THE GERMAN CARP IN THE UNITED STATES. 601 
carp were first brought upon the market and the hue and cry raised as to their 
destructive qualities, to open and to be present while hundreds of carps were opened, 
to see if I could find in their stomachs anything that would indicate that they took 
the fry of other fish or spawn of other fish. I can not say that I have never found 
the spawn of other fish in their stomachs, but when I have found such spawn it has 
been of such a nature as led me to believe that it was such spawn as floated on the 
surface of the water, and that the carp took them in, in that sucking motion that he 
has, going around on the surface of the water. 
From data given by Doctor Smith (1902) it appears that the blame 
for the destruction of shad eggs has been wrongfully placed upon the 
carp. He says that observations in the Potomac River show that the 
carp do not molest the shad eggs, as they do not go upon the spawning 
grounds. The greatest amount of shad spawn is consumed by cat-fish 
and eels. This was shown by having a large shad seine hauled over 
grounds where the shad apparently had just spawned. Many shad 
and alewives were caught, but mostly cat-fish (about 5,000 Amecurus 
albidus) 6 to 18 inches long, and every one of these, so far as observed, 
was gorged with shad eggs. 
With regard to the charge that carp devour the young of other fish, 
any damage that it may do in this way is certainly so slight that it need 
hardly be considered. It can not be said that carp never do capture 
smalier fish, for two or three cases have been reported—one where a 
carp ate some three minnows that were contined with it in a small 
aquarium (Gurney, 1860), while in the other cases fish were said to 
have been found in the stomach. The carp is obviously unadapted by 
structure for capturing other fish for food. Its mouth is comparatively 
small and adapted to ‘‘ sucking,” while, furthermore, there are no 
teeth which could be used in holding living prey. Its only teeth are 
several rounded, knob-like structures situated well back in the *‘ throat,” 
and known as pharyngeal teeth, and are of service only for crushing 
and grinding. 
As to the third and fourth points, that carp prevent other fish from 
nesting and that they produce unfavorable conditions which drive 
other fish away, I know of no proof on either side further than what 
has been brought out in the foregoing discussion, 
I have chosen to consider separately the relation of carp to the 
white-fish, because the conditions in this instance are rather different 
and distinct from those in the case of any of the other fishes consid- 
ered. Then, too, the white-fish fishery is one of the most important 
in the Great Lakes, and if it were found that the carp interfered 
seriously with the spawning of the white-fish it would be a very strong 
point indeed against him. 
The white-fish of Lake Erie make an annual migration from the 
e 
a“‘A specimen of the common carp, between 5 and 6 inches in length, was lately observed to devour 
three small minnows, each of about an inch and a half in length, which were confined in the same 
aquarium with him. One of these the carp seized immediately the minnow was placed in the 
aquarium and swallowed it whole, head foremost.’ (Gurney, loc. cit.) 
