250 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
the fishermen of England to take up the question of putting the dogfish on the market. 
Three years ago we had in our southern waters quite a plague of dogfish. They 
approached our shores in unprecedented numbers, and caused very great havoc, not only 
among the fish, but among the nets; even taking lobster pots and swallowing the lobsters 
and pots and all, with the result that in sheer desperation the fishermen armed them- 
selves with stronger nets and set out in search of the dogfish and brought him home and 
put him on the market instead of putting him back again unharmed into the sea. The 
efforts that were made to open up the markets to this fish have resulted in a considerable 
amount of success. A great deal of prejudice existed in consequence of the name, the 
point to which reference has been made. The fish itself came to be known in the northern 
markets of Lancashire as Darwen salmon. It was rather a slight upon the salmon, I 
think. Afterwards a prize was offered by the municipality of Plymouth for a name 
which would be palatable, if I may use the expression, and also for a means of making 
the fish more palatable, and the name “flake’’ was pretty largely, at any rate, adopted; 
but this is not a satisfactory name, and I think the proposal that a euphonious title might 
be made up out of one of its scientific names—of one of the species of the fish, at any 
rate—is a very good suggestion, which might be followed up with advantage. In 
England I suggested the use of the word “‘tope,”’ which is the Cornish name for one 
species of dogfish. 
As regards its edibility there is no question about its being a good fish. I can 
vouch for that myself, and I have encouraged a great many people to eat the dogfish, 
especially immediately after capture. It is very much better then than if it has been 
kept for any length of time. 
With regard to the mussel, I know that mussels are edible. I can not vouch for 
their quality personally so much as I can for the dogfish, because I do not like them, 
but there can be no question that all the virtues attributed to the mussel as an article 
of food are justly attributed; and there is, I should imagine, in this country a very 
large market for mussels, put up in some such way as these before us, at a very low price. 
Reference was made to the practice in England of cultivating mussels for food 
purposes. I think the writer was somewhat misinformed on one or two matters, since 
he stated that the mussel “‘lays,’”’ as they are called, on which the mussels are placed 
for fattening purposes, are put in places where they are exposed. Now, the great 
object is not to expose them—not to place them above low-water mark. We find by 
experience that mussels that get carried up in the course of nature farthest above low- 
water mark develop less rapidly and get much more stunted, even when fully grown, 
than those which are constantly under water, even where all other conditions are similar. 
Undoubtedly the brackish waters are, as in the case of the oysters, found to be 
more favorable for the fattening of the mussel than the very salt waters. 
As regards the season: Again, I think a little slip was made, unless the habits of 
the mussel on this side of the Atlantic differ very much from those on the other, when 
it was stated that the mussel was in good season for food at the time when the oyster 
was in closed season or was not good for food. With us the two seasons are practically 
the same. The spawning season of the mussel is the same as the spawning season of 
the oyster. I am not sure whether I am rightly informed, but in some of your states 
I understand there is no closed season for oysters; but with us a closed season is estab- 
lished during what are held to be the most common spawning months, those being the 
months whose names have no letter ‘“‘r’’ in them—after the month of April until you 
come to September is a closed time both for mussels and for oysters as well. 
I heartily indorse from my own experience on the other side the suggestion that 
steps should be taken to encourage the development of fisheries for both these products; 
the one because it is an undoubted nuisance and for the further reason that while we 
are reducing the numbers of what are known as edible fish we are altering the balance 
of nature and leaving the dogfish unattended to. Of course in this country I need not, 
