162 THE FUR SEALS OF THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS. 
THE SEAL DIGESTS ITS FOOD IN THE WATER. 
For the absence of food in the stomachs of the seals we must find a simpler 
explanation, and this seems to be that they remain in the water to digest their food. 
If itis not fully digested when the animal reaches the islands on returning from the 
feeding grounds, it loiters offshore swimming about, sleeping, or playing until digestion 
is completed. 
This assumption also explains other things. For example, the band of idle seals 
hovering off the rookery fronts; the fact that the cows are not seen to come directly 
in from the sea; and the fact that pups killed in the water, sleeping and sporting in 
the same way, were found full of milk, while those killed on land were, as arule, empty. 
THE ABSURD THEORY OF INDISCRIMINATE NURSING. 
But not content with establishing the fact that the mother seals did not leave the 
rookeries while their pups were dependent upon them, the British commissioners went 
on to show that if they did go away and were killed the pups did not necessarily starve, 
because they could obtain nourishment from other cows. In short, it was contended 
that the female fur seals in contrast to all other animals, nursed their young in common. 
This theory was supported by a series of ostensibly minute but faulty observations, 
which gave an air of plausibility to it. 
FUR-SEAL MOTHER AND PUP. 
The fur-seal mother displays little affection for her own young, but she displays 
less for her neighbors’. When she wants her pup, she calls lustily for it, and, finding 
it, lies down and nurses it without further ceremony. The pup when satisfied goes 
off and does not seek its mother until it is again hungry. As the majority of the 
mothers are absent at sea, the majority of the pups are always hungry. They are 
willing and ready to flock about the calling cow, who has difficulty among so many in 
attracting the attention of her own pup. The savage treatment she accords these 
strange pups makes them keep at a safe distance, and is clear enough proof of her 
unwillingness to care for them. 
MISTAKEN OBSERVATIONS. 
The mistakes that have been made in this matter have resulted from a misunder- 
standing or a misinterpretation of very simple actions. When the cow lands, she is 
likely to be met at the shore by half a dozen hungry pups waiting for their mothers. 
They flock about her and she snaps and snarls at them, calling her pup in the intervals. 
In due time it responds and joins the crowd of expectant pups. The mother recognizes 
it for a brief instant by shaking her head and smelling over it. This is all the 
attention it receives. She at once sets out to find a suitable place in which to rest. 
She may travel back the full length of the rookery, taking up her place in one of the 
rear harems. The pups may all follow her for a short distance, but gradually give up 
and return to the water front, all but her own pup, which persists, and in the end is 
allowed to nurse. 
To omit from the observation the brief and simple recognition of the pup by the 
mother destroys its accuracy. This is exactly what the Canadian commissioner in 
his observations of 1892 did. He then tried to prove that a cow would nurse any 
pup if it was only persistent enough. His interpretation of an incident like the one 
cited above was that the pup which ultimately succeeded in nursing was a strange 
pup, whose persistency was finally rewarded: 
