DISCUSSION. 
Dr. Oscar Norpovist. I think that those cheap fishes—for instance, the dogfish 
and such other kinds as are not used for food—would be a very good food for fish in our 
hatcheries. I think we could get in that way a cheap food for trout and other fishes in 
ponds, and I think it would be a good thing; by taking only the more appreciated 
kinds of fish from the sea and from lakes we disturb the balance in nature and give most 
chance for those poor fish toincrease. And I think it would also be a very good thing for 
the cultivation of fish in the lakes, for instance, to take away those poor kinds of fish. I 
think it would be useful for the improvement of the fisheries in the lakes. So I think 
the more we can use those poor kinds of fish and other species of fish, the better it is 
for our lakes, and also of course for the sea. 
Doctor Giri. I can bear testimony to the edibility of both mussels and dogfish— 
that is, the common dogfish (Mustelus), not that of the northern coast (Squalus). We 
are in the unfortunate position of having the same name for very different animals, 
unfortunate because of differences of habits of the other fishes of the same name. The 
word “‘mussel’’ in the greater part of this country in the interior is known almost entirely 
in connection with the species of the enormous family of Unionide. 
Mr. WuitmMan. When you say that a mussel is a very edible mollusk, some one in 
the interior will say: ‘‘I have tried it. It is the toughest thing I ever attempted to eat, 
and worthless.” 
Doctor Giz. So it is; the fresh-water mussel family (Unionidz) are really worth- 
less; at least it requires a greater power of eating—using the teeth—than I have. But 
in regard to the mytilids, to which the name ‘‘mussel”’ was originally given, that can 
not be said. 
With regard to the dogfish we have the same dilemma. ‘“‘Dogfish’’ is applied in 
this country to a fish in the interior that is also worthless, having no relationship what- 
ever to the fish that is known as dogfish on our eastern coast, and even the species of 
our eastern coast have no close relationship to each other. The so-called dogfishes of 
our eastern coast are as different from each other as a horse from a rhinoceros—in fact, 
much more so. ‘They belong to an entirely different section of the shark branch. The 
only similarity is that superficial one resulting from the size and general appearance 
being about the same, and from the assemblage in schools being about equal. Those 
are the only points of similarity. They differ entirely in other features; in the dorsal 
fins and in the anal—one is without that fin while the other has it; the teeth are also 
entirely different. When we examine the interior we find the differences are really 
more. There is really no structural similarity, and consequently we are deceived by 
the similarity of the names. If we could only have different names we might get along 
a good deal better with the facts. 
Now, perhaps you might consider this new name for the dogfish of the south—‘ mus- 
tel.’ That is not along name; it isan euphonious name. Call the fish of the northern 
coast ‘‘acanth’’—that is not a long name—and perhaps then we would have a solution. 
The fish would be just as palatable as they are now under the name ‘‘whitefish” or 
“herring” or anything else. 
Mr. FrveEr. It is quite a poetic idea that the fish culturist should turn the tables on 
the dogfish and feed other fish on this voracious beast. Much the same idea induced 
249 
