No 
bo 
FISH-CULTURAL ASSOCIATION. 
limits of a Fish-Cultural Association; and when I heard of the 
name proposed, it occurred to me that the term ‘Fisheries Asso- 
ciation”? would not definitely interpret the aims of this society. 
Dr. Hupson: I have been reflecting upon this matter and 
would say that my thoughts in the main coincide with those of 
Mr. Roosevelt, although my conclusions are somewhat different, 
I am inclined to the opinion that the word “Fisheries Associa- 
tion”’ is rather broader than “ Fish-Cultural Association,” and 
would be more acceptable. Many men when asked to join our 
Association, say “Iam nota fish-culturist. I do not feel as if 
I had any special interest in the subject,” although, if they at- 
tended its meetings, they would soon discover that all kinds of 
fish, lobsters and oysters are described; their anatomy and phy- 
siology discussed; their food investigated; their flesh analyzed, 
and their organizations compared with others. It seems really 
as though in the term “Fish-Cultural” all the matters just allud- 
ed to cannot be strictly included, and for that reason I believe 
that ‘“ Fisheries Association” would be more suitable. It is the 
term most generally employed in Europe, and I think it is the 
best for us to adopt. 
Mr. Pike: I think the proposed change of name is one which 
should commend itself to this Association. According to my 
view, the Association has outgrown its original purposes. Its 
primary object was to bring into closer relations those who were 
immediately engaged in the artificial breeding of fish; and when 
the fish commissioners of the several States were invited to join, 
some, I know, declined, because they were not fish-culturists or 
fish growers for gain. But all this is changed now; the aims of 
this Association have gradually become more expanded and ele- 
vated—embracing everything that pertains to food fishes in all 
their manifold relations. This is seen in the great variety of 
topics which were presented for discussion during the session of 
the Association. Strictly speaking, Professor Atwater’s excel- 
lent paper would not have been an appropriate one before an 
association of persons devoted simply to the best method of cul- 
tivating and increasing food fishes. And yet it was one of the 
most acceptable papers presented; and it was acceptable because 
