93 
(C.) From Roosebeck Sear, outside Barrow Channel— 
“not infected ”’ (Jameson). 
(D.) Roosebeck Scar mussels transplanted to foreshore 
at Piel two years ago—“ all were infested ’’—‘“‘ each 
contained several small pearls ” (Jameson). 
Of (A.) I examined a sample of 25 mussels, which 
contained in all 151 pearls and 11 parasites, but 4 of 
the specimens had neither pearls nor parasites, and 
no less than 18 out of 25 had no parasites. I 
cannot therefore agree that “ every specimen is 
abundantly infected.” 
Of (B.) I examined also 25 mussels, which showed in all 
21 pearls and 22 parasites, 7 had neither pearls nor 
parasites, and 13 had no parasites. These then 
showed far fewer pearls than (A), but twice as many 
parasites, and fewer of them were free from infection. 
They can searcely be called “ practically without 
parasites.” 
Of (C.) I examined 28 mussels, which contained 73 
pearls and 37 parasites, 4 had neither pearls nor 
parasites, and only 9 (out of 28) had no parasites. 
These then are evidently just as much infected as 
the mussels on the Piel foreshore. (A.) 
Of (D.) I examined 24 mussels and they contained 65 
pearls and 26 parasites, 3 had neither pearls nor 
parasites, and 12 out of 24 had no parasites. So in 
place of these transplanted ‘‘ Roosebecks ”’ having 
become more infected on the Piel shore, they on the 
whole showed rather less infection than the mussels 
taken direct from the parent bed. 
Finally, | examined a sample of 25 cockles from Piel, 
and found in them eight pearls, but no parasites at all of 
the right kind. This does not support the view that the 
