164 American Fisheries Society 



We made some investigations concerning their reproduction 

 during the fall of 1918. The Florida Shell Fish Commission 

 caused one of its deputies, C. H. Nesley (who claimed to have had 

 some thirty years experience in artificial hatching) to make experi- 

 ments. From other sources and from his reports, we know the 

 following to be true : 



(1) Mullet when ripe, by handling give forth freely both eggs 

 and milt. 



(2) The eggs are not adhesive, but separate freely. 



(3) The eggs are heavier than salt water. 



(4) Their eggs have been artificially taken and fertilized and 

 within ten minutes thereafter have been found to be greatly 

 increased in size. 



I beg to refer you for details to the Third Biennial Report of the 

 Shell Fish commission, pages 29, 30, 31 and 32. 



Owing to the fact that some fishermen of that section (who 

 are densely ignorant) made statements, at the request of a design- 

 ing politician, to the effect that this Charles Nesley never hatched 

 any mullet, some question has arisen whether he really obtained 

 the results which he has claimed. Yet some of these same fisher- 

 men have informed me, by mouth and by letter, that the eggs 

 so taken and fertilized grew in ten minutes to be ten times as large 

 as when they were stripped from the fish, and that they personally 

 had not seen anything further of the operations. 



Nesley knew how to hatch fish. After this experiment, I had 

 him hatch shad on the St. John's River. We purchased the jars 

 and he erected the outfit. I saw the eggs hatching, and have 

 some of the fish preserved. Before he made the investigation, 

 Nesley was of the opinion that mullets spawned in fresh waters 

 only. A change in his convictions is, in my opinion, an inward 

 evidence that his report is worthy of acceptance. In the next 

 place the small per cent of ripe mullet found with the catch of roe 

 mullet was exceedingly small in comparison with our expectations ; 

 and, again, this in my opinion is an inward evidence of truthfulness 

 and reliability. Again, he had no motive for deception. He is 

 careful of his reputation as a fish culturist and he knew that his 

 reputation was at stake. For the reasons given I would be 

 pleased, when I have finished, to have a discussion on these 

 questions : 



