1896] Rookery Surveys 



his drawings very spirited, so that the total had a 

 distinct value for subsequent investigations. But First esti- 

 his estimate as to numbers (based on the space mateasto 

 occupied by the rookery as a whole, divided by the 

 number of square feet assumed to be covered by 

 one individual) I always thought far too high 

 an opinion recently verified by the measurements 

 of G. Dallas Hanna, now curator of Invertebrate 

 Paleontology in the California Academy of Sciences. 

 In 1891, in preparation for the Paris Tribunal of 

 1893, Mr. Elliott made a second trip to Alaska. 

 From this he returned with a bitter animus against 

 the North American Commercial Company (which 

 as lessee of the islands had succeeded the Alaska 

 Commercial Company) and with the strong ob- 

 session that the killing of superfluous males was a 

 determining factor in the enormous deterioration 

 which the herd had suffered since his previous visit. 

 On the other hand, the several trained and compe- Land km- 

 tent observers 1 sent successively to Bering Sea 

 from 1890 to 1895, agreeing in every particular, 

 demonstrated that the elimination of superfluous 

 males had no greater effect on the breeding seal 

 herd than on a herd of cattle or a flock of sheep, 

 and furthermore reported that the sole cause of 

 destruction lay in pelagic sealing. 



At the time of my appointment I was notified that two of My 

 the ablest naturalists of the United States National Museum, associates 

 Leonhard Stejneger (mentioned in earlier pages) and Frederic 

 A. Lucas, would be commissioned as my associates; also that 

 the U.S.S. Albatross under Jefferson Moser of the Navy, and 

 with Charles H. Townsend as naturalist, had been assigned 



1 C. Hart Merriam and Thomas C. Mendenhall, then Barton W. Ever- 

 mann, and (later) Frederick W. True and Charles H. Townsend all to the 

 Pribilofs; and Leonhard Stejneger to the Commander group. 



3 



