of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 507 
In the shallow waters on the beach, it may be entirely arrested, as with 
small flat-fishes, while the growth of young whiting is very greatly 
diminished—it grows at least fifteen times faster in the summer months. 
Young herring inhabit the same coastal waters, and must be affected in 
a similar way ; and an estimate of the average size of the one-year old 
herring from Meyer’s own observations above referred to, qualified by 
these facts, would reduce the size very materially. 
I think there is little doubt, at all events, that Meyer’s conclusions as 
to the rate of growth of the herring, which have so long held the field, 
are fallacious. 
Jenkin’s results are based on a study of the otoliths, which, as he says, 
cannot tell the precise age of a fish, but only within certain limits. So 
far as my somewhat limited experience goes as to the utility of the 
markings on the otoliths of the herring as a clue to the age of the fish, it 
has led me to the belief that there is considerable scope for erroneous 
conclusions, especially with the younger forms. It appears to me 
probable, on the above grounds alone, that Jenkins has not succeeded in 
separating the first year’s fish from the second year’s, and that the size 
he gives as approximately that of a one-year-old (117mm.) is nearer the 
size of a two-year-old herring. 
His observations on the older herrings are valuable, and it is of interest 
to note that he makes a herring of 21-7em. to 22°5cm. (84 to 83 inches) 
approximately four years old, and one of 23°7cm to 24:5cm (93 to 92 
inches) approximately five years old 
He gives an interesting diagram (16, p. 95) of the curves based on the 
determinations of different observers. ‘The point alluded to, the exaggera- 
tion of the first year’s growth, is well indicated, and the curve exhibiting 
Meyer’s results shows a deflection at the end of the first year which 
would not apply to any other fish. 
The curves of Ljungmann (who calculated the year-old herring to be 
from 65cm. to 90cm in length) are devoid of this, except between the 
second and third year,f and it is noteworthy that the prolongation of the 
curve of Ljungmann and of the curve showing Masterman’s conclusions 
meet Jenkin’s curve in the fourth year. 
7.—Tue ScorrisH CoLuEcTIons. 
The collections have been made during the last five or more years at 
various seasons, and mostly in Aberdeen Bay, the Moray Firth, and the 
Firth of Forth. 
The measurements arranged in *5 centimetre groups are given in Tables 
I.-III., appended to this paper. 
per month ; another from 30th May to the early part of October show increments of 
*Dmm. per day, or 15°8 per month; another in July and August show increments of ‘9mm. 
per day, or 28°5 per month ; a fourth set show increments in June and July of ‘66mm. 
per day, or 20°5 per month. On the other hand, in the winter and spring, we have the 
following :—From 21st December to end of May an increase of 17‘lmm., or at a rate of 
‘107mm. per day, or 3'4mm. per month—most of this, no doubt, in May ; 18th October 
to 15th January, ‘045mm, per day, or 14mm. per month; Gth November to 17th 
December, 1:5mm., or ‘037 per day, and 1‘lmm. per month; 29th November to 15th 
January, 2°3mm., or ‘048mm. per day, or 1:4 per month. These observations are based 
on the measurements of many thousands of fish. 
In the deeper water it may be shown that the growth in the early months is less 
retarded, as with haddock, whiting, and witches, and no doubt also with mackerel and 
other fishes, which withdraw to the deeper and warmer layers in winter, but, as elsewhere 
remarked, there are not yet sufficient temperature observations with which to correlate 
the observations on growth, those taken on the Quarterly Cruises in the International 
Investigations being useless for fishery investigations such as these. 
+ Due to misapprehension of his measurements, a mistake also made by Meyer, whe 
took Ljungmann’s measurements as measurements of the total length, whereas they 
excluded the caudal fin, 
