COMMITTEE B — JULY 1905 (68) 
the tentative character of interpretations placed upon the results of their experi- 
ments at the present stage, but nevertheless considered it desirable to draw atten- 
tion to such tendencies as seemed provisionally to be disclosed by the available 
material. As regards the information to be placed in the tables, he was naturally 
dependent on the information supplied to him. It seemed to him that determin- 
ation of the rate of growth of fish in different areas did not necessarily demand 
experiments on the colossal scale proposed by Prof. Heıncke, since the concordant 
results of a number of smaller experiments gave a probability of accuracy, which 
was increased with every repetition. With reference to Dr. Masrerman’s criticisms 
of the trawling investigations by the research steamers, the question was rather 
for the Committee than for himself to decide. He attached a greater significance 
to the positive results of these experiments than to the occasional discrepancies, 
which would disappear as new material accumulated. With regard to the seasonal 
changes in the intensity of fishing on the Dogger Bank, his information was based 
on the results of the marking experiments, but was corroborated not only by the 
returns during the current year, but also by practical experience. The question 
required a clear distinction to be drawn between the Dogger Bank and the adjacent 
grounds, and he doubted if the information supplied to the collectors of statistics 
was sufficiently detailed for this purpose, especially as the fishermen’s voyages were 
largely of a mixed character. 
The following resolution was then adopted unanimously by the Committee: 
“The members of Committee B having read the Provisional Report of the 
Convener on the ’Natural History of the Plaice’ express their thanks to Mr. Gar- 
STANG for the pains he has taken. 
“They wish it to be understood that they do not accept responsibility for 
the conclusions contained in this report; but they recommend the International 
Council that the work of the Committee should be continued for a further period 
of two years in order that they may be in a position to draw up a definitive report.” 
Under Head 2 of the Agenda (The Definitive Report) the Convener pro- 
posed that the definitive report of the Committee should be restricted to those 
branches of the investigations which might be expected to be sufficiently advanced 
in the time available to have a distinct bearing on the practical problems sub- 
mitted to them. He thought they were all agreed that the problems immediately 
before them involved questions of growth rather than of reproduction. They should 
oe N uni en ur I ba 
