256 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
case partly a visual response, called forth by the similar appearance of the red cotton 
and bits of beefsteak on which they were habitually fed. It was not by any means 
constant, for, in general, after the first few days, contact with neither color of cotton 
called forth any response whatever. 
After this result was reached, I dipped the pledgets of white cotton in the 
filtered juice of fresh beef and touched the body surfaces and bardlets with them in 
the same way as before. In all cases I got a typical “gustatory” reaction exactly 
the same as with the meat, and this reaction persisted after many trials with no 
diminution. The cotton was taken instantly into the mouth and tugged vigorously. 
No amount of training served to eradicate or to weaken this reflex. 
I next prepared a small bulb syringe, w itl i the delivery tube drawn out to a 
very fine point. This was filled with the water in which the fishes were and a fine 
jet directed against their bodies. They either paid no attention or were disturbed 
and swam away. I now substituted for the water in the syringe the juice of raw 
beef pressed out and strained. When a jet of this fluid was directed against the side 
of the body, the fish always instantly turned and tried to take the end of the syringe. 
The reaction was identical with that produced when a corresponding part of the body 
is touched with raw meat. 1 invariably got the reaction, both from the sides of the 
body as far back as the root of the tail fin and from the skin of the head and barblets. 
I also tested the fishes with bits of red brick held in forceps. The forceps 
seemed to frighten the fishes. They either paid no attention to the contact with the 
brick (when touched in such a way that they could not see the point of contact), or 
else the harsh contact seemed to frighten them. I then touched them on various 
parts of the body and the barblets with bits of brick which had been soaked in raw 
meat juice. In most cases they would turn and touch the brick with the lips or take 
it into the mouth, but often they seemed frightened and would swim away. I then 
gave them a few bits of meat with the forceps and found that they took it eagerly, 
being very hungry, but it had to be given more cautiously than with the wire, as 
they were afraid of the forceps if they saw them clearly. 
Next I dropped bits of brick which had been soaked in meat juice in front of the 
fishes as they lay under leaves with the barblets projecting beyond the edges of the 
leaves. In all such cases, upon touching the brick with a barblet, they seized the 
brick and bit at it viciously. Often they would return to it a second or third time 
and try to bite it. I dropped similar bits of brick which had not been soaked in 
meat juice in front of them in the same way, but they paid no attention to them, or 
in a few cases they would touch them with the barblets and then swim away again 
(“tactile” reaction). They never attempted to bite them. Clearly they taste the 
meat juice in the bricks when they are touched by a barblet, and the experiment 
when the body was touched by a similar brick held in forceps shows that they taste 
the juice by the body also. 
On one occasion 1 tested the fishes with pieces of cooked meat that had been 
long boiled so that nearly all of the extractives were drawn out. The experiments 
were conducted just like those with the raw meat, but the fishes gave by no means 
so clear reactions to it. Upon touching the sides of the body, the fishes usually paid 
no attention to the stimulus, treating it just as they did cotton. I then touched the 
barblets a few times, and to this they would generally react by turning and taking 
