COMMITTEE B — JULY 1905 ( 64) 
and for the opinions expressed, he wished to take the present opportunity of 
inviting the various members of the Committee to assist him by their criticisms of 
the different points raised in his Provisional Report, as the adoption of this course 
would greatly facilitate the subsequent preparation of the definitive report of the 
Committee. 
Prof. Fr. Hecxe agreed with the general form of the report, but con- 
sidered that the material was not yet sufficient for general conclusions, especially 
as regards the migrations of plaice and the intensity of fishing. The percentage 
of recapture of marked fish depended so much upon the proximity.of fishing boats 
at the time of liberation that great care was necessary in drawing general con- 
clusions from such data. He also wished to say that no fault could be found with 
the labels now used in the German experiments (vulcanite studs), which were good 
and perfectly suitable for the purpose. With respect to the trawling results, he 
thought the tables could be improved in several respects, and should contain a 
complete analysis of each haul. As regards the growth of marked fish, he was 
convinced of the importance of transplantation, but considered that the material at 
present available required to be extended considerably before the views of the 
Convener could be regarded as established. Instead of experiments with a few 
hundred fish, they would have to set free many thousands. 
Dr. Petersen wished to congratulate the Convener on his report, but had 
one amendment to propose for his consideration. On the “Protection of Under- 
sized Fish” the Convener had written: “It is not a self-evident proposition thal 
the protection of small plaice on the inshore grounds would lead to an increase 
in the quantity (weight) of plaice available for capture on the offshore grounds”. 
He would suggest the omission of the word “not”. 
Mr. ArcHER explained that owing to illness he had not been able to attend 
to official duties for some months and consequently had had no opportunity of 
seeing the Report under discussion prior to his arrival at Copenhagen. He asked 
permission, therefore, for Dr. MasrerwAN to offer some remarks on behalf of th 
English Fishery Department. : N 
Dr. Masrerman stated that he had nothing to add as to Professor HEInGkE's 
remarks upon the marking experiments and the deductions therefrom as to inten- 
sity of fishing, but expressed a doubt as to whether in an investigation limited to 
five years the data accumulated by the research steamers could be relied upon 
