July, 1955 
wing nets are much more efficient in tak- 
ing catfishes than are the 21-inch-mesh 
wing nets, table 15. In 1946, only 4 flat- 
head catfish were taken in the 214-inch- 
mesh wing nets and 179 (42 of them of 
commercial sizes, table 15) in the 1-inch- 
mesh wing nets, table 16. The fish of this 
species in the 214-inch-mesh wing net col- 
lections ranged in total length from 18.8 
to 37.0 inches, and in the 1-inch-mesh 
wing net collections from 5.6 to 37.6 
inches. 
More commercial-sized  buftalofishes 
per net-day were caught in the 2!-inch- 
mesh wing nets than in the 1-inch-mesh 
wing nets, table 15. In the 214-inch-mesh 
wing net catches, 97.8 per cent of the big- 
mouth buffalos and 68.6 per cent of the 
smallmouth buffalos were of commer- 
cial sizes, table 16. In the 1-inch-mesh 
wing net sets, only 39.4 per cent of the 
bigmouth buffalos and 5.8 per cent of the 
smallmouth buffalos were of commercial 
sIzes. 
More freshwater drums of commer- 
cial sizes were caught per net-day in the 
l-inch-mesh wing nets than in the 214- 
inch-mesh wing nets, table 15. On a 
pounds-per-net-day basis of commercial- 
sized drums, the catches of the two types 
of net were almost identical. All of the 
freshwater drums taken in the 214-inch- 
mesh wing nets were of commercial sizes, 
whereas only 33.2 per cent of these fish 
taken in the 1-inch-mesh wing nets were 
of these sizes, table 16. The test-net fig- 
ures indicate that a fisherman using 214- 
inch-mesh wing nets will handle fewer 
undersized freshwater drums than one 
using nets of a smaller mesh size. 
As indicated in preceding paragraphs, 
the efficiency and selectivity of wing nets 
of the mesh sizes used in the survey varied 
with species and sizes of fish. The small- 
mesh (l-inch) wing nets were more se- 
lective for crappies, bluegills, and cat- 
fishes than the 214-inch-mesh nets, table 
15. The 214-inch-mesh nets were more 
efficient than the small-mesh_ (1-inch) 
nets in taking commercial-sized carp and 
buffalofishes, table 15. 
Catches With Hoop Nets.—In the 
1946 test fishing, sport fishes comprised 
53.4 per cent of the entire catch with 
l-inch-mesh wing nets (without leads), 
whereas they comprised only 10.4 per cent 
STarRETT & BARNICKOL: COMMERCIAL FISHING Devices 351 
of the catch with 1-inch-mesh hoop nets, 
table 14. No attempt was made to fish 
hoop nets and wing nets of the same mesh 
in the same habitat to determine if the 
absence or presence of the wings influ- 
enced the catch. 
In tables 17 and 18 are listed compara- 
tive data on nine species of fish caught in 
the 1946 test fishing in l-inch-mesh hoop 
nets and l-inch-mesh wing nets (without 
leads) used at the same stations, al- 
though not necessarily in similar habitats. 
The numbers, per net-day, of commer- 
cial-sized carp and usable-sized bluegills 
and crappies caught in the wing nets were 
significantly greater than the numbers, 
per net-day, of these fish caught in hoop 
nets, table 17. The numbers, per net-day, 
of commercial-sized freshwater drums and 
catfishes did not differ greatly between the 
two nets. The weights, per net-day, of 
commercial-sized carp and flathead cat- 
fish were greater in the wing net catch, 
and the weight, per net-day, of commer- 
cial-sized freshwater drums was greater 
in the hoop net catch. 
No buftalofish of commercial size was 
taken in the 1-inch-mesh hoop net sets. 
The catch of these fishes in the 1-inch- 
mesh wing nets was small. 
‘The mean of the total lengths for each 
of three species, carp, smallmouth buffalo, 
and freshwater drum, was significantly 
greater for individuals taken in the 1-inch- 
mesh hoop nets than for those taken in the 
wing nets of the same mesh, table 18. The 
mean of the total lengths for flathead cat- 
fish was greater for individuals taken in 
the wing nets. The small number of carp 
(nine) taken in the hoop nets casts doubt 
on the value of the test for fish of this spe- 
cies. The mean of the total lengths for 
bluegills and for crappies was approxi- 
mately the same for individuals taken in 
hoop nets as for those taken in wing nets. 
In tables 19 and 20 are listed compara- 
tive data on nine species of fish taken in 
the 1946 test fishing in 214-inch-mesh 
hoop nets and 1-inch-mesh wing nets 
(without leads) fished at the same sta- 
tions, but in most cases in different habi- 
tats. 
The number of commercial-sized buf- 
falofishes taken, per net-day, was much 
greater in the 21!4-inch-mesh hoop nets 
than in the small-mesh wing nets, table 
