The prejudice against this fish seems to exist to-day throughout the West Indies. It is, however, a good food-fish. In our mess at the sta tion we frequently ate S. barracuda. The small forms 18 to 20 inches or thereabouts, were excellent. Fish No. 3 of the table (page 58), 30.5 inches long, was pronounced by the mess to have a good flavor, some what like that of a flounder. Larger and older fish are likely to have coarse flesh, rather oily, and a somewhat characteristic odor. Such were used only for shark bait.
Temminck and Schlegel (1850) say that Sphymena obtusata was fished for in the bay of Nagasaki, Japan, where it was regarded as a delicious food by the Japanese. While for S. guachancho, Guichenot (1853) quotes Ramon de la Sagra that its flesh is savory and excellent for the table, and unlike that of the becuna, is never poisonous and hence may be eaten without danger of Ciguatera. Day (1865) adds similar testi mony for the Indian form, S. jello, when he says that it is sometimes eaten by Europeans though not particularly esteemed.
Buttikofer (1890) says the same for this fish in Liberia.
In his "Introduction to the study of fishes" (1880), Gunther notes that barracudas are commonly used as food, but sometimes (particu larly in the West Indies) their flesh manifests poisonous qualities due to their having preyed on poisonous fishes; but as to the South Seas form (probably S. commersonii) he apparently quotes Andrew Garrett (1877), that it is freely eaten and highly valued as a food-fish.
Saville-Kent (1893), writing of this same form, affirms that in eastern Australia it is much esteemed as a food-fish. Macgillivray (1852) bears similar testimony for the Australian barracuda.
Bullen (1904) says that he has eaten the barracuda in the West Indies, around New Zealand, at the Cape of Good Hope and else where, and has always found it a palatable food-fish. It seems to be especially prized for this purpose in Australia and New Zealand. In this, Ward (1907) is in hearty agreement. The California species, it may be noted in passing, is also excellent for the table.
In this connection Jordan (1905, xi, p. 223) notes that the flesh of larger forms is often difficult of digestion and when eaten frequently results in serious illness. Of smaller specimens "The flesh is firm, delicate, and excellent in flavor." In the first volume of the same work (A guide to the study of fishes), Jordan discusses in very illuminating fashion the various forms of poisoning due to eating fishes. Quoting from Dr. Jacques Pellegrin, he says: "The flesh of fishes soon undergoes decomposition in hot climates. The consumption of decayed fish may produce serious disorders, usually with symptoms of diarrhcea or eruptions of the skin. There is in this case no specific poison, but the formation of leucomaines [ptomaines?] through the influence of bacteria. . . . It is especially severe in certain very oily fishes, as . . . [the barracuda]. The flesh of these and other fishes occasionally
produces similar disorders through mere indigestion. In this case the flesh undergoes decay in the stomach." I have not been able to find Pellegrin's paper (Les Poissons Veneneux, Paris, 1899), but the abstract of it in "Revue Scientifique" for the following year contains for the barracudas the mere statement that the poisonous qualities of the flesh of these fish have an origin very diffi cult to establish.
In a recent bulletin of the New York Zoological Society (Nov. 1916) Mr. L. L. Mowbray examines with some care the matter of fish p ing, which he calls "Ichthyotoxismus." Mr. Mowbray is an experi enced collector of fishes for the New York Aquarium and has operated for many years in the Bermudas, Bahamas, and Florida Keys, partic ularly around Key West. He has studied at some length in all three localities the question of poisoning following the eating of fishes, par ticularly the barracuda, and has come to the conclusion that it is simply ptomaine poisoning. Mr. Mowbray's data are so definite, so much to the point, and tally in so many points with the reports quoted above, that it will help clear up the matter to quote him in full. He writes: "While in the Turk's Islands I questioned many fishermen concerning the fishes that were poisonous, the effects of the poison, and at what seasons the fish were most dangerous. Without exception their reports tallied. All agreed that there were two forms of the disease; that the fish from the north side of the Islands were the most dangerous, those from the south side not being so likely to prove poisonous. This seems incredible, as the island of Grand Turk, most densely populated of this group of islands, is only 1.5 miles wide by 6 miles long, and lies in the trade winds and the Bahama Current, which move all surface food at a considerable rate to the westward. I con sulted Dr. Geogaghan, then the medical officer of the colony, who kindly gave me a description of the symptoms, which he had personally experienced in both forms of the disease. Dr. Geogaghan said: " To my knowledge the common poisonous fish are barracuda, jack, and muletto kingfish. In certain places, for some reason or other, the barracuda is more likely to be poisonous than if caught elsewhere. There are two distinct kinds of poisoning from these fishes. The ordinary type is similar to ptomaine, being in the nature of a simple gastro-enteritis of an irritative sort. It is characterized by acute spasmodic pain in the stomach, diarrhea, and vomiting, coming on from 10 to 20 hours after eating the fish, and sub siding readily under treatment. There is occasionally headache, usually fever (101° to 102° F.) and a rapid pulse (90 to 100). Generally speaking, it is an acute gastro-enteritis.