?62 REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 
numbers, the addition of names in brackets (see list of names above), 
and corrections of a few typographical errors. These changes were made 
after comparison with the detailed account by Professor Kostvtscheff, 
which was received after this report had been prepared for the printer. 
Kosty tschefPs account,* a translation of part of which is given beyond, 
includes a discussion of the analyses of Payen, Konig, arid Almen as 
well as his own. The statements imply that his analyses were made by 
methods similar to those used by Almen, both following Hoppe-Seyler. 
In Table 21 the results are calculated into the forms used for this 
report. The figures for water-free substance represent the difference 
between the percentages of water and 100 per cent. Those for “ albu- 
minoids by difference” are found by subtracting the sum of the per- 
centages of fats and ash from that of water-free substances. I have 
added the percentages of water, extractive matters, gelatinous prin- 
ciples, albuminous principles, fat, and ash, in Table 21, and find the 
footings to be 100 per cent, in all cases but three. In the pike, No. l, 
it amounts to 99.90 per cent ; in the salmon, No. lit, to 98.90 per cent ; 
and in the Coregonus leucichthys , No. lxxiii, to 99.99 per cent. (In 
table [20] in Professor KostytschefFs article the ash in lxxiii is 13.17 
per cent., which would make a total of 99.-89 percent.) I infer that 
these variations from 100 per cent, are due simply to typographical 
errors. Those in Nos. L and lxxiii are so small that they may be left 
out of account. That of liy, though larger, amounts to only 1.1 per 
cent., hardly enough to make it necessary to discard the analysis. 
Almen estimated the amount of insoluble protein by difference; 
if the percentage of u albuminous matters ” in these analyses are 
estimated in the same way, as would appear from Kosty tschefFs 
statements, we should infer that direct determinations had been made 
of the water, extractive matters, gelatinous principles, fat,, and ash. 
The calculations in Table 20 are made on the supposition that the 
percentages of water, fats, and ash were directly determined. If this 
assumption be correct, the only cases in which this table is in error 
would be the three above mentioned, l, liy, and lxxiii, the only con- 
siderable error being that of 1.1 per cent, in the salmon, liy. I regret 
that 1 have no data for either verifying the assumptions or correcting 
the minor errors named. 
The portions of fish analyzed by Kostytscheff, when not otherwise 
stated, included only the flesh. The “balyk” (the Russian te rn for 
the flesh of fish dried in the sun), No. lxxiii, is said by Kostytscheff 
to be “ too dry ; the fresh balyk ought to contain at least 48 to 50 per 
cent, of water, with corresponding amounts of other constituent parts.” 
One of the specimens, No. lix, is that of liver of burbot, in which 
* The Chemical Composition of Fish Products, with some remarks on their nutritive 
value. By Prof. P. Kostytscheff, from the Russian “ Journal of Rural Economy and 
Forestry.’' vol. cxliv, part ii. The translation was furnished through the kindness 
of Prof. S. F. Baird, U. S. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries. 
