[19] . THE SPRING HERRING FISHERIES OF NORWAY. 145 
roe and milt, and the generative organs in some of the fish were devel- 
oped to a considerable degree; nor is the occurrence of the “new her-: 
rings” in our coast waters exceptional, as similar herring also approach 
other coasts, where there are no spring-herring fisheries, and where 
there are no enormous masses of herring to drive them towards the 
coast. ° 
I therefore considered Sars’s theory somewhat doubtful. Ljungman 
has raised another, and very weighty, objection to this theory, by re- 
marking that Sars has not explained by his theory why such a driving 
towards the coast of enormous masses of “new herring” has not also 
taken place during the preceding “herring period.” 
Some explanation of this, however, is found in Sars’s report for 1872, 
where he says: ‘Formerly no attention was paid to the new herring, 
because they were very much mixed with older herring, whilst during 
the last few years they have been less mixed, because the great mass 
of older herring coming from the sea spawned in the outermost spawn- 
ing places.” But this explanation pre-supposes, as the fishermen state, 
that the ‘new herring” were fatter than the spring herring, but some- 
what smaller, and had spawned much earlier. These statements, how- 
ever, are—as will be seen from Sars’s next report—rather unreliable, and 
are, as far as the time of spawning is concerned, based on a mistake. 
Sars’s theory cannot, therefore, be maintained. The genuine ‘new her- 
ring” which principally made their appearance during the season 1869- 
70, could, according to the unanimous testimony of the fishermen, be 
easily recognized both by their leanness and by their small size, as well 
as by the circumstance that with most of them the roe and milt were 
but little developed. Later, the “new herring” began to change their 
size, appearance, &c., finally ceased to be “new herring,” and to all in- 
tents and purposes assumed the nature of our spring herring. Only 
a very small number of the original “new herring” were observed, and 
their appearance was s0 striking that they could immediately be re- 
cognized. Fishermen are very quick in detecting any difference in fish, 
and it is hardly probable that they would have entirely overlooked the 
inferior kind of herring, such as the “new herring” then really were. 
According to Sars’s theory one would expect that the schools of spring 
herring which arrived first, would be particularly mixed with the smaller 
“new herring,” but in these very schools the spring herring were un- 
usually large and little mixed with other herring. 
Ljungman’s objection, therefore, is still valid. Especially from 1860 
on, the ‘‘new herring” should have been very numerous and mixed, 
prior to the commencement of the spring-herring fisheries, as from that 
year the herring began to approach the coast later in the season, and 
therefore, according to Sars’s theory, probably stayed at a considerable 
distance from the coast. But even then no unusually large masses of 
“new herring” were noticed. After they had appeared sporadically 
in 1869, they suddenly appeared in enormous masses in 1869~70. 
S. Mis. 29-10 
