engagements arising at the last moment. A congratulatory letter from Hon. William C. Redfield, formerly Secretary of Commerce, was read by Mr. R. L. Barney, director of the station.

This session concluded with an address by Hon. Harry E. Hull, M.C., under the title of "The Significance of the Station to Industries." He discussed the history of the pearl mussel industry, pointed to the service of science in directing measures of conservation and emphasized the national significance of the work of the station.

As the exercises of the morning stressed the industrial relations of the station, so those of the afternoon gave special emphasis to the scientific phases of its activities. The primary address of the afternoon session was by President Edward A. Birge, of the University of Wisconsin, and was entitled " Aquiculture and Science." President Birge congratulated the bureau on the completion of so admirable a building, which he welcomed "not merely for what it is, but even more on account of the promise for the future which is made by its establishment." He had found, he said, that the term "aquiculture" was regarded by some as a peculiarly technical or "high-brow " word though its twin word agriculture" was looked upon by no one as in any way extraordinary. He compared and contrasted the well-developed science of agriculture (cultivation of plants and animals upon land) with the unfamiliar and largely undeveloped science of aquiculture (cultivation of plants and animals in water). The following quotations from his address are significant.1

Now the lake is an organism in the same sense that the soil is one. The fish or the clam is not a thing which grows for itself-and for us-alone in a certain environment. It is an integral part of a complex life, a life regulated by chemical substances set free by its manifold operations. These substances stimulate one kind of growth or activity and check another one; and the utilizable crop of fish or of clam shells comes as only one expresThe quotations in this paper are by permission of the several speakers.

sion of this complex life, as a sort of by-product of all this intricate activity.

So much as this we know, and we know also that all assured progress in aquiculture depends on our knowledge of this complex life. We must see the problems of fisheries in terms of this life of the waters, just as we see the problem of any specific activity or product of the body in terms of the whole life of which it is an integral part. But we know next to nothing about this life of the waters. We have countless papers on isolated aspects or bits of aquatic life. But there is no knowledge and hardly an attempt to secure the knowledge of the life as a whole-as a "going concern, " if I may change my figure. Still less is there any body of knowledge which enables us to place the production of fish-that essential source of food for us-in its proper place in the operation of that "going concern.

... We must not be content with "conserv ing" our fisheries, though we admit with shame that we are not effecting even this beginning of our task. We too must aim to increase the product of the waters and we can do this only as aquiculture rests on a broad and firm foundation of organized knowledge of science.

We welcome, therefore, the Fairport Biological Laboratory not merely as a notable addition to the scientific resources of the country, but even more as embodying the promise of a new and advanced policy in dealing with the problems of aquiculture. I can express no higher wish for the laboratory and for the great interests served by it than that it may not only embody the promise but express the potency of that policy.

Professor Frank R. Lillie, representing the University of Chicago and the Marine Biological Laboratory of Woods Hole, Mass., having chosen for his theme "The Spirit of Cooperation in the Bureau of Fisheries" said in part:

The cooperation that you here propose with the industries on the one hand and with the universities through their biologists on the other is a fine program which should be to the advantage of both parties. The relations which both will enter into with the government through this Bureau are among those close personal relations with our too impersonal government which contribute to the feeling that we are one people with one set of interests and a mutual loyalty.

After recalling the spirit of the founder of

the Bureau of Fisheries, Professor Spencer Fullerton Baird, and the traditions that he established, he continued:

The universities are dedicated to the advancement of learning; the government naturally devotes itself to the promotion of the welfare of its citizens, but looks far ahead with the aid of science to avoid dangers and to create advantages for them. The disinterested pursuit of learning has so often led to great material gains that we have come to feel that all learning is worth while even from a material point of view. Pure and applied science, when compared, must exhibit angles of divergence, but these are not so broad as formerly, and the workers are cooperating more advantageously than ever before. There is an appreciation of the fact that the great material interests of mankind, the increase of health and the increase of wealth, depend to an increasing extent upon effective cooperation of pure and applied science. Neither can advance rapidly without the other. Together they will hasten the day of liberation from shackles of poverty and disease.

The Bureau of Fisheries bears the distinction of practising this cardinal principle of scientific progress from the day of its foundation. The dedication of this building is a reaffirmation of the strong belief and consistent practise of its wise founder.

