144 
The da}' had been a bad one for dredging, and bnt a small 
number of dredgers had been at work, and they had come 
into port much earlier than usual, consequently the average 
and total number of oysters are below the usual figures. On 
the same day, in order to ascertain the number of young at- 
tached to the mature oysters that were taken off the beds, I 
had three samples, of a peck each, selected from different ves- 
sels entering the harbor, and the number of young on the 
shells counted. The vessels were of different sizes and from 
different localities. The results are shown in the table fol- 
lowing : 
TABLE II. 
Vessel. 
No. Bushels. 
|no of Younu 
j to the Peck. 
Bushel Aver- 
age. 
Localities from which obtained. 
j • > 
! 1st. 
l 
2d. 
3d. 
Sloop. 
i 13 
13 
72 
f The small proportion from Great 
Schooner . . 
30 
93 
125 
163 
508 
•j Rock, the large from Terrapin 
/ Sands. 
Buckeye .... 
15 
33 
132 
1 Deep Water Rock, Kedge’s Sts. 
Sloop 
23 
73 
88 
322 
i Paul’s Rock. 
Schooner 
90 
76 
78 | 
308 
Great Rock. 
Schooner 
65 
32 
67 
192 
| 
Schooner 
80 
55- 
89- 
57-40 
2211 
Great Rock and Thoroughfare. 
Buckeye .... 
10 
1 
4 
Paul’s Rock (Sands). 
Buckeye . . . . 
25 
49 

196 
Great Rock (northern part). 
Schooner 
50 
64 
39 
23 
168 
Great Rock. 
Schooner 
150 
67 
35 
205 
California Rock. 
Total 
| 
2228 
Average 202 per bushel. 
The total number of bushels brought into Crisfield, as 
seen by table number one, amounted in one day to 2408, and 
estimating the number of oysters to a bushel to be between 
150 or 200, we have for the results of one day’s fishing from 
361,200 to 481,600 oysters, and about 486,000 young. Dur- 
ing the progress of the work in the Sounds, there were twenty- 
four counts made of the dredgers in sight from the vessel. 
In order that some idea may be formed of the number of oys- 
ters taken by these dredgers, an estimate has been made, based 
* 
