q. 725), but a fact capable 
of easy demonstration, and, secondly, that ‘the herring is” not ‘ about the only 
fish known to spawn on the ground” (Q. 726). 
From the above I trust it is clear that, although I may seem to have 
misunderstood Dr. Gilchrist, in this case things are not what they seem.— 
Yours, etc., THE REVIEWER. 
Sept. 25, 1899. 
CORRIGENDA. 
Since the address affixed to the MS. of the “The Fauna of the Sound” 
(Wat. Set. xv. pp. 263-273) escaped your notice, the proofs of that paper never 
reached either me or Dr. Lénnberg. The following corrections will bring the 
published pages into better agreement with the original MS. :— 
: P. 263, line 1, for norande read rorande. 
* P. 263, line 2 from bottom, indenfor is one word. 
P. 267, line 5 from bottom, for Shore-regions read Shore-region. 
P. 269, 271, 272, for Bohustiin read Bohusliin. 
P. 266, in the italicised line, for Oscidians read Ascidians. 
F. A. BATHER. 