Professor George Lefevre of the University of Missouri speaking on the subject "The Fisheries Biological Station in Relation to Universities," said in part as follows:

The history of the station thus far furnishes, among other things, a remarkable and unusual example of the carrying through to realization of a definite purpose, guided by a definite ideal and controlled by the scientific imagination. There has been no faltering on the way, no compromise of the ideal of service, until to-day we witness this inspiring fruition of a purpose consistently maintained and finally expressed in concrete form.

The aims and aspirations which the bureau had in mind for the Fairport Station were clearly expressed at the beginning . . in the following words: "This station is the first permanent freshwater biological laboratory established by the government, and it is intended to become, not only the leading laboratory in America for the study of fresh-water biology, but one of the most important biological stations in the world."

It was a broad-minded and comprehensive policy of the Bureau for uniting both scientific and economic interests for mutual assistance and inspiration, and one that received the strongest endorsement and encouragement, on the one hand, by the universities, especially those of the middle west, and on the other hand by the pearl button industry.

With singular and striking harmony, essential agreement and understanding, and with unusual clearness of vision into the future, a federal bureau, an important industry, and educational institutions have worked together with a single purpose, for a definite end, and for a common good. Is not such a cooperation a heartening thing, and does not the existence of this station here to-day refute the contention of those apostles of individualism who belittle cooperative effort and maintain that all real progress in science springs from the researches of the isolated, independent laboratory worker?

The station is, as has been pointed out by the bureau, quite analogous to the agricultural experiment station, and the service it can render to the development of the aquatic resources of the country is as important and fundamental as is that of the latter to the development of agricultural re

sources.

Professor C. C. Nutting brought greetings of the State University of Iowa and those of Leland Stanford Jr. University and its president emeritus, Dr. David Starr Jordan. Taking as his theme "The Biological Laboratory as an Aid to Pure Science," Professor Nutting discussed briefly the history of the Bureau of Fisheries, the ideals of Professor Baird and the relations existing in the past between the Bureau of Fisheries and the workers in the field of pure science. He concluded his address with the following question and its answers:

In answer to the question "How can the laboratory best serve as an aid to pure science?" I would say:

First. By proceeding in the future just as it has in the past; by laying a foundation of pure science by the work of the systematist and morphologist and then erecting a superstructure of applied science on this solid basis.

To illustrate just what I mean we have but to refer to the work on the fresh-water mussel. The

exploration of the more important mussel-bearing streams with a view to ascertaining the extent and number of the mussel beds-the source of supply-was done by men trained in the work of pure science. The material thus secured was carefully worked over, classified and described-the work of the systematist-which was embodied in an admirable report. Then Lefevre and Curtis undertook to work out the anatomy and embryology of the mussels of economic importance and to ascertain the species of fish best fitted to act as carriers of the mussel larvæ or glochidia. All of this was purely scientific work, and the results were embodied in a paper entitled "Reproduction and Artificial Propagation of the Fresh-water Mussels," to my mind an excellent piece of work from a purely scientific standpoint.

With this as a basis, the work of propagation of mussels, the infection of fish best suited to act as hosts to the glochidia and the proposing of laws regarding the mussel industry as a whole could be followed intelligently and effectively. And this, of course, is practical or "applied" zoology.

Second. This laboratory, being in operation through the year, in which it differs from most others in this country, studies of the life histories and ecology of fluviatile species can best be pursued here, and should, in my opinion, be distinctly encouraged. Graduate students from our colleges and universities could be detailed to do this work and thus contribute to pure science and at the same time lay the foundations for work of a distinctly economic bearing.

Third. Material secured here, such as protozoans, mussels, annelids and small crustaceans, could be sent to the biological laboratories of neighboring states and serve a valuable end in supplying such laboratories with many forms desired for class work in botany and zoology.

The raw material from which the scientists of the future must, in the main, be secured is found in the college students now in classes; and anything that aids in the preparation of these students for their future life work will ultimately be of prime importance not only to pure science but also to applied science and the welfare of mankind.

