SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY. 
make a more dangerous approach to extermination. A rough compari- 
son may be drawn between the shelling and the timber industries. ‘At 
the commencement, only the finest trees are cut. But as prices rise 
and facilities. for transport improve, the timber-getter, if unchecked, 
would at last take every tree, and, planting nothing, would complete 
the destruction of the forest. In both industries continuity can only 
be assured by control. The point to be decided is whether it would not 
be in the interests of the State to close the beds before the poverty line 
is reached on the descent, and to keep them closed after the same line 
is touched on the recovery. The details of how, when, and where action 
is to be taken should be regulated by a fuller knowledge of reproduction 
and life history of the pearl-oyster than is yet available. In the 
future—but not in the life of the present generation—I anticipate that 
various breeds of pearl shell will be regularly cultivated. Then, but 
not till then, periodical arrest of work for the recuperation of exhausted 
beds will be unnecessary.” 
MARINE BIOLOGY IGNORED. 
The lack of knowledge in regard to the pearl-shell industry was also 
commented upon by Professor Dakin, of whom inquiry was made. “So 
far as the Institute of Science and Industry is concerned,” he advised, 
“T should not advise it to make any suggestions until expert information 
is at hand. This can only be obtained by a scientific investigation.” 
The fact is that the study of Marine Biology has failed to arouse much 
interest in the Commonwealth. This one instance, however, illustrates 
how closely it is bound up with the practical application of science to 
fisheries. | Professor Dakin has frequently drawn attention to the 
importance of obtaining wider knowledge of the marine fauna of Aus- 
tralia, and in particular has emphasized the necessity of studying the 
pearl-oyster fisheries. In his presidential address to members of the 
Royal Society of Western Australia in 1918, he gave prominence to 
the question in the following statement:—“ The pearl-oyster fisheries 
of Australia are probably the largest and best equipped at the present 
time in the world. The value of pearls and pearl shell is by no means 
jaconsiderable, and the industry is without doubt a great asset to Aus- 
tralia. Now there is a great danger that fishing will be conducted 
without any scientific supervision until perhaps some serious trouble 
arises, such as, for example, has arisen in Ceylon. Then, of course, a 
scientific investigator will be called in. This, however, is more than 
shutting the stable door after the horse has gone. The first thing that 
a marine biologist would have to do, if called in, would be to make a 
study of the conditions under which pearl oysters had developed; you 
cannot call upon a biologist as you can upon a chemist or an engincer, 
for problems in natural history are often peculiarly local. Besides, 
there are very few marine biologists with any real knowledge of pearl- 
oyster beds. Would it not be well worth the expenditure, therefore, 
as a kind of insurance, to have our pearl-oyster banks studied in detail 
by scientists in conjunction with pearl fishers before there is any 
restriction in supply? We want to know something about the enemies 
of the oysters on the North-west Coast, the breeding season, the deposi- 
tion of spat, the cause of pearl formation, and the extent to which 
fishing is carried out.” 
454 
