AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY. 67 



lyiuj; soil. Is it not botter, tlu'ii. to cntei- ar once upon a study 

 of as many as possible of the clonuMits that are likely to enter 

 into the i)ra('tieal jiroblenis that now confront us or that may 

 confront us? Is it not better, in otiier words, to take u]) the 

 study of the biology of the lakes from the ])oint of view of 

 pure sc'ence for the jturpose of tindiuj;- out as far as possible 

 the facts and of makinj^ clear as many as possible of the 

 principles? Then when, in the future, any fisheries problems 

 arise, the facts and ])rinciples for their solution will have been 

 already in larue ])art determined. Such a course does not pre- 

 clude the immediale investigation of certain ])ressinp,- problems 

 of inter-est to the tisheries. It does brinj>' into ])rominence 

 the fact that such investigations are not in themselves suffi- 

 cient, are likely to be inconclusive and can in no sense be con- 

 sidered final. 



There is still another reason why it seems to me tliat the 

 investigation of the lakes may best be undertaken on a purely 

 scientific basis without direct and necessary subservience to 

 the fisheries. We have had almost within my memory two 

 distinct i)hases in the evolution of natural histoi'y subjects. 

 During the first of these the principal aim of botanists and 

 zoologists was to collect and name as many species of animals 

 and plants as j)ossible. That man was considered the greatest 

 zoologist who could repeat co.rrectly the Latin name of the 

 largest number of animals. I do not wish to underestimate 

 the value of such knowledge. It is necessary preliminary 

 knowledge. I wish merely to point out that it is not of the 

 greatest use to the fisheries. While any work, of whatever 

 sort, that is done in the lakes must take account of the syste- 

 matic names of the animals and plants of the lake and of their 

 distinctions, I am unable to see how a science devoted largely 

 or exclusively to such knowledge can greatly benefit the fish- 

 eries. 



During another phase in the development of natural history, 

 a phase in which we still are, attention was turned to the 

 anatomy and development of animals and plants. Zoiilogists 

 believed that animals were related to one another, that a 

 process of evolution produced one from another and that by 

 a study of the structure of these animals their relationship to 

 one another could be discovered. This hope is being largely 

 modified or abandoned. Zoologists are indeed convinced that 

 evolution has taken place, but just what the resulting relation- 

 shij) is that obtains among existing animals is largely a mat- 

 ter of s])eculation or of i)ersonal 0])inion. Again, in this phase 

 of the development of zoology and botany it seems to me that 

 the interests of its students are not along lines that are of 

 great use to the fisheries. It is of course true that a knowl- 



