SEA-FISHERIES LABOEATORY 185 



doubt, be very simple, and would seem desirable, if a 

 Local Authority were able to reject or approve a con- 

 signment of shell -fisli on the results of a routine 

 examination in the bacteriological laboratory, and, 

 if this were possible, much trouble would be 

 avoided. TTnfortunately, this simple procedure is 

 not adequate, the trouble must be taken, common- 

 sense topographical evidence must be considered 

 or in many cases unjustifiable hardship would 

 be inflicted on the fishermen, the industry would be 

 seriously damaged, and the real source of pollution 

 might fail to be traced. Over and over again in our local 

 work we have come upon cases where either a favourable 

 or an unfavourable bacteriological report in regard to a 

 bed might have resulted according to the exact spot from 

 which samples were gathered or the precise conditions 

 under which they were taken. Moreover, in other cases 

 we have shown that the bacteriological results can only 

 be properly interpreted by those who have an intimate 

 knowledge of the natural history of the locality. 



All this kind of work, in the interests both of the 

 public health and also of the fishermen wlio make their 

 living from the shell-fish industries, ought to be under- 

 taken in all cases by a biological Bacteriologist who is 

 at the same time a good Field IS'aturalist and a Fisheries 

 Expert. 



In a rational bacteriology upon which regulation 

 of an industry may come to be based, and from which 

 conclusions as to the source and the history of the 

 infection may have to be drawn, it is not sufficient inerely 

 to record the proportion of a certain sample of shell-fish 

 in which a certain organism was observed. For 

 example, the type of statement which one meets with 

 in the annual reports of Medical Officers of Health, that 



