May 13, 1921] 



SCIENCE 



451 



exploration of the more important mussel-beariiig 

 streams with a view to ascertaining the extent 

 and numiber of the mussel beds — ^the source of 

 supply— was done by men trained in the work of 

 pure science. The material thus secured was care- 

 fully worked over, classified and described — ^the 

 work of the systematist — ^whieh was embodied in 

 an admirable report. Then Lefevre and Curtis 

 undertook to work out the anatomy and embryol- 

 ogy of the mussels of economic importance and to 

 ascertain the species of fish best fitted to act as 

 carriers of the mussel larvse or glochidia. All of 

 this was purely scientific work, and the results 

 were embodied in a paper entitled "Reproduction 

 and Artificial Propagation of the Fresh-water 

 Mussels," to my mind an excellent piece of work 

 from a purely scientific standpoint. 



With this as a basis, the work of propagation of 

 mussels, the infection of fish best suited to act as 

 hosts to the glochidia and the proposing of laws 

 regarding the mussel industry as a whole could be 

 followed intelligently and efiiectively. And this, 

 of course, is practical or "applied" zoology. 



Second. This laboratory, being dn operation 

 through the year, in which it differs from most 

 others in this country, studies of the life histories 

 and ecology of fluviatile species can best be pur- 

 sued here, and should, in my opinion, be dis- 

 tiaetly encouraged. Graduate students from our 

 colleges and universities could be detailed to do 

 this work and thus contribute to pure science and 

 at the same time lay the foundations for work of 

 a distinctly economic bearing. 



Third. Material secured here, such as proto- 

 zoans, mussels, annelids and small crustaceans, 

 could be sent to the biological laboratories of 

 neighboring states and serve a valuable end in 

 supplying such laboratories wiith many forms de- 

 sired for class work in botany and zoology. 



The raw material from which the scientists of 

 the future must, in the main, be secured is found 

 in the college students now in classes; and any- 

 thing that aids in the preparation of these stu- 

 dents for their future life work will ultimately be 

 of prime importance not only to pure science but 

 also to applied science and the welfare of man- 

 kind. 



The conference on tlie morning of the 8tli 

 was presided over by Professor Stephen A. 

 Forbes, professor of entomology. University 

 of Illinois, and chief of the ITatnral History 

 Survey of Illinois. The leading address, en- 

 titled " The Biological Eesourees of our In- 



land Waters " was presented by Professor 

 James G. Needham, of Cornell University, 

 who has epitomized his remarks in the follow- 

 ing terms: 



Fish culture is a branch of animal husbandry. 

 Animal husbandry makes progress about in pro- 

 portion as it -gives attention to the fundamental 

 needs of animals, which are three: (1) Food, (2) 

 Protection, and (3) Fit conditions for reproduc- 

 tion. Fish culture (as now practised) is not like 

 other lines of animal husbandry because it gives 

 adequate attention to only the last of these three. 

 Further progress will lie in Studying: (1) One 

 species at a time, (2) One problem at a time, and 

 ,(3) dn one environment at a time. That is my 

 creed for fish culture and for fish management and 

 it applies to fish forage organisms and to fish 

 enemies as well. 



Several zoologists and business men par- 

 ticipated in the general discussion relating to 

 the subject of the conference. 



The entire occasion was made agreeable and 

 memorable through the generous cooperation 

 of the National Association of Button Manu- 

 facturers, who gave luncheons at Fairport on 

 the 7th and 8th and a banquet in Muscatine 

 on the night of the 7th. The banquet in Mus- 

 catine was the occasion for a considerable 

 number of extemporaneous talks by the va- 

 rious delegates present, and by persons repre- 

 senting the Station, the Bureau and the De- 

 partment. 



E. E. COKER 



BRYOZOA AS FOOD FOR OTHER 

 ANIMALS 



Bryozoa are common animals of the coast- 

 wise waters everywhere, but they have not 

 been listed with any frequency in the food of 

 other animals — in fact such references are ex- 

 ceedingly rare. It is of some interest, there- 

 fore, that I am able to record the fact that 

 certain aquatic birds, at least occasionally, 

 include them in their bill of fare. 



Dr. E. W. Nelson, chief of the Bureau of 

 Biological Survey, has recently sent me for 

 determination a small collection of bryozoa 

 taken from the stomachs of the king eider 

 {Somaieria spectahilis) and the Pacific eider 

 (.Somateria v-nigra). These ducks were taken 



