December 14. 1899] 



NATURE 



»5 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



[ The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any other part of NATURE. 

 No nottce is taken of anonymous communications. '\ 



Proposals of the Stockholm Fisheries Conference. 



As one closely connected with scientific fisheries work on the 

 North Sea, I cannot help taking a keen interest in the proposals 

 that emanated from the Stockholm Congress, and in the criti- 

 cisms that have appeared in Nature on those proposals. These 

 criticisms have been decidedly adverse, and readers of this 

 journal who take an interest in fishery questions and research, 

 but who have not been in a position to obtain the knowledge 

 necessary to judge fairly the points in dispute, will naturally feel 

 somewhat perplexed over the difficulties that have arisen. As 

 the matter is of the greatest importance to Great Britain, with 

 its large fishing industry, this perplexity is to be regretted, be- 

 cause it is very necessary that something like unanimity should 

 obtain amongst those who have charge of affairs. This 

 unanimity will come with greater clearness on the points at 

 issue, and in order to aid towards this clearness I would ask 

 your permission to allow me to continue the discussion. 



The criticisms on the proposals of the Stockholm Congress 

 may be resolved into two portions— direct criticisms of an adverse 

 kind on the proposals in part or as a whole, and counter- pro- 

 posals which it is considered the British Government should 

 accept in preference. 



Under the first heading come the criticisms of Prof. Herdman, 

 and with them we may begin. Prof. Ilerdman considers that 

 too much stress is laid on the hydrographical and meteorological 

 work than on the biological. Two reasons may be given for this 

 criticism. Firstly, at the present time, the biological investi- 

 gations of the fisheries in the North Sea are in certain respects in 

 a more advanced state than the hydrographical and meteoro- 

 logical. On such questions as those of migration, for example, 

 many facts have been accumulated and theories founded thereon, 

 but we are at a loss to follow up the investigations and test the 

 theories because trustworthy statistics of the meteorological 

 conditions— direction of the surface and deep water cur- 

 rents, temperatures in different places at different depths, 

 fluctuations in salinity, and so on — are utterly lacking. 

 Hence, biologists should really welcome this work, and not 

 object to its seemingly greater prominence. This work, how- 

 ever, was not intended to hinder the further prosecution of 

 strictly biological research, and here we come to the second 

 reason for Prof Herdman's criticism. 



He does not seem to have fully appreciated the scheme pro- 

 posed by the Congress under the heading of " The Biological 

 Work." He says : " Surely what we need most at the present 

 time in the interest of more exact fisheries knowledge, is the 

 nearest possible approximation to a census of our seas — begin- 

 ning with the territorial waters. Most fisheries disputes and 

 differences of opinion are due to the absence of such exact 

 knowledge. . . . The Stockholm report unfortunately says 

 nothing to the point in regard to all this " 



Now, the Stockholm report states clearly and definitely what 

 is wanted, and how we are to obtain it. Under " Biological 

 Work," in addition to other practical recommendations for the 

 taking of this "census," under Parts I. and H., HI. (a) and 

 ni.(/;), run :— 



"It is desirable to collect uniform statistics of the number, 

 weight, and value of the fish landed, of the means of capture, 

 and of the persons engaged in the industry ; for example, as in 

 the General Reports of the Scottish Fishery Board." 



"It is de.sirable to collect material for the preparation of 

 maps, showing the fishing grounds and the kinds of fishing there 

 practised." 



Under "A. — The Hydrographical Work," further recom- 

 mendations are given under VI. -X. as to the taking of the 

 "census." As these recommendations are quite clear, and 

 fully cover the ground of all research into the total numbers 

 of fish, the varying numbers at different times and places, as 

 well as the total quantities of the different forms of fish-food 

 and their fluctuations at different places and seasons, it seems 

 impossible to ask for anything more. What more does Prof. 

 Ilerdman see undei the word "census" ? 



