few, if not tjhe only, tc111)stancc wl~iul~ cituaBs tunlours in tnan but not in
animals.
The usc of oli~tns iud oysters as itssessors of biological risk should
not be beyond tjhc ~oopo of' the! interested parties. Since they are
biological concentrtztors of ull types of niatericbls, their study should be
extretnely rewarding scientifically aR well as being highly profitable.
The choice of site for such an investigation could be of the utmost
importance as Psuley (1969) examined 30 000 oysters and found only
six instances of disease. Of d l the animals examined, the oysters and
clams offer the best aetiological monitor for the environment in that
they are essentially static animals. Marine fish could be useful in the
study of the genetics of fish neoplasia, the environmental hazards
essentially being of less importance, apart from such instances aa fish
inhabiting brackish water c~rld the Salmonidae, for their avoidance
reaction. The only problem which could be relevant is the effect of
pollution on essential food chains.
The Cetacea and Pinnipedia are of especial interest, since many of
the Cetacea have been " over-caught " for many years, and now are on
the list of endangered species. The industrial value of whale products is
also an important factor. The possibility of sharing cancer research in
the species is remote. The dolphins or porpoise again, while contributing
little to neoplasia in general, have proved to be of great interest and
value in experimental physiology.
Thitl review has been essentially an exercise in bringing together in
one place t~nd at one time the majority of current data. Some of the uses
that some of these species could I)e put to hsve been briefly discussed,
in the hope that ultimately the tu~derstmding of neoplasia as a whole
may be inlprovcd.
VII. A(~KNOWLE~~UEMENTS
The author would like to thai~k Dr J. @. Harshbarger for permission
to publish Fig. 2, the editor of h'cience and Dr D. F. Squires for Fig. 8,
Dr L. A. Griner and the editor of the American Journal of Veteriw~ry
Research for Figs 22 to 24 and Drs Rewell and Willis for Figs 33 to 44,
Figures 25 to 28 were previously published by the author in the Journal
of Pathology and Bacteriology, and Figs 29 to 32 in Pathologia Veterinaria;, and thanks are expressed to the respective editors for permission
to use these illustrations.
Thanks are also expressed to I)r A. N. Worden for his continued
help in the author's pursuit of comparative pathology ; Miss Margaret
Shafto for her unstinting help with the bibliography; Mrs Sue O x b ~ ~ r y
animals.
The usc of oli~tns iud oysters as itssessors of biological risk should
not be beyond tjhc ~oopo of' the! interested parties. Since they are
biological concentrtztors of ull types of niatericbls, their study should be
extretnely rewarding scientifically aR well as being highly profitable.
The choice of site for such an investigation could be of the utmost
importance as Psuley (1969) examined 30 000 oysters and found only
six instances of disease. Of d l the animals examined, the oysters and
clams offer the best aetiological monitor for the environment in that
they are essentially static animals. Marine fish could be useful in the
study of the genetics of fish neoplasia, the environmental hazards
essentially being of less importance, apart from such instances aa fish
inhabiting brackish water c~rld the Salmonidae, for their avoidance
reaction. The only problem which could be relevant is the effect of
pollution on essential food chains.
The Cetacea and Pinnipedia are of especial interest, since many of
the Cetacea have been " over-caught " for many years, and now are on
the list of endangered species. The industrial value of whale products is
also an important factor. The possibility of sharing cancer research in
the species is remote. The dolphins or porpoise again, while contributing
little to neoplasia in general, have proved to be of great interest and
value in experimental physiology.
Thitl review has been essentially an exercise in bringing together in
one place t~nd at one time the majority of current data. Some of the uses
that some of these species could I)e put to hsve been briefly discussed,
in the hope that ultimately the tu~derstmding of neoplasia as a whole
may be inlprovcd.
VII. A(~KNOWLE~~UEMENTS
The author would like to thai~k Dr J. @. Harshbarger for permission
to publish Fig. 2, the editor of h'cience and Dr D. F. Squires for Fig. 8,
Dr L. A. Griner and the editor of the American Journal of Veteriw~ry
Research for Figs 22 to 24 and Drs Rewell and Willis for Figs 33 to 44,
Figures 25 to 28 were previously published by the author in the Journal
of Pathology and Bacteriology, and Figs 29 to 32 in Pathologia Veterinaria;, and thanks are expressed to the respective editors for permission
to use these illustrations.
Thanks are also expressed to I)r A. N. Worden for his continued
help in the author's pursuit of comparative pathology ; Miss Margaret
Shafto for her unstinting help with the bibliography; Mrs Sue O x b ~ ~ r y