ACTUAL COUNTS OF PUPS. 



101) 



THE DECLINK BETWEEN WJG AND IS'J?. 



As ii i-L'siilt of the iuvestisatioiis of the past two seasons we :ire able now to sub 

 iiiit (Ictiiiite and dual proof uot only of the fact of decliue, but also an appioxiinately 

 accurate measure of its rate. 



COMPARATIVE COUNTS, 1896-97. 



Durinft- the season of 1896 a very accurate estimate of the total number of harems 

 on tlie two islands was made. On certain rookeries and i)arts of rookeries careful 

 counts of the individual cows present were made at the height of the season and on 

 approximately the same dates each year. Afterwards a thorough enumeration of the 

 live and dead i)Ui)S oil tlie same breeding grounds was made. We have had occasion 

 to criticise and revise our detailed census of 18!Mi, but this revision does not aflect the 

 actual counts for that year, which we have no occasion to alter. 



These comparative couuts for the two .seasons are as follows: ' 



JcliKil nniiidi, Isgii-97. 



Rookery. 



Kitovi 



Lagoon 



Tolstoi (clitfs) - . 

 Zapadni Reef... 

 Polovina (clirts) 



Little East'' 



Ardigueu 



Harems. 

 1896. 1897. 



182 

 120 

 108 

 176 



86 

 {b) 



27 



179 

 115 

 98 

 114 

 61 

 33 

 33 



Cows. 



1896. 1897. 



3, 152 ' 

 1,474 

 1.498 

 2,256 

 1, 266 

 ib) 

 550 



2,436 



1,319 



1,286 



1,049 



747 



497 



470 



Pups. 



1896. 



6,049 



2,484 

 2,664 

 3, 862 

 2, 490 

 1,350 

 (6) 



5,289 



2, 59K 

 {a) 

 3,041 

 2, 200 

 1,190 

 736 



aNot couuted. 



ii Count of 1890 rejected as obviously incorrect. 



'These figures are the joint work of Mr. Clark, of the American commission, and Mr. Macoun. of the British 

 commission. They were accepted by Professor Thomiison, though made in his absence, as he did not arrive in time to 

 \s-itne8s the work. After the departure of Mr. Macoun and ourselves from the islands Professor Thompson, assisted by 

 Mr. Lucas, undertook a recount of the live pups. Mr. Lucas's action in the matter was one purely of courtesy, no 

 responsibility for the work of enumeration having been assigned to bim by the commissioner in charge. 



In the recount on Kitovi rookery Professor Thompson found 5,534 live pups ; Mr. Lucas, 5.577. In a single portion, 

 of the rookery Mr. Lucas found 1,318 pups, whereas Professor Thompson found only 1,247. Xo effort was made by 

 recounting or otherwise to remove discrepancies. The mean of the two counts, or 5,555, was assumed as the total. To 

 this the dead pups being added, a total of 5.760 pups for this rookery was found as against 5,289 originally counted. 



Afterwards a recount of Zapadni Reef was made. Here, following the same methods, a total of 2,786 pups was 

 found as against the total of 3,041 of the original count. Ko further recounts were attempted. 



Professor Thompson has seen tit to substitute the results of his recount on Kitovi rookery for the otHcial one, 

 rejettiug as unsatisfactory his recount of Zapadni Reef. A comparison of the two counts shows plainly why. Had 

 Professor Thompson substituted both counts, or better yet, had he completed the recount on the remaining rookeries and 

 used the completed results, his action would have been less open to criticism. 



The results of the recounts are in no sense binding upon the American commission. They bear on their face the 

 evidence of their faulty character, which is strengthened l.)y the admission that one at least is in error. It may be said 

 that Mr. Macoun does not share with his colleague the faith which is placed in the recount. 



We may say that in these recounts no precaution was taken which was omitted in the original count. The 

 conditions of the count by Clark and Macoun were more favorable. The pups were ten days younger, were less active, and 

 were not going into the water. The count was made in a 4-ontinuous session of live hours, whereas in the recount the 

 rookery was abandoned for a period at noon, giving room for the possibility of shifting among the pups. 



The grave objection to the recounts, however, rests in the fact that neither Mr. Lucas nor Professor Thompson had 

 bad any considerable experience in tlie work of counting. On the other hand Messrs. Clark and Macoun made their count 

 on Kito\-i rookery alter having counted 10,000 live pups in 1897 and nearly 25,000 in 1896, to say nothing of 27,000 dead 

 ones and great numbers of cows and harems. 



There is no work in which experience and adaptability count for more than in the counting of the live pups. The 

 original counts, therefore, stand to the recounts as the work of experts to that of amateurs. It is with great reluctance that 

 we refer to this matter, antl we would not nu-ntion it were it not that Professor Thompson has used it to cast discredit on 

 ligures uuduubteilly accurate and trustworthy. Even with his substitution there is still left by his own accepted ligores a 

 positive dec line of 9.1 per cent. The ditl'erence between this and 12 per cent is of no real importance except that the use of 

 Ihc discrepant tii^ures serves needlessly to weaken the apparent force of evidence drawn from actual enumerations. 



