SCIENCE 



NEW YORK, MARCH 37, 1891. 



THE OYSTER QUESTION.^ 



I HATE been asked to say a few words on the relation of scien- 

 tific investigation to the great question of the preservation of the 

 Maryland oyster. It is Professor Brooks who ought now to be 

 addressing j'ou, for it is chiefly coucerning his work that I shall 

 have to speak. It is nearly all of it his work; but he would not 

 have said this himself, and for that reason, at least, I am glad to 

 stand in his shoes to-day. It is a simple tale I have to tell. If at 

 its close I try to point a moral, you will kindly hold me alone re- 

 sponsible for what I may say. No other person has at the pres6nt 

 moment an inkling of what it is to be. 



In 1879 there appeared a modest pamphlet, No. 1, of the 

 "Studies from the Biological Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins 

 University." Among other papers, it included one by Professor 

 Brooks, on the development from the egg of a small animal, 

 which, details apart, I may designate as a thu'd or fourth or Vir- 

 ginian covisin of the oyster: at any rate, it and the oyster belong 

 to the same great molluscan group of animals. This work was 

 done in 1878. It was followed next year by a treatise on the de- 

 velopment of some fresh-water JlfoZfe.sea ; and during the same 

 year another member of the university endeavored, at the insti- 

 gation of the Fish Commission, to discover the very youngest 

 oysters, and learn their mode of life; to find how they grew, what 

 they needed, and what they did, what they thrived on, and what 

 was apt to injure them until they settled down on the bottom of 

 our bay to fatten for Baltimore palates. 



This first effort was a failure, in consequence of too great reli- 

 ance upon the natural history of the oyster of the effete monar- 

 chies of the Old World. The oyster of Europe is a molly-coddled 

 youngster, living inside his mamma's shell until he has a shell of 

 his own. Seeking the young American oyster between the shells 

 of its mother. Professor Rice failed to find it, as others had failed 

 before. In the early spring of 1879, Major Ferguson, then fish 

 commissioner of Maryland, made another appeal to Professor 

 Brooks, and offered him aid not only from the State, but from 

 the National Fish Commission, in order that he might study the 

 development and life-history of the oyster. For such a study his 

 work on the early development of other Mollusca had fitted him. 

 The university trustees gave him leave of absence more than a 

 month before the beginning of the regular holiday. Some of his 

 colleagues assumed responsibility for due performance of the 

 regular academic work. He went to CrisHeld, where he was later 

 in the season joined by other members of the biological depart- 

 ment of the university. 



Within twenty-four hours of the arrival of Dr. Brooks at Cris- 

 field, two facts of fundamental importance were discovered by 

 him, — one that the American oyster is not nursed within the 

 shell of the parent, but, like all young Americans, shows an early 

 independence; the other, that it was possible to take their eggs 

 from oysters, and fertilize and rear them artificially, just as shad 

 and trout are bred in our great fish-cultural stations on the Sus- 

 quehanna and elsewhere. ^These two discoveries, based on previ- 

 ous investigation of the development of mollusks which had no 

 commercial importance, made a new starting-point for the study 

 of the oyster. It was impossible to catch and study in continuous 

 development the microscopic, embryonic oyster scattered through- 

 out the Chesapeake Bay; but once we could hatch out the oyster 

 in the laboratory, and study its growth and life conditions, a very 

 important step forward would be made. It was proved that we 



I Address by Dr. H. Newell Martin, professor of biology, at the fifteenth 

 anniversary of the Johns Hopkins University, Feb. 23, )891. 



could get young oysters in incalculable numbers at a very small 

 cost; and, far more important, an opportunity to investigate the 

 life conditions of the young oyster would be given. To carry on 

 the growth of the artificially hatched young oysters, a steady 

 supply of fresh sea-water was needed. This the university pro- 

 vided the next year by the purchase of a small steam-engine and 

 a complete outfit for the breeding of young oysters on a small 

 scale. The privations endured by the morphologists of the bio- 

 logical laboratory in the endeavor to find out the whole life-his- 

 tory of the Chesapeake oyster at every stage of its growth, to find 

 its enemies, and how to meet and beat them, were not inconsider- 

 able. Being cast adrift on a barge on the bay during a storm was 

 but one of then- anxieties. 



The seaside laboratory of the Johns Hopkins University main- 

 tained its station at Crisfleld until early in July; then the men 

 had to leave. Biologists are human, and the Crisfield mosquito 

 is inhuman ; and some rather extravagant persons assert, that, 

 should the present state of affairs continue, the average Crisfield 

 oyster will soon be no larger than the average Crisfield mosquito. 

 But before the party left, they had established the two leading 

 facts, — that the eggs of the Maryland oyster are thrown out into 

 the bay to be fertilized at random, and that it was possible to fer- 

 tilize and hatch thousands of them in a watch-glass ; in fact, that 

 in a few buckets of sea-water one could hatch enough eggs to sup- 

 ply spat for the whole Chesapeake Bay. 



And what does that bay mean ? Honestly and intelligently 

 managed, it means untold wealth for our State. The people of 

 Maryland have a richer heritage than the coal-fields of Pennsyl- 

 vania or the silver mountains of Colorado. The two latter may, 

 they must, become exhausted as time goes on; while, with some 

 little wise and faithful care, the Chesapeake will bring, year after 

 year, millions of dollars to Maryland citizens. This may seem an 

 extravagant statement; but, if you will consider the facts, you 

 wDl find that it is but sober truth. 



Have you any notion of the wealth that is carried down to the 

 Chesapeake by the rivers that flow into it? You have seen our 

 oyster soiled by black mud, which surrounds its shells. Did you 

 ever think what that mud meant ? It is the nesting-place of the 

 food of the oyster. This food consists of tiny plants, which find 

 nourishment in the mud, and multiply with inconceivable rapid~ 

 ity. 



How the oyster feeds may seem a problem. Fixed to ^n an- 

 chorage, how does it get its food ? As seen on the ' ' raw box,"' 

 which is always " now open," the oyster is shut as close as a 

 clam; but in its native habitat its shells are always a little apart, 

 and microscopic waving hairs set up currents which carry the 

 food-plants to its mouth, where they are ingulfed and afterwards 

 digested. The oyster feeds every hour, every minute, of the day, 

 and turns material otherwise unavailable into one of the best of 

 human foods. Scientific work by the State and national surveys 

 has proved that nearly three-quarters of the bay are covered by 

 such mud, and are fitted to nourish oysters, though only a small 

 part is oyster-bed. Why? The embryo sinks in the mud, and is 

 smothered. To thrive, it needs merely some stones or other solid 

 objects to serve as a resting place. 



It might seem that an increase of oysters would exhaust this 

 supply of mud food, as the cattle of our Western ranges exhaust 

 the bunch-grass; but the supply is inexhaustible. This mud 

 swarms with the germs of little plants, which swim through the 

 water, and are taken in by the oyster. It is impossible to exhaust 

 the food-supply of the oyster ; and you do not have to provide it, 

 like the Kansas farmer, who has to grow com and turn it into 

 pork. 



We have, then, two questions confronting us, — the preservation 

 of our existing oyster-beds, and the making of new ones. For 



