40 
in Europe and the United States are given in support of 
this belief. 
There is another argument which has been advanced 
in the fact that in depositing yearlings they can be actu- 
ally counted and there can be no ground for suspicion 
concerning the statistics of output. 
On the other hand it is argued by some that the cost 
of rearing yearlings will not warrant it. It is also argued 
that when fish are brought to the yearling stage in cap- 
tivity their natures will have become changed, the natu- 
ral instinct of self-preservation will be lost, and thus they 
will become an easy prey to their enemies. 
It is also said that if fry are properly planted—that is, 
in the head waters or feeders to trout-brooks (spring 
streams )—there is but a small percentage of loss among 
them. 
While the writer is only presenting these opinions as 
a preliminary to the unfolding of the object he has in 
view in the preparation of this paper, he cannot refrain 
from saying that all his experience in the examination of 
small cold streams has shown them to be swarming with 
crayfish, cottoids and salamanders, clear to the fountain 
heads, the springs. That these are not noticeable to the 
casual observer and that their presence will not be known 
except by removing the stones. The “helgramite” is 
not always present, but the others are rarely, if ever, 
absent. 
Now in the best interest of trout culture, is not this a 
question worthy of closer examination and more ex- 
tended experiment? Is it well to consider the matter 
settled one way in one State and in a different way in 
another State? Ought not the question be the subject 
of continued experiment in the States interested in trout 
culture, without bias and with a desire to develop the 
truth only? Do not the best interests of trout culture 
require a sympathetic and progressive treatment of the 
subject ? 
