with the sharp limitations provided by climatic and geographical conditions. Moreover, the relative amount of competition for the available food is unknown, although we do know that the commercial fishes are probably but a small part of the population to be supported by the sea. And even if the abundance of the species were a gauge to its resistance to a strain-which it does not necessarily have to be-there is thus far no method of accurately ascertaining the abundance of any one species of fish or of all together save within limited areas of the ocean. It seems, indeed, that there is no method of measuring the amount of fishing a species will stand save by submitting it to a strain.

The only hint which can be obtained concerning the limits of the fisheries in California come from a comparison of the productive area with that of the North Sea, where the bottom fisheries show decline. It is, however, very hard to define the productive area, save by the width of the continental shelf. The area within the one hundred fathom line in the North Sea is approximately 130,000 squares miles (nautical), while off the coast of California it is about 7,500 square miles. In the former case this area is about 300 miles wide and 450 long, but in California the average width is but 8.4 miles, much of this rocky or unsuitable for bottom fishes. In this connection it must be recollected that, as cited above, Gran and other authorities regard the presence of coastal water with land drainage in it as essential to the production of abundant planktonic life. Such water is abundant off the coast of Europe, but the California coast is more arid in nature, especially the southern portion. However, the great fisheries of California are of the “pelagic" type, regarding which such speculation may be limited in value. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to say, when all is taken into consideration, that these fisheries are far more limited in proportion to length of coast line than is the case in the North Sea, and hence much more susceptible to overfishing.

As has been said above, the possibility and actuality of overfishing have been definitely proved, yet it seems true that there is no arbitrary limit which can be economically assigned to any fishery. It would be indeed sheer waste to impose a limit below what might be safely taken and the alternative is plain, to allow the imposition of all the strain the species will carry. It is, as a matter of fact, the only politically practical course of action, at the same time being the correct one from the scientific standpoint.

But it must not be forgotten that the acceptance of such a fact implies the serious duty of close observation and prompt action, in case of overfishing, by the government in control. That is

clearly recognized by the fishery authorities of California and is the mainspring of their actions.

These things having been recognized as true, it followed that a careful survey of measures necessary for such observations was in order, and this has been made in so far as possible. For such purposes the great mass of literature published by the various countries around the North Sea was available, especially that issued by the "Conseil Permanent International pour l'Exploration de la Mer," or inspired by it. It soon became evident that it was impossible for the State of California to undertake the many lines of general inquiry into the varying conditions of the sea and its life which had been investigated more or less by these European countries. That would have been tunnelling the mountain by removing it in its entirety. It was necessary for the state to limit its efforts to those fields which had been shown to bear directly on the ascertainment of the condition of the fisheries; namely, the measurement of the variance in abundance of the fishes in the sea, the effects of fishing upon it and the biological criteria of overfishing. A careful perusal of much of the hydrographic and planktonic work demonstrated its remoteness from the work in hand despite its undoubtedly great ultimate value, and showed that most of the immediate questions could be solved to the required degree without their aid. There were necessary certain biological studies upon the fishes themselves, but above all a statistical study of the fisheries and the fish.

This method of approach, as Johan Hjort has most appropriately said of a certain phase of it, is regarding the study of the fisheries in a similar light to the study of the vital statistics of mankind. It involves primarily the taking of what amounts to a comparative census from year to year in order to test the relative abundance-not the actual abundance-of fish; then to determine whether such great fluctuations as appear are due to natural causes or to overfishing.

For this program, the legislature of the state has passed laws taxing the fisheries industries fifty cents per ton of raw fish used for canning, and has definitely specified the duty of the agents of the state. It is unnecessary to give the details of these laws, but something as to their operation will be of use.

Every commercial transaction involving the first sale of fish is accompanied by the giving of a receipt by the buyer upon a form issued by the fish and game commission and of this receipt one copy is returned to the commission and another kept by the dealer. There are, therefore, actual records of all fish taken for profit, according to the boat and to the day. This unique system has been most successful in its operation for the last three years, avoiding

what we now know were widely erroneous estimates in statistics; while the fresh fish dealer has frequently for the first time a record of his own dealings. The results obtained have continuity, and are in such detail that market conditions, changes in apparatus or fishing fleets, etc., may be readily discounted. So every commercial fishing boat becomes in effect a means of testing the abundance of fish, and it is possible to segregate the effects of scarcity of fish from the effects of those economic changes which alter the total yield. This appears the necessary procedure from the experience of investigators in the North Sea, and is preferable to the limited experimental fishing which is possible. We do, in fact, feel confident that we will have a relatively accurate and sensitive record of the variations in abundance of fish in the ocean, when studied in connection with biological facts.

