Insects, etc., of Caledonia Creek. 97 



to project over the water, would be a simple method of contributing largely to 

 the fish-food of our ponds and streams. 



The disscussion of the above topics — the practicability and the desirability of 

 transplanting fish-food, has also suggested another to my mind, equally and 

 perhaps more important, which I beg leave to present for the consideration of 

 your board, viz. : 



THE PROPAGATION OF FISH-FOOD. 



The proposition to propagate crustaceans and insects for fish-culture must be 

 regarded as intimately connected with that of transplantation — perhaps as a 

 corollary of it. If transplantation be attempted to any great extent, then it 

 follows that the supply of food must be somewhat commensurate with its need. 

 Few localities in our State (perhaps none other than Caledonia) are so bounti- 

 fully provided by nature, that they could contribute, to any great extent, of their 

 surplus of animal life for the improvement of less favored waters. A single 

 planting from Caledonia creek to a Long Island trout stream would, in all 

 probability, add to the latter some forms not previously existing there, which 

 might be expected to perpetuate themselves ; while in a stream not abounding 

 in fish, and therefore presumably characterized by a scarcity of animal food, a 

 single planting would naturally be appropriated by the hungry occupants before 

 the several species could be established A stream destitute of fish, and equally 

 devoid of other life, would need the nursing of a term of years, or of several 

 bountiful plantings, in order to render it profitable for pisciculture. 



All these, and other like difficulties, would find their remedy, in a propaga- 

 tion offish-food, on such a scale, as seems to the writer within the easy limits 

 of practicability. The artificial propagation of fish, in its application to the 

 increase of the food-supply of our lakes and rivers, is of recent date, and 

 already your board are prepared to meet all demands made upon them for 

 stocking the waters of our State with fish appropriate to them — even our rivu- 

 lets, with the speckled trout. In view of what has already been accomplished, 

 it is not unreasonable to predict, that, in the event of these recommendations 

 meeting the approbation of your board, within a few years, cans of crustaceans 

 and insects will be the usual accompaniment of the cans of fishes dispatched 

 from the State Hatching-house, in response to such requests as, " send me five 

 thousand brook-trout and a hundred thousand shrimps " Should you raise the 

 question — " In our artificial fertilization of ova, are not our results the conse- 

 quence of aiding and improving upon nature ? " — my reply would be, true ; but 

 the ordinary laws of nature give us a prodigality of insect life, almost infinitely 

 in excess of fish fecundity, even as displayed in the enormous herring-shoals of 

 the North Atlantic. A fish deposits her spawn but once during the year; but 

 in the aphis, or plant-louse, in one year there may be twenty generations. 

 Latreille says that a female aphis produces usually about twenty-five young 

 each day ; and Reaumur proved by experiment, that a single aphis might be 

 the progenitor of 5,904,900,000 (nearly six billions) descendants during its 

 life. The Crustacea are, also, remarkably prolific : a naturalist has found 

 above twenty-one thousand eggs in a lobster, and Leeuwenhceck seems to com- 

 pute four millions in a crab. 



In view of such facts, an attempt to stimulate the fecundity of nature in the 

 production of her insect hosts, must seem a superfluous undertaking. Protec- 

 tion is all that would be needed. 



The propagation of food for fishes is already in practice, in the simple form 

 of placing over a fish pond the flesh of some animal, so arranged that its decom- 

 7 



