BY R. M. JOHXSTOX, F.L.S. 41 



to restrict ohservution to the local region best known to the 

 particular observer. 



Unfortunately, opinions expressed liitherto with resj^ect to 

 the odd examples sent to English authorities for deter- 

 mination, have merely added confusion to the whole question. 

 Different specimens at different times have been doubtfully 

 pronounced to be *S'. salar, S. trutta, S. fario, and a hybrid 

 between S. tviitta S. fario, without any detailed reasons 

 having been given for arriving at these very opposite 

 conclusions. 



Authoritative opinions of this kind are worse than useless, 

 as we do not know the points of evidence upon which the 

 separate opinions were based. A knowledge of the local 

 range of individual variability is absolutely necessary before 

 a reliable opinion could be expressed by any scientific expert ; 

 and as this knowledge was not possessed by European experts I 

 am of opinion that their decisions are not of much value in 

 matters which relate to variation induced by local conditions 

 in Tasmania. Besides, as urged by me in my observation on 

 " The Fishes of Tasmania," in the year 1882, " Odd specimens 

 cannot determine the curve of variability, nor can they 

 determine whether the four fishes so differently named were 

 not after all the progeny of the same parents." 



I am not finding fault with the authorities referred to, as 

 l)Ossibly they did their best in relation to the fixed classifica- 

 tion of English types ; but seeing that the new environment 

 might be expected to produce remarkable modifications of 

 many characters it might be expected that such considerations 

 should have been allowed for and specially commented upon. 

 It is true some of our types examined seemed to puzzle the 

 best authorities, but it is significant that the nature of the 

 variations which caused hesitation has not been publicly 

 recorded in support of whatever opinion was expressed. 



That I am not overstating the case in this respect is borne 

 out by the high testimony of Sir Thos. Brady. In his address 

 to the Members of the Koyal Society of Tasn)ania on April 

 23rd, 1888, Sir Thos. Brady stated that three or four years 

 ago, Mr. Seager — Secretary to the Salmon Commission of 

 Tasmania — sent him three fish, which, after writing his 

 opinion of, he suljmitted to an eminent Member of the lioyal 

 Society of Dublin, an ichthylogist.and a well known scientist, 

 who was not aware of his opinion, and wrote one that exactly 

 coincided with it. It was, that one fish was a true salmon, 

 one was not, and there was a doubt about the third. He 

 took this fish (the salmon) before one of the most celebrated 

 scientists and ichthyologists, a man with a European reputa- 

 tion, but this gentleman would not give an opinion unfil ha 

 knew where it came from! After some demur the information 