The conference on the morning of the 8th was presided over by Professor Stephen A. Forbes, professor of entomology, University of Illinois, and chief of the Natural History Survey of Illinois. The leading address, entitled "The Biological Resources of our In

land Waters " was presented by Professor James G. Needham, of Cornell University, who has epitomized his remarks in the following terms:

Fish culture is a branch of animal husbandry. Animal husbandry makes progress about in proportion as it gives attention to the fundamental needs of animals, which are three: (1) Food, (2) Protection, and (3) Fit conditions for reproduction. Fish culture (as now practised) is not like other lines of animal husbandry because it gives adequate attention to only the last of these three. Further progress will lie in studying: (1) One species at a time, (2) One problem at a time, and (3) in one environment at a time. That is my creed for fish culture and for fish management and it applies to fish forage organisms and to fish enemies as well.

Several zoologists and business men participated in the general discussion relating to the subject of the conference.

The entire occasion was made agreeable and memorable through the generous cooperation of the National Association of Button Manufacturers, who gave luncheons at Fairport on the 7th and 8th and a banquet in Muscatine on the night of the 7th. The banquet in Muscatine was the occasion for a considerable number of extemporaneous talks by the various delegates present, and by persons representing the Station, the Bureau and the Department.

R. E. COKER

BRYOZOA AS FOOD FOR OTHER ANIMALS

BRYOZOA are common animals of the coastwise waters everywhere, but they have not been listed with any frequency in the food of other animals-in fact such references are exceedingly rare. It is of some interest, therefore, that I am able to record the fact that certain aquatic birds, at least occasionally, include them in their bill of fare.

Dr. E. W. Nelson, chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey, has recently sent me for determination a small collection of bryozoa taken from the stomachs of the king eider (Somateria spectabilis) and the Pacific eider (Somateria v-nigra). These ducks were taken

at the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea, and the presumption is that the bryozoa are from the same locality. The food records are as follows:

Crisia sp., from stomachs of the king eider and of two Pacific eiders, St. Paul I., Alaska, January 29 and 30, 1918.

Menipea pribilofi Robertson, from stomach of king eider, St. George I., Alaska, January 30, 1918.

Myriozoum subgracile d'Orbigny, from stomach of king eider, St. George I., Alaska, May 3, 1917.

Cellepora surcularis Packard, from stomachs

of the Pacific eider, St. Paul I., Alaska, Mch. 21, 1915, and from the king eider, St. Paul I., Alaska, December 13, 1914 and January 29, 1918.

The amount of material in each case was small. The Crisia colonies were broken scraps and undeterminable as to species because of the lack of ovicells, though the general appearance was that of the common C. denticulata Lamarck. Myriozoum subgracile was represented by a branched portion 9 mm. long by 3 mm. thick, and Cellepora surcularis by irregular nodules 4 to 12 mm. in greatest diameter.

In all cases the animal matter seemed to have been digested out, leaving only the chitinous or calcareous matter of the ectocyst. Aside from the fact that they were considerably broken up, the specimens were in good condition for study, being as clean as though they had been treated with Javelle water. As Dr. Nelson suggests in a letter, it is probable that the ducks ate the Crisia and Menipea incidentally with other food, as these small branched species often grow attached to other organisms. The Myriozoum and Cellepora being nodular, may have been swallowed in lieu of pebbles.

In general the bryozoa must afford comparatively little nutriment, as the indigestible portion is so large, yet an animal pressed for food might be able to eke out an existence on themi.

Certain fishes that habitually browse around ledges, rocks, wharves, etc., and which have teeth adapted for cutting off and crushing the shells of their prey, are known to include Bryozoa in their diet with some regularity. Thus, the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus, and the blackfish or tautog, Tautoga onitis, feed on bryozoa along with other hardshelled organisms. (See Sumner, Osburn and Cole, "Biological Survey of the Waters of Woods Hole and Vicinity," Bull. U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, Vol. XXXI., Part 2, 1911.) The kingfish, Menticirrhus saxatilis, also has been known to feed on bryozoa. The writer has observed Bugula turrita Desor and Lepralia pallasiana Moll among the stomach contents of the puffer or swellfish, Spheroides maculatus. On one occasion a couple of young puffers were placed over night in a finger bowl containing some colonies of the Endoproct, Barentsia major Hincks, and the next morning it was discovered that the puffers had returned my kindness in keeping them alive a few hours longer by eating the heads off of the most of the Barentsia. I have seen a considerable mass of Bugula turrita taken from the stomach of a smooth dogfish,

Mustelus canis, and on several occasions have had referred to me for identification, nodules of Smittina trispinosa nitida Verrill and Schizoporella unicornis Johnston, from the stomachs of sharks. In one case the colony was half as large as my fist.

