78 
“Protecting and Hatching the Smelt,” in which I 
advocated a protective law, which is now being asked 
for from the supervisors of Long Island towns. Skip- 
ping this part of the subject, we will take up that which 
relates to the hatching of smelts, omitting many details 
related in that article, and will quote: “Up to the 
thirteenth day after taking there was little change, and 
on the twentieth (of March, or seven days later) the 
eggs were put outside the hatchery in swift water, as 
they began to show fungus March 26 about one-half 
were alive, and these were in bunches covered by dead 
eggs and fungus. All the outside eggs were dead and 
I had little hope of saving any” ‘That year we allowed 
the eggs to adhere to grass, sticks and stones, as well 
as to the sides of glass hatching jars, and in that Report 
of 1885 I expressed the belief that smelt eggs seemed 
to require a coating of fungus and decayed eggs about 
them in order to be protected from too much oxygen 
and fresh water to hatch well, a statement that I do not 
believe to-day. We turned out 100,000 fry that year in 
spite of fungus, rotten eggs and accompanying foul 
odors in the water, 
Again, in the fifteenth Report of our Society, pages 
10 to 16, will be found another article of mine, headed 
“Smelt Hatching,” with discussions by Mr. Frank N. 
Clark, Mr. Bissell, Dr R. O. Sweeny and myself. My 
paper merely recorded efforts to have the spawn adhere 
to different substances and to vary the flow of water 
and the amount of light. Some eggs were sent to Mr. 
Clark, cautioning him not to throw away any eggs, 
“no matter how badly they looked on the outside, how 
much fungus there might be there, nor how foul an odor 
might arise from them.” Mr. Clark said, page 13, that 
he found the eggs as I had stated, and about 15 to 20 
per cent. of them were good. I had said that we could 
hatch 4o to 50 per cent. in our jars. Mr. Bissell raised 
the question of light, and said : “If the light affects the 
