^ 



46 THE SALMON. 



1839. That was a fact, the fact ; and the same resuU 

 was arrived at by experiments made in 1859 by Mr. 

 Ramsbottom, at DoohuUa, in Gal way. It was the fact, 

 but the question remained, Was it the only fact, and 

 irreconcilable with other facts ascertained or supposable ? 

 A great deal of argument was brought at the time 

 against the result which Mr. Shaw appeared to have 

 evolved ; but for a long time the argument was based only 

 on probabilities and analogies, and not on actual know- 

 ledge. There was, indeed, a sort of exception in the 

 case of Mr. Andrew Young of Invershin, who conducted 

 similar experiments, leading him, as he rather too eagerly 

 and positively declared, to the conclusion, that the parrs 

 descend shortly after the expiry of the first year. Mr. 

 Young's e\'idence, however, was to a great extent vitiated 

 by two causes. He failed to give an adequate account 

 of the conditions under which his experiments were 

 carried on, — the construction of the ponds, the care 

 taken to prevent the mixing of broods, the constancy 

 of the watch kept over tlie growth ; in short, he omitted 

 everything that rendered Mr. Shaw's contributions to 

 the question valuable and interesting. On one side, 

 therefore, we have the evidence of an experimenter who 

 told us minutely all he had done ; and on the other, the 

 evidence of an experimenter who declined to tell any- 

 thing but that he had made experiments. Further, Mr. 

 Young had, rather oddly and unluckily, told the Royal 

 Society of Edinburgh, in 1843, that he "entirely agreed" 

 with Mr. Shaw ; whilst the experiments on which he 

 founded his subsequently expressed entire disagreement 

 with Mr. Shaw, were made in 1841. However, the 



