178 THE ASIATIC FUR-SEAL ISLANDS. 



The explanation is, of course, obvious. The yearlings of 1895, for some unknown 

 reason, did not turn up in the usual number, or, I should rather say, gradually 

 decreasing number due to the decimation of the pregnant mothers each year off Japan. 

 Having also shown that there is no good reason for believing that the birth rate was 

 abnormally small in 1894, caused by lack of fertilization in 1893, 1 think it is safe now 

 to conclude that overkilling on land had nothing whatever to do with the absence- 

 temporary absence— of the class of yearlings in 1895. 



It may be well, however, to speak in this connection of another theory of Barrett- 

 Hamilton's bearing upon the same subject and which at a first glance looks plausible 

 to the extent that one might suspect that "there may be something in it." I refer to 

 his insisting that the late serving of the females by the few bulls begets late pups and 

 consequently pups of less resistance and a resultant higher death rate of the yearlings. 

 Yet he says in another connection (p. 44): "One of the most striking things on the 

 seal islands is the great difference between the ages of the pups, and to the very last 

 day on which I was on the PriUlof Islands (October 22) there were with the large, fat 

 pups any number of quite small ones, which could certainly not have an equal chance 

 of surviving the winter as the larger ones * * *." Now, Mr. Barrett- Hamilton will 

 probably not insist that there were not enough bulls on the Pribilofs to serve "any 

 number" of the females present at the first heat! And if there are "any number" of 

 late pups on the Pribilofs which are not due to lack of bulls, why conjecture that the 

 late Maclc pups seen by me starved to death not later than the first week of September 

 are the results of late fertilization, due to an alleged lack of bulls, due again to an 

 alleged previous overkilling of bgichelors"? Of course, late fertilization would mean 

 late pups, and late pups probably means less resistance for them during the winter 

 migration, but it is clear from Barrett-Hamilton's own observation, quoted above, that 

 such is the normal condition, even where bulls are plentiful, and no anomaly due to 

 "overkilling." 



The alleged decrease of bachelors before 1893.— The decrease in the catch of 

 bachelors in 1891 does not prove anything with regard to the status of the breeding 

 herd. As Dr. Jordan has shown, it would be quite possible for the breeding herd to 

 be actually increasing while the catch of bachelors was decreasing. It must be 

 remembered that during the time of plenty the killing of the bachelors was practically 

 over by August 1, and that skins under 8 pounds were rejected. Kow suppose that, 

 for some reason or other, the time for killing was extended and the minimum weight 

 lowered to 6 pounds. It is obvious that in this way the catch could be materially 

 increased for a couple of years, but it is also clear, that if the average catch fairly 

 represented the capacity of the herd under the former arrangement the catch must 

 of necessity decline shortly after, if the breeding herd does not increase correspond- 

 ingly. It may yet continue to increase, but if the increase is not commensurate with 

 the extension of the conditions of the catch, the latter must decrease in spite of the 

 increase of the breeding herd until the catch reaches the level of the increase where 

 it again becomes stationary or slowly increasing. Now, that is precisely what took 

 place before and during 1890, and the result was the drop in 1891. But if 1892 had 

 not seen the beginning of the pelagic sealing in Asiatic waters, the catch would have 

 remained stationary at that level and shortly afterwards begun to increase, as the 

 breeding herd would have been unimpaired and consequently increasing. No serious 

 injury would have ensued. The company leasing the islands from having lowered the 



