1G6 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 



herring, mullet, base, pinacks, dinners, perch, eels." In another par- 

 agraph, we are told, "much salmon some haue found vp the Riuers, 

 as they haue passed." Smith claims for the cod that "each hundred 

 is as good as two or three hundred in the New-found Land. So halfe 

 the labor in hooking, splitting, and turning, is saued." He, in short, 

 takes a ver}^ practical view of the subject, and has quaintly expressed 

 it. "And is it not pretty sport," says he, "to pvll vp two pence, six 

 pence, and twelue pence, as fast as 5^ou can hale cS; veare a line? He 

 is a ver}?^ bad tisher, cannot kill in one day with his hooke & line, one, 

 two, or three hundred cods: which dressed & dryed, if they be sould 

 there for ten shillings the hundred, though in England thej will giue 

 more than twentie; may not both the seruant, the master, & marchant, 

 be 'well content with this gaine? " 



Doubtless such a report had some influence in determining the trend 

 of immigration into Massachusetts, and one of the newcomers, "a 

 reverend Divine" (Francis Higginson), was ready to confirm Smith's 

 praise, and wrote, in 1630, "The abonndance of Sea-Fish are [sic] 

 almost beyond beleeuing, & sure I should scarce haue beleeued it 

 except I had scene it with mine owne E3^es." 



Numerous other chroniclers testified to the richness of the New Eng- 

 land seas and gave lists of the fishes. The most length}'^ of the lists 

 is that in "An Account of two voyages to New England" by "John 

 Josselyn Gent.," published in 1675; this includes sixty-five names, of 

 which fort3'-six are those of what we would now call fishes. This list, 

 which is simply a nominal one, supplements slight descriptive notices 

 of eight others which precede it. 



It would scarcely repay us, on the present occasion, at least, to give 

 further attention to such lists, but the common names introduced by 

 the early settlers furnish an interesting theme for consideration. 



IL 



The known fishes of England arc few, and the emigrants knew few 

 of them even, and knew those few very imperfectly. When the ear- 

 liest of those emigrants lived, naturalists even had no idea of the 

 diversity of animal life or the facts of geographical distribution. For 

 instance, John Ray, the best naturalist of his age, who flourished in 

 the last quarter of the same century, thought that there were only 

 "near 600" fishes in the whole world! Naturally, the common people 

 were unprepared to appreciate the diversity of the new life which they 

 were to see. 



The immigrants were astonished at the abundance of the fishes about 

 their new home. To these numerous fishes they transferred names of 

 English species with which they were more or less familiar. On 

 account of the greater number of species, or at least of genera, com- 

 mon to the two countries, the emigrants from old England to New 



