of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 



145 



The statistics given in the above table bring out some very interesting 

 results. The cod is unduubtedly an omnivorous feeder, and certainly 

 makes use of a much more varied supply of food - material than is 

 recorded in this report. To the question, ' On what will a cod feed ' 

 the reply may be given, ' On anything, or almost anything.' The ques- 

 tions which we have to attempt to answer are, however, much more 

 restricted than this one. They may be summed up in the following 

 manner : — 



1. What forms the principal food of the cod'? 



2. Does the chief food vary in different districts? 



3. How far does the food vary in the same district at different seasons 1 



4. How far is a successful cod fishery in a given district dependent on 

 the supply of any particular food 1 



These and allied questions must receive a definite answer before any 

 good may be expected to be derived from legislative measures. For the 

 present it would be premature to attempt any final answer to these ques- 

 tions, but it is hoped that this report may form a step towards their solution. 



In the first place, let us glance over the column devoted to Echino- 

 derms. It will be seen that this group does not supply nearly so import- 

 ant a proportion of the cod's food as might have been expected, judging 

 from the frequency of many forms. The table gives detailed particulars of 

 the contents of over 260 stomachs, while the contents of many others have 

 been reported in a general way by several Fishery officers. Of the whole 

 number examined, only about 40 contained any animals belonging to the class 

 Ecliinodermata. Of 28 cods' stomachs examined at Berwick in January, 

 only 1 contained any Echinoderms. Of 40 which were examined from 

 the same district in February, only 5 contained any Echinoderm 

 remains. An examination of 12 stomachs from the Anstruther district in 

 March showed that there were no Echinoderms present. Of 27 examined 

 from the same district in April, 16 contained no Echinoderms, while the 

 contents of 10 others which are grouped together showed a good propor- 

 tion of brittle stars. Again, of 57 stomachs examined in the same district 

 during May and June, only 7 contained any Echinoderms. Possibly 

 even not so many, as 4 of these are grouped together, and may not all 

 have included representatives of this order. From the Lybster district 

 particulars are given of the contents of 38 stomachs, taken from fish 

 captured in January and February. Only 2 of these contained any 

 representative of the Echinoderms, and these only one specimen each. 

 From Wick we have only the particulars of the contents of 1 stomach, 

 and this contained 4 Echinoderms. This case is, however, of compara- 

 tively little value, in the absence of more complete information. We have 

 not particulars of the number of stomachs examined in the Girvan district, 

 but only 3 are recorded as containing Echinoderms. This group cannot, 

 therefore, judging from the present statistics, contribute largely to the 

 sustenance of the cod. The form of most frequent occurrence is undoubt- 

 edly Oiyhiothrix pentaphyllum. The other 3 species identified have not 

 been found to occur in considerable quantities. 



Amongst the Annelids, the sea mouse {Aphrodite) undoubtedly contri- 

 butes largely to the food supply of the cod. It occurs both frequently and 

 in considerable numbers. The present statistics seem, however, to show 

 that it is not taken throughout the year, and that it is only found in large 

 numbers in limited areas. 



It will be seen from Table II. that during January no sea mice were 

 found in the stomachs of the cod found in the Berwick district, while 

 during February a few contained sea mice. In the stomachs of the fish 

 landed at Anstruther in March, April, May, and June, sea mice were 