Bryozoa often grow in the greatest profusion, covering piles, rocks, shells, seaweed, etc., with growths so dense that they may entirely obscure the objects to which they are attached. At Woods Hole, Mass., during the summer of 1919, observations were made on Bugula turrita, growing on the rock wall of the Bureau of Fisheries dock, and on Lepralia pallasiana, encrusting the piles and timbers under the Coast Guard dock. Though in both cases the substratum was practically covered by the bryozoa and there were many other animals present, very few of the colonies showed injury of any sort. In nearly every case the colony form was perfect. It has been my experience in many years of dredging that

bryozoa colonies are usually complete, unless broken during dredging operations.

The bryozoan individual is always small, being rarely half as large as a pin head, but the colonial mass is often of sufficient size to render them desirable as food for numerous organisms, were it not for the fact that in nearly all cases they are well protected by heavy chitinous or calcareous walls. Only those animals provided with strong incisorial teeth or which can swallow the colony whole, can utilize them. Predaceous worms and other invertebrates probably are unable to feed on them to any extent, for in addition to its shell, the bryozoan is so highly irritable to tactile stimuli that it retracts into its shell with great rapidity at the slightest touch. Possibly some of the softer-bodied ctenostomes may serve as food for other invertebrates, but observations on this point are apparently lacking.

It should be added that the statoblasts of the freshwater bryozoa are often eaten by young fishes. During a survey of the fishes of Ohio, made during the past summer, statoblasts of Pectinatella and Plumatella were found among the stomach contents of the young of the large-mouth black bass, Micropterus salmoides, the crappie, Pomoxis annularis, the blue-gill sunfish, Lepomis pallidus and the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum. That these were picked up for food among other organisms of the same size there can be little doubt.

RAYMOND C. OSBURN

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

COPPER IN ANIMALS AND PLANTS IN a recent number of The Journal of Biological Chemistry (Vol. 44, pp. 99-112, Oct., 1920) W. C. Rose and M. Bodansky report the finding of copper in various marine organisms, including Coelenterates, Mollusca, Crustacea, Elasmobranchs, and Teleostomi. As some of the writer's work bears on this subject, the following note is offered.

In some recent investigations on the respiration of insects the writer incinerated both the blood and entire specimens of over 30

species of insects, representing the chief orders. The ash was analyzed for copper, on the supposition that the copper present serves as the nucleus of a respiratory pigment, namely hemocyanin. In every case the ash reacted positively for copper with several reagents. The amount of copper present in insect blood is nearly proportionate to that present in crayfish blood, which was used as a control.

In addition to insects and crayfish, other Arthropods were incinerated, including several species of plankton Crustacea, spiders, daddy long-legs, and centipeds. In all cases copper was found. As representatives of other phyla Volvox, Lumbricus, Ascaris, snails and slugs, and the blood of garter snakes and human blood were incinerated. Of these all but the vertebrate blood reacted positively to tests for copper. As a matter of fact, the snake blood also appeared to show a minute trace of copper, but as the reaction developed with only one of the reagents used, and then only after several hours under alcohol vapor, this particular experiment is inconclusive.

The foregoing results indicate that the element copper has a wider distribution in living organisms than heretofore accepted. Its function has been definitely determined only for mollusks and Crustacea, where it forms the nucleus of a respiratory protein. Its presence in other Arthropods is explained on the same basis, that is, in all Arthropods copper forms the nucleus of hemocyanin. This is all the more probable, since, as already stated, the amounts present in insect blood, spiders and centipeds are proportionate to the amounts present in the crayfish blood used as a control. In considering the source of the copper the writer analyzed the water of a creek from which most of his aquatic material was taken, and found distinct traces of the metal. The water as a source of copper is of importance to aquatic animals. It was shown, however, that terrestrial insects, including such highly specialized families as bees, ants and wasps, contained copper. These and other terrestrial insects, especially the herbivores, could derive