A Guide to the Study of Fishes, Volume 2 (of 2)

by David Starr Jordan

Reproduction of the Eel.—Dr. Gill ("Riverside Natural History," p. 103) gives the following account of the reproduction of Anguilla:

"The generation of the eel was long involved in great mystery, and the knowledge thereof is one of the recent acquisitions of scientific investigation. So late, indeed, as 1880 it was declared that 'their mode of propagation is still unknown.' In want of positive knowledge the rein has been given to loose hypothesis and conjecture. It has been variously asserted that eels were generated from slime, from dew, and from the skins of old eels or of snakes. The statement that they come from horse-hairs is familiar to many country boys, and the origin of this belief is due simply to the fact that there are certain aquatic worms, known under the generic name Gordius, which are elongated and apparently smooth like the eel, and which may be found in the same waters. It was one of the ideas of the Greek to attribute their paternity, as of many other doubtful offspring, to the convenient Jupiter. The statement that they are viviparous has arisen from two causes: one the existence of intestinal worms, and the other from the confusion of the eel with an elongated and consequently eel-like but otherwise very different form, the Zoarces viviparus. The Zoarces is indeed, in Germany as well as in the Scandinavian countries, generally known as the Aal-mutter, or eel-mother, and thus in its name perpetuates the fancy. Even where eels are to be found in extreme abundance, and where they are the objects of a special culture, like erroneous opinions prevail. Thus, according to Jacoby, about the lagoon of Comacchio there is an 'ineradicable belief among the fishermen that the eel is born of other fishes; they point to special differences in color and especially in the common mullet, Mugil cephalus, as the causes of variation in color and form among eels. It is a very ancient belief, widely prevalent to the present day, that eels pair with water-snakes. In Sardinia the fishermen cling to the belief that a certain beetle, the so-called water-beetle, Dytiscus ræselii, is the progenitor of eels, and they therefore call this "mother of eels."' The assignment of such maternity to the water-beetle is doubtless due to the detection of the hair-worm, or Gordius, in the insect by sharp-sighted but unscientific observers, and, inasmuch as the beetle inhabits the same waters as the eel, a very illogical deduction has led to connect the two together.

"All such beliefs as have been thus recounted are due to the inconspicuous nature of the generative organs in eels found in fresh waters and at most seasons—a characteristic which is in strong contrast to the development of corresponding parts in fishes generally. Nevertheless the ovaries of the eel were discovered, as long ago as 1707, by Dr. Sancassini of Comacchio, and described by the celebrated Valisneri (after whom the plant Valisneria was named) in 1710, again by Mondini in 1777, and almost contemporaneously by O. J. Müller of Denmark. Later the illustrious Rathke (in 1824, 1838, and 1850) and also Hornbaum-Hornschuch published the results of special investigations, and figured the eggs. But it was only in 1873 (after several futile endeavors by others) that the male organ of the eel was recognized, also by an Italian naturalist, Dr. Syrski, in small individuals of the species, and a previous idea that the eel was hermaphroditic thereby dispelled. The sexual differences are correlated with external ones, and generally the males and females, when adult, can be told apart. Jacoby testifies that he examined large numbers with a view to solve this question. The most important differences relate to (1) size; (2) form of the snout; (3) color; (4) dorsal fin; and (5) size of the eyes. (1) The males rarely attain a length of more than seventeen to nineteen inches, while adult females are generally much larger; (2) the snout in the male is attenuated and rather pointed, while in the female it is comparatively broad and blunt; (3) the male is of a deep darkish green, or often a deep black with a shining luster and a whitish belly, while the female has a clearer color, usually of a greenish hue on the back and yellowish on the belly; (4) the dorsal fin is lower and less developed in the male than in the female; and (5) the eye of the male is large and that of the female, as a rule, comparatively small. These characters, however, do not always hold good. Jacoby remarked that 'special reference having been paid to the height and narrowness of the dorsal fin, much success has been met with in picking out, in the fish-market of Trieste, the eels which possessed the organ of Syrski (that is, the male organ); absolute certainty, however, in recognizing them cannot be guaranteed. If one is searching among living eels with no characters in mind,—with the exception of the first, that of length,—he will find in every ten eels, on an average, eight females and two with the supposed male organ; but if the selection is made with a careful reference to all these marks of difference, the proportion changes, and out of every ten examples about eight will be found with the supposed male organ.'

