THIRTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING. 235 
Mr. Stone that if we could offer a name that would embrace the 
whole purpose of the Association—perhaps “The American Fish, 
Fisheries, Oyster, Lobster, and Fish-Cultural Association ’—it 
would be well, but it would take a great deal of ink. I should 
prefer to call it a “society,” because there are fewer letters in it 
than in “association,” and the Secretary has less writing to do. 
As a fish-culturist, I do not like to see the idea of fish-culture 
lost sight of or made to take a second place. That was the main 
purpose of the Association at its birth, and I believe that Mr. 
Stone and I are the only two original members left. I agree with 
Mr. Stone’s suggestion that the matter-lie over for a year. I 
object to any change whatever, because we are well known by 
our old name and under it, have taken in all questions which we 
can under the proposed new one. If at a future meeting there 
should be a majority of net-makers, they might wish to again 
change the name to include their business. I have grown up 
with the Association under its old names, and it seems to me 
suicidal to makea change. It is like exchanging a tattered flag 
that we have fought under for one just out of the shop. I can 
readily see how new members may desire a change, but I cannot 
approve it. 
Prof. GiLtt: Although I may not be a member of this Associa- 
tion, I have no objection to speak, as Iam requested. I am rather 
inclined to disagree with that old proverb that a rose under any 
other name smells equally sweet. I think Mr. Roosevelt has 
given a good argument for changing rather than keeping the 
name. He has well remarked that the Association has devel- 
oped from a fish-culturists’ association into a fish-cultural asso- 
ciation, and that it is still in progress of further development; 
and it seems as though it would be merely following a natural 
sequence to enlarge it still further and call it ‘““The American 
Fisheries Association.”’ As regards the preference of the word 
“association” or ‘society,’ I should be disposed to retain the 
old name, because we are apt to recognize a “society ” asa local 
organization, while this is rather a peripatetic body. It would 
then be on a footing with the ‘‘ American Association for the 
Advancement of Science,” and others which are also peripatetic 
