108 THE ASIATIC FUE-SEAL ISLANDS. 



not only that the bulk of each yearly class should change their habits in the same 

 way, but also that Hie causes should continue long enough to allow the change to be 

 transmitted to the oftspiing through an unknown number of generations. This is 

 particularly true where, as in the present case, the disturbing causes mainly affect 

 the male sex. 



The first detailed description of the habits of the northern fur seal, after Steller's 

 account, is, as I have shown (p. 84), by Veniaminof in 1839. The next by Bryant 

 (1870) and Elliott (1874). No change of habits is alleged up to that time. In fact, 

 these changes are supposed to have taken place during the last five or ten years. 



The theoretical considerations presented above have not been submitted with any 

 intention of overriding by a priori reasoning any statement of alleged facts, though 

 it is believed that its soundness is unassailable. It is only my intention to show the 

 utter improbabiHty of any change of habits within the short period in which man has 

 interfered with the fur seal in order to demand strong proof in support of the alleged 

 changes. In view of that improbability we can not accept a change of habit as the 

 explanation of certain phenomena unless demonstrated beyond poradventiire, or no 

 other reasonable explanation can be fnrnished. Much less can we be expected to admit 

 such changes simply upon hearsay evidence or speculations of a general nature. 



Now, for the alleged changes in so far as they have had reference to the habits of 

 the Commander Islands seals. 



The decrease in the number of killable seals on the rookeries has been attributed 

 to their having been driven off' to seek other haunts. It is alleged that they are 

 staying at sea and that they are forming rookeries on the Kamchatkan coast. 



The evidence in support of these conditions are of the most indefinite kind. 

 On a couple of occasions fur seals are believed to have hauled out at certain uninhabited 

 rocks on the eastern coast of Kamchatka. In the first place, the accounts are so 

 devoid of details that it is impossible to attach much importance to them. In the 

 second place, granting that fur seals do haul up there occasionally, what scintilla of 

 proof is there that they have not done so always %^ As a matter of fact, I heard these 

 rumors of fur seals hauling out on the coast of Kamchatka during my first visit, in 

 1882-83, and I know positively that Captain Sandman contemplated a trip to go in 

 search of the alleged rookeries as far north as the island Karaginski. Nearly the 

 whole eastern coast of Kamchatka, for a distance of more than 400 miles, is almost 

 entirely uninhabited, and very seldom visited by man. 



The other evidence offered is the fact that lately the sealing schooners have been 

 found taking fur seals during the summer months off certain capes in Kamchatka, 

 notably Cape Shipunski. Here the same objection obtains. What proof is there that 

 seals might not always have been taken there in summer? Moreover, is it certain 

 that the seals taken there by the schooners represent the bulk of the " killables" of 

 the islands « On the contrary, it is probable that these locations of schooners indicate 

 the feeding grounds of the females, as hinted at in another chapter of this report. 

 Krashenninikof's statement that " none of them are to be seen [on the east coast of 

 Kamchatka] from the beginning of June to the end of August," only relates to the 

 immediate coast itself and not to the open sea, where pelagic sealers make their 

 catches. 



' They apparently did so occasionally more than 150 years ago, if Krashenninikof'a statement, 

 that "they seldom come ashore about Kamchatka," means anything. 



