HISTORY OF THE AML:K1UA;. MEMIAUKN. b'^ 



to prove that the niackeiel remain in tlio waters of the Dominion of 

 Canada throni^fhout the entire year. It is certain that all recent tn'atises 

 ou ichthyology by Canadian writers have appeared in the form ul cam- 

 paign docnments apparently intended to influence the decisions of <liplo- 

 matic commissions. 



I am by no means prepared to maintain that mackerel do noti)ass the 

 winter in the American domain of Her Imperial Majesty. It seems 

 important, however, that the subject of the migration of fishes should 

 be restored to its proper position as a question of abstract scientific im- 

 portance. Let us glance at the arguments of Mr. VVhitcher and Pro- 

 fessor Hind against what the former is pleased to style the "American 

 theory." 



In the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the year end- 

 ing the 30th of June, 1871, Mr. W. F. VVhitcher, Commissioner of Fish- 

 eries, published a paper entitled "American theory regarding the mi- 

 gration of the raackered refuted".* 



Mr. Whitcher opens his letter by claiming that the theory of north 

 and south migration was invented solely in support of a claim advanced 

 by citizens of the United States to participate in the Canadian inshore 

 fisheries. " This ingenious but traditional theory of annual migration 

 having gained local credence among some of the Nova Scotian fishermen 

 engaged in United States fishing-vessels, has been sagaciously indorsed 

 and circulated by American authors." He also refers to evidence " sup- 

 posed to have been procured among the fishing population of the New 

 England States." 



I need only say that these claims are unjust, and that the theory of 

 the annual north and south migration of the mackerel is time-honored, 

 and was held conscientiously by ichthyologists of the United States and 

 the provinces long before the question of fishery treaties assumed its 

 present aspect. It is manifestly unfair to state that, while the theories 

 which prevailed respecting the habits of herring and mackerel were 

 formerly similar, that "in the former case it is probable that traditionary 

 and imperfect information formed the basis of error, while in the latter 

 instance it is most probably founded on misinformation dictated by sec- 

 tional interests." Mr. Whitcher's own paper upon migration is the only 

 one of American origin in which I have seen scientific method sacrificed 

 to partisan spirit. 



Having read Mr. Whitcher's introduction, one might readily predict 

 what sort of an argument he will wrench out of the statements of " such 

 disinterested authorities as may be readily quoted." First he gives 

 extracts from Mitchell and the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia regarding the 

 habits of the herring. Granting all that is claimed about the herring, 

 without reference to the liability of these authorities, what do we find? 

 Merely a begging of the question. The habits of the herring and the 

 mackerel are not known to be the same. In many particulars they are 



-* Pages 186-189. 