This scientific collection of statistics is the starting point and the foundation for further investigations. The interpretation of the evidence drawn therefrom is the duty of the biologists engaged by the commission; for the great fluctuations in abundance of fish which may be shown must be analyzed and their true nature discovered. Such natural fluctuations are very likely to be mistaken for depletion from overfishing; or, perhaps, if of opposite trend, as a contradiction of any theory of overfishing when they are in truth, as we have said, due to natural causes, and depletion may exist despite the temporary obliteration of the evidence. There must, as a consequence, be developed and utilized those biological criteria which distinguish depletion due to excessive fishing. The biological knowledge necessary for the use and formulation of such criteria includes among other things the determination of age, the discovery of migrations and in so far as possible the correlation of abundance with natural physical conditions. One may justifiably call it ecology on a vast scale. Granted a fair knowledge of these criteria, it is not exceeding the reasonable to hope that the fishery authorities will be able to give warning when depletion is occurring and, indeed, unless a degree of confidence can be placed in the competency of the work, the exploitation of the fisheries should not be allowed to proceed freely, nor can freedom be had from the constant fear of ruthless exploitation.

There is, in addition, a need on the part of legislators for competent data upon which measures of regulation may be based. The imposition of arbitrary and reckless restrictions should be prevented by the acquisition of proper knowledge as soon as possible. At present many of our fishery laws are untenable from a scientific standpoint, save in so far as they actually operate to reduce the take. And even if it be said that legislatures will not take proper action, it would be a defeatist's attitude to take to

fail to provide them proper knowledge upon which they might take action. There are a great many legislators who will act along the line of their best knowledge, and more who will respond to intelligent pressure on the part of the public.

In thus accepting conservation as a major policy because of its dependence upon the legal powers of the state, the program adopted in California has not been oblivious of the fact that the work for that purpose has a very definite bearing upon some of the greatest problems of exploitation. As an example, the abundance of fish is subject to great natural fluctuations beyond the control of man. The return from the fisheries vary greatly from day to day, from season to season, and from year to year. The resultant waste is an exaggerated case of the same kind which the electrical engineer meets when he is faced with the "peak load" or maximum use of electricity during a short period each day. Just as apparatus must be available to carry this "peak load," so must the fish canners or dealers maintain the machinery and organization for brief periods of maximum supply and longer ones of scarcity as well as variations in demand which are disconcerting both to the dealers and consumers. The meat packers, their rivals, need not do this. The understanding of these fluctuations so that regularly recurring ones may be expected, others foretold and provision made to meet or avoid them, is without doubt one of the most neglected functions of government scientists. The proper study of depletion necessitates just such an understanding of these changes as will serve the industry.

It must be acknowledged that in adopting such a program, installing such a system of statistics and founding a California state fisheries laboratory at San Pedro to care for the biological science of the subject, the state of California is experimenting. It still remains to be seen whether popular support will be rendered the project, either on the part of scientific men or the general public. The field seems to be one in which the scientist, particularly the biologist, should welcome a chance to show how his work can be applied to the needs of humanity; but, aside from this, basic principles of animal life and behavior are really involved to such an extent as to satisfy the most academic of men and are attacked with the aid of vast masses of material unobtainable through any other source than the commercial fisheries. On the part of the public, it would seem that only a failure to understand or lack of faith in the competency of the work could lead to lack of support.

It is sincerely to be hoped that this effort to approach the problems of conservation upon a rational and well-balanced basis will meet with the reception its sincerity deserves.

DE ANOPLURIS

By Professor G. F. FERRIS

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

THE

HE distinguished professor had attained some portion of his distinction by reason of years of work spent upon a small and little studied group of insects. His wife and small daughter chanced into his laboratory one day and discovered a student examining one of these insects through a microscope. The small daughter demanded a look and then came the inevitable question, "What is that?"

"That," said the unsophisticated student, "is a louse."

There was a moment of pained silence and then came the gentle but unmistakable rebuke from the professor's wife, "We always call them Anoplura."

Now these very insects are the subject of my present discourse and lest I again offend the delicate sensibilities of any one I have disguised my intentions by a title to which not even the most fastidious should be able to take exception. To be sure it means the same thing as something else that might have been used, but after all there is something in the name by which a thing is called. Even the scratching soldier, from whom one would least expect any delicacy in such matters, conceals the identity of these insects. under the euphemistic titles of "seam squirrels" and "cooties." That the deference thus accorded them reduces in the slightest degree the frequency or the painfulness of their attentions may be doubted, but at least the victim is enabled thereby to retain a bit. more of the shreds of his self-respect.

In fact under the name of "cooties" these insects may qurte properly become a subject even of parlor conversation. The word carries a faintly humorous connotation. One may without risk of immediate social ostracism speak of the great wads of hair that girls wear over their ears as "cootie coops." True, such an expression might not be looked upon with favor in the most refined circles, but we need only reflect upon what would happen were the wording changed a bit to see what a concession has been gained for it to be used at all.

It is perhaps a fortunate thing that this has happened, for even entomologists, who should have put all squeamishness behind them, have been more or less reticent in speaking of these particular