196 
Part III.— Ninth Annual Report 
stage of development, the minority having male reproductive organs at a 
somewhat similar stage. 
Loch-na-Keal, in my opinion, is undoubtedly the most promising of all 
the Mull lochs for oyster culture. My friend, M. Gustave Daste of 
Arcachon, informed me that he had examined this loch in 1889, and that 
he had formed a good impression as to its capabilities for oyster culture. 
The oysters which I dredged in this loch were obtained near the head of 
it ou the shingle and sand. I have seldom dredged at any place where 
there was such a wealth of large Serpulse and other tubicolous worms, and 
the great quantities of the common whelk, Littorina littorea, found on 
the gravel at near low-water mark, was a striking feature. Besides the 
occurrence of oysters at the head of the loch they are also got in the 
inside of Inchkenneth amongst the rocks, which are separated from 
one another by sandy and muddy stretches. Here, it is said, they can 
be lifted in clear weather by raking, but on my visit this was not found 
practicable, as the weather was not so calm as one requires for raking 
operations. The oysters obtained were 4J to 3^ inches in diameter, and 
they ranged from nearly ripe forms to the stage where it is impossible to 
discern whether the reproductive organs will develop at next spatting 
period spermatozoa or ova. 
Loch Harport is one of the Skye lochs in which oysters are said to 
have been found in large quantity, but after repeated hauls of the dredge 
I only succeeded in landing a single oyster. Plenty of dead valves were 
obtained, some of which were attached to pieces of brick and some to 
stones. These were got from a muddy bottom with an admixture of 
shingle, but before each dredgeful was hauled on board the dredge was 
filled with sea-weed, of which there seemed to be a most prolific growth 
on the bottom. The oyster got was small, 2 J inches in diameter, imma- 
ture, and very thin. 
Loch Greshornish, for which an oyster order was once granted to Mr 
Jiobertson of Greshornish, but was subsequently withdrawn, furnished a 
few very small and poor oysters. It is said that oysters were formerly 
plentiful about midway between Edinbane and Greshornish House, but 
very few can now be got on the same ground. The oysters were 2 
inches in diameter and were immature, the sexual products as such being 
quite indistinguishable. The stunted nature of the oysters, the black coat- 
ing of the shell, and the poverty of the ground, do not lead one to form 
a high o[)inion of the capabilities of the loch as an oyster-producing or 
oyster-fattening loch. 
Lochs Greshornish and Moidart do not total either such a large number 
of genera or of species of lower invertebrates as in the above-mentioned 
lochs, while the genera and species of Loch Greshornish exceed those of 
Loch Moidart as actually noted. It has to be noted that they were 
individually fewer in number, and also that the luxuriant growth of 
algse in the latter loch prevented the obtaining of such a fair sample of 
the inorganic material of the bottom, as was the case in Loch Greshornish. 
In the latter loch the bottom was peaty mud, and the poverty of animal 
Hfe struck me most forcibly. Loch Greshornish supplied 31 per cent, of 
the genera and 17 per cent, of the species — ^Foraminifera and Ostracoda — 
obtained, while the genera and species in Loch Moidart were each 14 per 
cent, of the total genera and species. Loch Moidart, as might be expected 
from the algous growth, was rich in Copepods, nine genera and fourteen 
species being obtained there, whereas in Loch Ryan eight genera and ten 
species only were included in the bottom material subjected to examina- 
tion by Mr Scott, and in Loch-na-Keal seven genera and nine species of 
Copepods occurred along with the Foraminifera and Ostracoda previously 
detailed in the lists. 
»- 
