On Salmon- Fry, ^$^ 



spots along the lateral lines far more dull and obscure than 

 in the samlet. The latter are of all fish one of the easiest 

 prey to the angle. They arc incessantly on the feed ; and 

 an expert angler with artificial flies, in some of our rivers, 

 will take eight or ten dozen in a few hours. 



Besides the salmon and samlet, the bulltrout, seatrout, 

 and whitling, all very distinct species of the same genus, 

 also quit the ocean and ascend our rivers, to spawn, ii^ 

 great numbers, and their fry are frequently mistaken, by 

 incautious observers, for the true salmon-fry ; from which, 

 however, they exhibit several specific differences. 



I shall now drop the subject, having, I presume, suffi- 

 ciently shown that my former account of the salmon was 

 strictly correct. Even the writer who has dravyu from 

 me the present remarks, will, I trust, by this lime have dis- 

 covered hov/ much more easy it is to derange and embar- 

 rass thum to elucidate an obscure case. 



It is worth observing, that the papers on the breeding of 

 fish, published in the Philosophical Magazine for October 

 and November, very sati«factoriiy illustrate an obscure fact 

 in the natural history of the trout. It is well and very 

 generally known, that trout, when confined in ponds and 

 lakes, attain a size very far beyond what they ever arrive 

 at in rivers and brooks, and that in these confined situations 

 they never breed. This is well accounted for by the proof 

 that they can only spawn in a swift-running current on 

 gravel, and that there only the spawn will attain anima- 

 tion : and doubtless the fish not being exhausted with breed- 

 ing, in situations where no sufficient currents exist, is a 

 principal cause of their extraordinary growth. These con- 

 siderations are very encouraging for stocking large pools 

 \yith trout-fry procured in the easy way pointed out in the 

 papers I have alluded to, and by which trout of a very su- 

 perior size may be obtained. 



A most sino'ular anomaly in the history of British fishes 

 has lately occurred, by a very splendid and meritorious 

 work, under that title, having issued from the press, wherein 

 two species of our most abundant and interesting fish, the 

 salmon and common eel, are purposely disregarded, under 

 the inadequate excuse of making room for a few scarce, 

 obscure, and immaterial species. My own cursory remark* 

 on the two proscribed species will sufficiently establish, that, 

 to an industrious and intelligent inquirer, they yet offer 

 much of new and interesting matter. The most, I was 

 about to say the only, valuable portions oF natural hi.9tory 

 consist in a kuowlcdge of the singular and various habi- 

 tudes- 