That Prof. Herdman has not fully weighed the scheme pro- 



NO. 1572, VOL. 61] 



posed is again shown in his statement, " Part of the report is 

 called a programme of work, but it contains no definite pro- 

 gramme of biological work." It is needless to discuss this 

 until we have Prof. Herdman's conception of a "definite pro- 

 gramme " before us, and then we shall be able to compare the 

 two. If Prof. Herdman can show a better, more definite and 

 workable programme, it is only right that he should do so after 

 passing such criticism on the other. 



" In my opinion," says Prof Herdman, " what we want is not 

 conferences, or committees, or a central bureau, so much as boats 

 and men, and work at sea." This catches the eye at once as 

 being eminently practical, but surely Prof Herdman does not 

 mean that the Congress did not contemplate the use of " boats 

 and men, and work at sea'''} But he fears evidently that an 

 " opportunity " is being lost because the Congress has advocated 

 the formation of the central organising body before starting to 

 actual work. But where so much has to be done, so many 

 different studies to be organised, so many different arrangements 

 and experiments to be made, we should rather approve of the 

 methodical and calculating arrangements of the Congress, even 

 though for the moment progress is seemingly slow, just as we 

 approved of the slow but certain progress of General Kitchener 

 to Khartoum. 



As Dr. Murray has ranged himself with Prof. Herdman in 

 his criticisms, and as his proposals can be discussed under those of 

 Mr. Allen, I trust he will not think it from disrespect that I pass 

 on now to the points raised by Mr. Allen. These have been 

 thought out with great care, and one cannot but acknowledge 

 his fair and generous method of treating the subject. The 

 general plan of the investigations is approved of, and only on 

 minor points can there be differences of opinion. The matter of 

 the areas of investigations will assuredly come under re- 

 consideration, as he suggests. The only question — and the 

 chief one — that will repay discussion, is that of the "central 

 bureau." 



Mr. Allen recommends that the British Government, in order 

 to give effect to the proposals of the Congress, should first of all 

 co-ordinate the work of the different stations in the British Isles. 

 (Would this not harm their " originality " ?) When this is done, 

 the "essential requirements" are a sufficient number of capable 

 naturalists and sea going steamships efficiently equipped. The 

 experts of the different countries would meet once a year in order 

 to co-ordinate the investigations and insure uniformity of method 

 This scheme is contrasted with that of the Congress, and it is 

 maintained that the establishment of a "central bureau " is too 

 elaborate and expensive. 



Now, if Mr. Allen had restricted himself to asking further 

 particulars regarding the central " laboratory," one would have 

 taken no exception to his remarks ; but since he objects to 

 what seems very necessary — namely, a central body to organise 

 and keep the different researches and departments in actual 

 touch with one another, to do the secretary work and look after 

 the printing of reports, &c. — one must turn and ask what he 

 intends to put in its place. Mr. Allen surely does not think 

 that a meeting of experts once a year is equally adequate ? 



Until Mr. Allen unfolds this part of his scheme a little 

 further, we may regard certain other aspects of it. No one 

 will deny that the co-operation of the various marine stations 

 in England for definite fisheries work would be of immense 

 value ; but why has this not been considered and done before ? 

 Again, if this scheme were effective and less expensive than 

 that proposed by the Congress, would the representatives of 

 the other countries not have taken it into consideration ? These 

 representatives have had much greater experience of fishery 

 work than Mr. Allen has had, and a much better notion there- 

 fore of what is needed, and it is unlikely that they would ask 

 their Governments to pursue a course which is more expensive 

 than another equally effective. This is said without intending 

 any disrespect for Mr. Allen ; it is merely drawing a compari- 

 son between two experiences, and the comparison tells against 

 Mr. Allen. 



Again, is Mr. Allen's scheme workable and adequate to the 

 work that is wanted ? It should be remembered that Great 

 Britain has not been asked to co-ordinate its various small 

 marine stations, however desirable this may be. It has simply 

 been asked to carry on a certain programme of work lor a 

 period of five years at least. The course of events, let us 

 imagine, will be somewhat as follows : — The Scottish Fishery 

 Board will be asked by Government to carry on a certain 

 amount of routine hydrographical work, with the instruments 



