162 THE FUR SEALS OF THE PKIBILOF ISLANDS. 



THE SEAL DIGESTS ITS FOOD IN THE WATER. 



For tlie absence of food in the stomachs of tlie seals we must find a simpler 

 explanation, and this seems to be that they remain in the water to digest their food. 

 If it is not fully digested when the animal reaches the islands on returning from the 

 feeding gronnds, it loiters offshore swimming about, sleeping, or playing until digestion 

 is completed. 



This assumption also explains other things. For example, the band of idle seals 

 hovering oft" the rookery fronts; the fact that the cows are not seen to come directly 

 in from the sea; and the fact that pups killed in the water. sleei)ing and sportinj^in 

 the same way, were found full of milk, while those killed on land were, as a rule, empty. 



THE ABSURD THEORY OF INDISCRIMINATE NURSING. 



But not content with establishing the fact that the mother seals did not leave the 

 rookeries while their pups were dependent upon them, the British commissioners went 

 on to show that if they did go away and were killed the pups did not necessarily starve, 

 because they could obtain nourishment from other cows. In short, it was contended 

 that the female fur seals in contrast to ail other animals, nursed their young in common. 

 This theory was supported by a series of ostensibly minute but faulty observations, 

 which gave an air of plausibility to it. 



FUR-SEAL MOTHER AND PUP. 



The fur-seal mother displays little affection for her own young, but she displays 

 less for her neighbors'. When she wants her pup, she calls lustily for it, and, finding 

 it, lies down and nurses it without further ceremony. The pup when satisfied goes 

 oft" and does not seek its mother until it is again hungry. As the majority of the 

 mothers are absent at sea. the majority of the pups are always hnngry. They are 

 willing and ready to fiock about the calling cow, who has difticulty among so many in 

 attracting the attention of her own pup. The savage treatment she accords these 

 strange pups makes them kee]> at a safe distance, and is clear enough proof of her 

 unwillingness to care for them. 



MISTAKEN OBSERVATIONS. 



The mistakes that have been made in this matter have resulted from a misunder- 

 standing or a misinterpretation of very simple actions. When the cow lands, she is 

 likely to be met at the shore by half a dozen hungry pups waiting for their mothers. 

 Tliey flock about her and she snaps and snarls at tliem, calling her pup in the intervals. 

 In due time it res])onds and joins the crowd of expectant pups. The mother recognizes 

 it for a brief instant by shaking her head and smelling over it. This is all the 

 attention it receives. She at once sets out to find a suitable place in which to rest. 

 She may travel back the full length of the rookery, taking up her place in one of the 

 rear harems. The pups may all follow her for a short distance, but gradually give up 

 and return to the water front, all but her own pup, which persists, and in the end is 

 allowed to nurse. 



To omit from the observation the brief and simple recognition of the pup by the 

 mother destroys its accuracty. This is exactly what the Canadian commissioner in 

 his observations of 1892 did. He then tried to prove that a cow would nurse any 

 pup if it was only persistent enough. His interpretation of au incident like the one 

 cited above was that the pup which ultimately succeeded in nursing was a strange 

 pup, whose persistency was finally rewarded. 



