182 
Harbor, New York; Dean, at Leadville, Colorado; Rob- 
inson, at Mammoth Spring Arkansas; and Fitzpatrick, 
at Chabot Lake, California; in common with Mr. Clark, 
at Northville, Michigan, have not averaged above 50 per 
cent of impregnatiun with the rainbow trout eggs. Mr. 
Seagle, of Witheville, Virginia, concedes 20 per cent. of 
his average take to be ‘‘hard, glassy eggs,” and Mr. 
Nevin, of Madison, Wisconsin, acknowledges “we get 
a number of hard, glassy eggs.” . At Neosho Station, 
during the season just passed, 66 per cent. of our rain- 
bow trout eggs failed to fertilize. In the transactions of 
the last meeting of this Society, Mr. Seal is recorded as 
saying; “I find that in Mexico they appear to accom- 
“plish more with the rainbow trout than we do here.” - 
With reference to this particular work Mr. E. Chazari 
writes me from the City of Mexico, under date of April 
26th, 1892; ‘“ Mr. Clark’s difficulty occurs among us also 
af i sg Taking approximately the average we 
“have had this year 50 per cent. of the eggs borned 
“(spawned) sickly or bad, and at the end of the incuba- 
“tion, a total loss of 80 per cent.” This is the result of 
four years old trout under domestication in Mexico. 
Summarizing the statements from these different sources, 
I am forced to the conclusion that of the whole number 
of rainbow trout eggs artificially spawned from domesti- 
cated fish, less than 50 per cent. are impregnated because 
of the impotency of the eggs to receive the fertilizing 
principle. At some places, in some seasons, the per- 
centage will run higher; whilst, as has been shown, on 
other occasions it will fall much lower. This average of 
50 per cent. is based on the work of ten hatcheries in 
eight states, embracing all the climatological and hydro- 
graphical conditions of the United States, except the far 
south, and may be modified by the accession of additional 
information. But I feel pretty sure, that upon fuller 
investigation, the statement will be confirmed rather than 
disproved. 
