122 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



DOES THE FLYING-FISH FLY? 

 Messrs. Editors: 



PROFESSOR MOBIUS says, in "The 

 Popular Science Monthly " for Decem- 

 ber, that " flying-fish are incapable of flying, 

 for the simple reason that the muscles of 

 their pectoral fins are not large enough to 

 bear the weight of their body aloft in the 

 air." 



If they are incapable of flying, then they 

 do not fly ; so there's the end on't. But, if 

 they really do fly, they are capable of flying ; 

 and the argument is as good in this case as 

 in that. In both we must look to the facts. 



Passing out of the harbor of San Pedro 

 one day, the steamer came into a schoo 1 of 

 fish. Being the first I had ever seen, I 

 watched thorn with great interest. Their 

 flight was often several hundred feet far- 

 ther than a strong man can throw a stone 

 describing a gentle curve at its highest part 

 only a few feet above the water. The ve- 

 locity was nearly uniform, gently accelerated 

 for a few seconds after leaving the water, 

 and correspondingly retarded before enter- 

 ing it again.. 



Now, every one of these facts is incon- 

 sistent with the single-impulse hypothesis. 

 It is simply impossible that a fish could ac- 

 quire under water, or just at leaving it, a 

 velocity that could carry it so far after pass- 

 ing into the air. The resistance of water 

 against a body moving rapidly is so great 

 that a bullet soon spends its force when 

 passing into it. To suppose that a fish 

 could strike the water with its fins with 

 such force as to carry it several hundred 

 feet in the air, is to suppose an unsup- 

 posable case ; and certainly to refute the 

 charge that " the muscles of their pectoral 

 fins are not large enough" for flight. A 

 stone thrown from the hand describes a 

 parabolic curve. The fish moves nearlv 

 horizontally. The initial impulse must be 

 immensely greater that could carry it, with- 

 out any apparent falling, several hundred 

 feet so great that no strength of muscle 

 could be equal to it. Again, the resistance 

 of the air can not be inconsiderable, and the 

 velocity of flight, if acquired from a single 

 impulse, should be retarded from the mo- 

 ment of leaving the water ; but, as before 

 stated, the contrary is true. It does not 

 always move in a straight line ; but this 

 could be true on either hypothesis, the fish 

 using the tail-fin as a rudder. The distance 

 of flight, the nearly horizonal line described, 

 and the nearly uniform velocity, would be 

 simply impossible on the single-impulse hy- 



pothesis, but are entirely consistent with 

 the supposition that the fish actually flies. 



The pectoral fins of the flying-fish are 

 very large, and shaped like the wings of a 

 bird. Their motion, while in the air, is that 

 of flying, not of mere fluttering. 



Possibly the above facts may be of some 

 use in settling the reputation of the flying- 

 fish. Isaac Kinlet. 

 Los Angeles, California. 



THE INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS. 

 Messrs. Editors : 



Pcblic attention having been largely 

 drawn to Professor Huxley's article on " The 

 Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters 

 of Nature" (republished in "The Popular 

 Science Monthly " for February), I ask the 

 privilege of saying a few words, in reply to 

 that portion of his paper which particularly 

 interests believers in the Bible. No doubt 

 but he is right as to the order of life set forth 

 by Mr. Gladstone. I think, too, he is justi- 

 fied, at least to some extent, in his protest 

 against the readiness of " reconcilers " to 

 change their explanations, and to force new 

 meanings on the Hebrew to meet the exi- 

 gencies of science. 



After his protest, Professor Huxley turns 

 from Mr. Gladstone to what he supposes to 

 be the story in Genesis. Of course, we 

 turn to our Bibles to see for ourselves. I 

 think every opponent of revelation will 

 agree that it is fair to try the story, not 

 by what others have said, but by its own 

 words. And I would propose as a suffi- 

 ciently severe working hypothesis the fol- 

 lowing rule of interpretation : TJie siory 

 means what it says, We shall not add to it 

 nor take from it, and its uords shall be taken 

 each in its ordinary sense as determined by 

 lexicon and grammar. As a corollary, I 

 add, the account is not responsible for what 

 its friends or foes have said it says unless 

 it be found there; and that omission is not 

 denial. Tins rule seems rigid enough to re- 

 move the reproach of Professor Huxley in his 

 New York lecture " One can but admire 

 the flexibility of the Hebrew language." 

 The third proposition of Professor Huxley's 

 paper, "the central idea of this story, the 

 maintenance of which is vital, and its refu- 

 tation fatal," that on w hich they the 

 theologians " are surely prepared to make 

 a last stand," is this : " The animal species 

 which compose the water-population, the 

 air -population, and the land -population, 

 originated during three distinct and succes- 



