The Migration of Fishes. 47 
documents, apparently intended to influence the decisions of 
Diplomatic Commissions. 
I am by no means prepared to maintain that mackerel do 
not pass the winter in the American domain of her Imperial 
Majesty. It seems important, however, that the subject of 
the migration of fishes should be restored to its proper posi- 
tion as a question of abstract scientific interest. Let us 
glance at the argument of Mr. Whitcher and Professor Hind 
against what the former is pleased to style the “ American 
‘heory.”’ 
In the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries 
for cthe,, year. ending. the .30th: /ofiejunei1871;. Miro , Wake 
Whitcher, Commissioner of Fisheries, published a paper en- 
titled, “American Theory Regarding the Migration of the 
Mackerel Refuted” (pp. 186-189). 
Mr. Whitcher opens his letter by claiming that the theory 
of north and south migration was invented solely in support 
of a claim advanced by citizens of the United States to par- 
ticipate in the Canadian inshore fisheries. ‘‘ This ingenious but 
traditional theory of annual migration having gained local 
credency among some of the Nova Scotia fishermen engaged 
in United States fishing-vessels, has been sagaciously indorsed 
and circulated by American authors.” He also refers to evi- 
dence “supposed to have been procured among the fishing 
population of the New England States.” 
I need only say that these claims are unjust, and that the 
theory of the annual north and south migration of the. mack- 
erel is time-honored, and was held conscientiously by ichthy- 
ologists of the United States and the Provinces long before 
the question of fishery treaties assumed its present aspect. It 
is manifestly unfair to state that while the theories which 
prevailed respecting the habits of herring and mackerel were 
