COMMON FISHES OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER 
171 
Stringham examined the stomachs of 163 examples (118 in 1915 and 45 in 1916) 
at ail dates of collection. Most of them were empty and none had more than an 
insignificant amount of food. The records for those containing any sort of materials 
follow: 
Table 2 
Date 
Locality 
Stomach contents 
1915 
Canton, Mo 
4 examples containing traces of food, kind not determined. 
1 example, matter in alimentary canal not determined. 
Do. 
3 examples contained particles of matter, probably fragments of vegetation. 
Several out of 36 sepcimens contained fragments, probably vegetation and insects. 1 con- 
tained the remains of a lady beetle; 1 a little piece of wood and unrecognizable insect debris; 
1 plant remains and unrecognizable dfibris. 
2 contained fragments of food. 
1 contained minute food remains. 
2 contained remains in duodenum, including insect remains. 
1 contained Hexagenia May-fly nymph in stomach. 
1 contained particles of insect remains. 
] contained particles of Anisopteran dragon-fly nymph and plant remains in duodenum. 
1 contained particles of plant remains in stomach. 
1 contained particles of plant remains in duodenum. 
May 15 
May 27 
Keokuk, Iowa 
May 29 
May 31 
do 
June 5 
do 
June 6 1 
do 
1916 
May 23 
June 21 
June 24 
Do. 2 
> Examination continued to July 12, with all stomachs found empty'. 2 No examinations after June 25. 
The records are significant. Of 163 examined, 105 were empty, if not more 
(record not complete for 36 specimens of May 31); 5, and a few of May 31, contained 
small quantities of food — recognizable insect remains; 6 had particles of plant mate- 
rials; 1 had a piece of wood and unrecognizable debris; and one had plant hairs and 
unrecognizable d6bris. It may be inferred that the fish are not feeding when at 
Keokuk. It is known that fish, when under conditions where feeding is not a normal 
habit, do not altogether lose the instinct of snapping at objects in the water, and so 
may sometimes take into the alimentary canal living or dead material. The food 
records suggest a strongly anadromous habit for the Ohio shad. Clearly the life 
history and migrations of the fish offer a nice subject for study. 
CONCLUSIONS 
The Ohio shad, a fish not utilized at present but of great intr ins ic value as a 
food, is strongly anadromous in habit. It visits Keokuk in May, June, and early 
July while in upstream migration to spawning grounds, but is stopped by the dam, 
save for a very few that may pass through the lock. The extent to which they 
formerly ascended beyond Keokuk is not known and may never be known. Appar- 
ently, it is not normally feeding when at Keokuk. 
American eel. Anguilla rostrata Le Sueur 
The eel, of course, is unique among our fresh-water fishes in spawning only in 
the sea. While not an anadromous fish, but the reverse, a catadromous species, 
there can be no argument as to the possibility of its continued existence above an 
impassable barrier. Our only question would be, first, whether the barrier is impass- 
able for eels, and, second, whether the exclusion of the eel from the upper part of the 
basin is of any consequence. 
As to the first question, the eel is so powerful and so rapid in movement, such an 
inveterate prowler, and so able to pass over places that are virtually closed to other 
83445—30 3 
