336 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
H. J. Rice on “ Salt as an agent for the destruction of the fish fungus ” in the thir- 
teenth report. Mather went on to say that Professor Rice records that in 1877 he 
was studying the embryology of the smelt and found the eggs in masses in the hatch- 
ing jars and covered with fungus, but not until 1884 did he have a chance to try 
the effect of salt on killing this Saprolegnia. The eggs were upon blades of sedge, 
or water grass, after the manner employed by Charles G. Atkins some years before, 
which “ prevents to a great extent, if not entirely, the massing together of the eggs, 
since the rough surface of the blades allows only a single layer, at most, to adhere to 
the surface.” Still there was much fungus present. The salt killed the fungus and 
“only about 5 per cent of the whole number failed to hatch.” Mather said: 
This is a much better percentage than I can show to-day, and I do not know of any other 
fishculturist who has hatched this fish within the past five years. Professor Rice did not do the 
hatching but merely studied the development of the embryos and took the statements of others 
regarding the percentage; and the latter need salt, also. 
Mather then referred to his paper of 1885, entitled “Protecting and hatching 
the smelt,” which has been drawn upon in considerable detail in the paper. Another 
of Mather’s papers was mentioned by him. It was published in the fifteenth annual 
report of the American Fisheries Society under the title of “ Smelt hatching.” The 
paper merely recorded efforts to induce the spawn to adhere to different substances 
and to vary the flow of water and the amount of light. 
The paper was discussed by Frank N. Clark, Mr. Bissel, Dr. R. O. Sweeny, and 
Mather himself. Mather said that some eggs had been sent to Clark with the cau- 
tion that they should not be thrown away “no matter how bad they looked on the 
outside, how much fungus there might be there, nor how foul an odor might arise 
from them.” Clark said that he found the eggs in just the condition that Mather 
predicted, and that about 15 to 20 per cent of them were good. Mather said that 
he (Mather) could hatch 40 to 50 per cent in their jars. Continuing his review, 
Mather said: 
Mr. Bissel raised the question of light, and said “If the light affects the eggs of the smelt, 
would not the light affect them in their natural condition in a small stream?” Today I can only 
answer this very sensible question by saying that sunlight will kill our eggs in the jars, and in this 
year of our Lord, 1894, I have seen smelt eggs hatch on stones in a rapid stream with not over two 
inches of water over them, and in the brightest of sunshine. This is one of the problems that we 
have not solved. 
Mather went on to say that in his paper before the society in 1887, on “Work at 
Cold Spring Harbor,” he stated that he had planted fry of smelt representing about 
50 per cent of the eggs taken. He stated that until 1893 the fish had been stripped 
and the eggs impregnated by hand, but it was found that by holding the smelt in 
the hatching troughs until ripe many females spawned in the troughs and also that the 
percentage of impregnation was very high and that they hatched well. So in 1894 
all the eggs were gathered from the troughs, passed through wire screens to separate 
them, and then put in the jars. At intervals of two or three days, or whenever the eggs 
seemed inclined to gather in bunches, the operation was repeated, gently forcing the 
eggs through the screens with the fingers, and after a few such screenings the “foot” 
seemed to be destroyed. 
