142 TRANSACTIONS LIVERPOOL BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
Analytical results were submitted from the bacteriologist 
of the Fishmongers’ Company, and from Professor Delepine. 
It came out in the proceedings that the former analyses. were 
vitiated by the obsolete methods employed. Further, they 
were so obtained that they could not be compared with the 
results obtained in other laboratories, being too indefinite. 
These results could hardly be said to be strictly quantitative 
ones, since mussels coming from places that might be expected 
to be very differently polluted did not appear to be significantly 
different when analysed. Thus a series of analyses, made 
for the Fishmongers’ Company, of mussels before and after 
relaying at Overton in the Lune showed no appreciable differ- 
ence, a result that could not reasonably be expected. (These 
results, which I have seen, were marked “For private 
information only,’ but since they are being used in relation 
to public enquiries, and may affect a public industry, this 
direction may justly be ignored). 
(4) Bacteriological Standards. 
No standard was given by the Fishmongers’ Company, 
at least, none was quoted in these proceedings. A standard 
suggested by Professor Delepine was, however, announced. 
It was suggested that mussels showing less than 1,000 B. cola 
per individual might be passed. I agree with this standard, 
since it has practically been that adopted in the work done 
for the Fisheries Committee. It is to be hoped that further 
Enquiries will lead to its general use—with necessary and 
obvious limitations. 
Limitations of a Bacteriological Standard. 
Let 1,000 B. cola be the standard, that is, mussels giving 
higher results than this are to be condemned, or suspected 
of undesirable contamination likely to be prejudicial to the 
public health. Suppose that mussels contain on the average, 
1,010 B. coli each, are they to be condemned? If so, what _ 
