94 REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



This is all the information we have from Mr. Atwood upon the subject. 

 What he says more has reference to fish of other genera and different 

 habits, without the least connection to show that what has been true 

 of them is also true of the species now being considered. 



In order that nothing having any bearing upon this subject should be 

 left out of the reckoning, let us see what Mr. Atwood says of the other 

 fishes included in his list of "changes," and inquire what are the 

 natural inferences to be drawn. 



After his remarks upon the scup, he states that the chub mackerel, 

 Scomber delcayi, disappeared long before a weir-trap or pound was 

 used in our Massachusetts waters. The common mackerel, too, " come 

 to us some years in great abundance ; in other years they are com- 

 paratively scarce." In 1840, shad appeared, and, not long after 1842, 

 " they then disappeared." 



Precisely the same line of reasoning is to be followed here that was 

 taken by Rimbaud in his Review of the Report of the English Commis- 

 sioners. Mr. Atwood has fallen into the error of "compounding under 

 the common name 'fish" 1 of all the vertebrate class taken by fisher- 

 men." Rimbaud shows that a classification is necessary, a "classifica- 

 tion founded not on anatomical characters, baton habits and localities." 



Rimbaud makes four divisions. For the purposes of this discussion 

 only two are necessary : 



1. Wandering fishes, the most of which are surface-fishes. - 



2. Bottom fishes. 



The difference chiefly to be borne in mind is this : That whereas the 

 wandering fishes appear on our coasts only when migrating, and then in 

 vast but uncertain troops, the '/latter are especially domestic, and dwell 

 and multiply on particular localities along the coast." 



According to such classification, the chub mackerel, the commou 

 mackerel, and the shad, belong to the first division, of which there is 

 no doubt they appear and disappear for no assignable cause. They 

 come, they are gone, is all that can be said about them. 



Not only do they change their ground one season after another, but 

 in a single week or day in a locality where they have abounded not one 

 can be found. 



Not so with the bottom fishes. They return to the same places year 

 after year, deposit their spawn, seek their feeding-grounds, and remain 

 during their seasons. The fishermen all understand this, and have their 

 bearings so that when once they have found a locality where they are 

 feeding, they may and they do return to the same place again, as con- 

 fident of finding the fish at any subsequent timeas they are that they shall 

 find the rocks near which they had been anchored. Did anybody ever 

 hear of a fisherman's fixing his bearings for a school of mackerel ; or, if 

 any ever did, did he do it more than once ? 



With regard to what Mr. Atwood says of the haddock, there seems to 

 be better ground for his analogy, but yet we are not sufficiently informed 

 of their habits, nor so advised of the real facts in the case as to deter- 

 mine how far it may logically be used in support of his views of the 

 sivbject. The fact, as he states it, is, that fishing with the trawl-line has 

 been in use since 1850, and that this species of fish has been increasing 

 year after year notwithstanding, until "they have increased in vast 

 numbers; so much so that they are too plenty for the fishermen or 

 dealers :" 021,953 pounds of cod and haddock were sold in Boston in a 

 single day. Mr. Atwood does not infer that the trawl-lines are the cause 

 of the increase, but says : " The present mode of fishing catches vast 

 quantities of a species of flat-fish, (Platcssa dentata,) which no doubt fed 



