59 



some circumstances, be small, but it may be smaller still in 

 a state of nature. 



It is curious how Mr. Fryer entirely ignores that side 

 of the question — the destruction in nature. He makes 

 a great point of the mortality in artificial operations, 

 and virtually assumes that in the sea every egg in 

 every fish will be spawned and will then hatch out. 

 This is entirely contrary to the experience of naturalists. 

 In addition to the destruction of the parents in the sea, 

 and the risks of non- fertilisation, and of being cast ashore, 

 we find at the spawning season nearly everything that has 

 a mouth (such as Medusae, Sagitta, Copepoda, and many 

 fishes) feeding upon fish eggs. One of the strongest 

 arguments in favour of the hatchery is that it protects the 

 embryos from their natural enemies. Judging from the 

 apparently stationary condition of the fish population in 

 the sea, from the enormous numbers of eggs produced, and 

 from our observations on the contents of fishes' stomachs, 

 it is obvious that there must be a very great destruction of 

 eggs, and embryos and larvae under natural conditions — 

 probably much greater than anything known in artificial 

 operations. 



Moreover, in talking (as many do) of the small scale of 

 man's hatching work compared with what takes place in 

 the sea, we do not sufficiently realise the meaning of what 

 is called "the balance of nature." Millions of miUions 

 of young are produced and these same millions of millions 

 are destroyed by natural causes, with the result that the 

 species remains fairly constant. If now man disturbs the 

 balance by catching some thousands of the adult fish in 

 a district, he is only equalizing matters and endeavouring 

 to minimise his destructive effect when he adds to that 

 sea-area some millions of artificially hatched fry. And 

 (theoretically at least — probably practically also, for correct 



