416 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
a pitchfork,” with five or six prongs a foot long and a handle 5 or 6 feet in length 
(Tennessee). Massachusetts reports “a wire dredge.” 
Several speak of “grubs” and “grabs,” and of tongs “like a blacksmith’s, only 
longer” (New York); and a peculiar combination is described and sketched, in a 
paper from New York, as “ a rake with springs, which seize the clam.” Two Tennessee 
papers allude to other methods, one describing a straight rod with a sharp thin piece 
of iron on the end, which is “pushed into the crevice of the mussel,” the valves 
evidently then closing upon the iutruder with such force as to allow the shell to be 
drawn up thereby, and the other speaking of a “spike,” which may be used to a depth 
of 10 feet — probably the same process ; both of these are reported as available only 
in quite clear water, obviously. Another New York paper makes an interesting 
reference to the use of the “water telescope,” as a box with a glass in the bottom. 
The deep-water gathering is of course conducted with the aid of boats or skiffs, which 
are brought to the shore when filled; or in some cases, it would seem, the shells are 
opened and examined in the boat, though this is not positively stated. 
Question 19, as to the apparatus used in opening the shells for examination, received 
102 answers. Nearly all describe some form of knife, many referring to the common 
kinds byname, “case knife,” “pocket-knife,” “table-knife,” “jack-knife,” etc., or by 
describing it as “a short, stout knife,” or more frequently “a long knife,” “thiu-bladed 
knife,” etc. A Maryland paper specifies “an oyster-knife.” A hammer, a hatchet, a 
long-bladed dirk, and “anything with a point” are also mentioned, alone or in con- 
nection with a knife. A few describe the method, one or two speaking of cutting 
through at the hinge, one or two' of cutting the adductor muscles, whereupon the 
valves open. A paper from New York says : “ Cut the forward muscle (anterior 
adductor) and then pry open until the finger can be inserted.” 
It will at once be seen that the methods are the rudest and simplest, and involve 
the destruction of every mussel that is examined for pearls, whether yielding any or 
not. No instance is reported of any use or knowledge of the partially opening tools 
employed in Scotland and Germany. 
Question 20, as to the mode of extracting the pearls, when found, received 93 
answers. A large proportion of these are very general, merely saying “by haud, “ with 
the fingers,” etc.; but about one third give more or less description of the process. 
When the shell has been opened, the pearls, if loose and near the edge, may be readily 
seen, and sometimes even drop out. These are of course easily taken out with the 
thumb and finger, or, if small, with tweezers (Arkansas), or on the point of a knife 
(Tennessee). If more embedded in the mantle and gills, they are detected by feeling 
for them, passing or rubbing the thumb or finger along and around each valve and 
about the region of the hinge. The pearls may then be pressed or squeezed out “like 
the seed out of a cherry” (Tennessee); but if attached to the shell, must be removed 
with a pair of nippers (Iowa) or a hammer (Tennessee). Care is required in opening 
not to scratch or injure the pearl (Wisconsin). A few describe different methods; thus 
an Arkansas paper speaks of breaking shells, and a Florida paper tells of piling the 
mussels in a dry place to decay and finding the pearls in the emptied shells later. 
This method is evidently practicable only where little “pearl-hunting” is generally 
carried on, and where the pile of shells would not be liable to inspection and search 
by other parties than the original gatherers. 
Question 21, concerning the treatment of pearls when found, received definite 
answers in only 78 papers, which in some respects show considerable diversity of 