"According to Herr Benecke, 'it may be assumed with the greatest safety that the eel lays its eggs like most other fish, and that, like the lamprey, it spawns only once and then dies. All the eggs of a female show the same degree of maturity, while in the fish which spawn every year, besides the large eggs which are ready to be deposited at the next spawning period, there exist very many of much smaller size, which are destined to mature hereafter and be deposited in other years. It is very hard to understand how young eels could find room in the body of their mother if they were retained until they had gained any considerable size. The eel embryo can live and grow for a long time supported by the little yolk, but, when this is done, it can only obtain food outside of the body of its mother. The following circumstances lead us to believe that the spawning of the eel takes place only in the sea: (1) that the male eel is found only in the sea or brackish water, while female eels yearly undertake a pilgrimage from the inland waters to the sea, a circumstance which has been known since the time of Aristotle, and upon the knowledge of which the principal capture of eels by the use of fixed apparatus is dependent; (2) that the young eels, with the greatest regularity, ascend from the sea into the rivers and lakes.'"

All statements in opposition to this theory are untenable, since the young eels never find their way into landlocked ponds in the course of their wanderings, while eels planted in such isolated bodies of water thrive and grow rapidly, but never increase in numbers. Another still more convincing argument is the fact that in lakes which formerly contained many eels, but which, by the erection of impassable weirs, have been cut off from the sea, the supply of eels has diminished, and after a time only scattering individuals, old and of great size, are taken in them. An instance of this sort occurred in Lake Muskengorf in West Prussia. If an instance of the reproduction of the eel in fresh water could be found, such occurrences as these would be quite inexplicable.

In the upper stretches of long rivers the migration of the eels begins in April or in May; in their lower stretches and shorter streams, later in the season. In all running waters the eel-fishery depends upon the downward migrations; the eels press up the streams with occasional halts, remaining here and there for short periods, but always make their way above. They appear to make the most progress during dark nights, when the water is troubled and stormy, for at this time they are captured in the greatest numbers. It is probable that after the eels have once returned to the sea and there deposited their spawn, they never can return into fresh water, but remain there to die. A great migration of grown eels in spring or summer has never been reported, and it appears certain that all the female eels which have once found their way to the sea are lost to the fisherman.

Food of the Eel.—Eels, in the words of Mr. W. H. Ballou, are "among the most voracious of carnivorous fishes. They eat most inland fishes, except the garfish and the chub. Investigation of six hundred stomachs by Oswego fishermen showed that the latter bony fish never had a place in their bill of fare. They are particularly fond of game-fishes, and show the delicate taste of a connoisseur in their selection from choice trout, bass, pickerel, and shad. They fear not to attack any object when disposed, and their bite in human flesh shows even a vicious attitude towards man. On their hunting excursions they overturn huge and small stones alike, working for hours if necessary, beneath which they find species of shrimp and crayfish, of which they are exceedingly fond. Of shrimps they devour vast numbers. Their noses are poked into every imaginable hole in their search for food, to the terror of innumerable small fishes."

In the opinion of Mr. Ballou, too, "eels are to the water what the fishhawk is to the air. They are, perhaps, the most powerful and rapid of natatorians. Again, they hide in the mud beneath some log or overhanging rock, and dart out with tremendous fury at the unsuspecting prey. They attack the spawn of other fishes open-mouthed, and are even said to suck the eggs from an impaled female. They fearlessly and rapidly dive head-foremost in the mud, disappearing from view in the twinkling of a star. They are owl-like in their habits, committing many of their depredations at night.

"No fish is yet reported to utilize a full-grown eel as food. Pickerel, garfish, and bass, which are particularly numerous in these lakes, are supposed to literally devour the young fry. Mr. Sawyer describes the operation of the pickerel darting through a long column of young eels open-mouthed and devouring vast numbers of them."

Larva of the Eel.—The translucent band-shaped larva of the common eel has been very recently identified and described by Dr. Eigenmann. It is probable that all true eels, Enchelycephali, pass through a band-shaped or leptocephalous stage, as is the case with Albula and other Isospondyli. In the continued growth the body becomes firmer, and at the same time much shorter and thicker, gradually assuming the normal form of the species in question.