described by Dr. J. Cox, of Sydney, and will form the subject of a paper 

 at a future meeting of the Society : — 



The Secretary intimated that he had received from Sir Robert Officer 

 some specimens of the so-called Kcd Spider, which had recently affected 

 the hops at New Norfolk, with a request to be furnished with any informa- 

 tion that the microscope, or the experience of any of the Fellows could 

 throw on its exact character, habits, food, &c. These observations had 

 been commenced, but as it had been found advisable to compare the insect 

 from the hop with those of a similar character from the apple tree, the hot- 

 house, and possibly other sources, no report could be laid before the 

 present meeting, but he hoped before the next some definite information 

 ■would be obtained on the subject, if the season be nut too far advanced 

 for procuring the perfect insect. 



Mr. M. Allport made the following remarks on the present state of the 

 salmon question : — As every step in the experiment for the introduction 

 of salmon has been from time to time recorded in the transactions of the 

 Society, it now becomes necessary to complete the series by a short account 

 of the last step. As the Fellows are aware, one of the smolts captured in 

 the Derwent was sent to Dr. Giinther for his opinion as to its species, and 

 that opinion is embodied in the following extract from a letter which I 

 received by the last mail : — " Some weeks ago a small specimen of a sal- 

 monoid was handed over to me by the Secretary of the Zoological Society, 

 •with the request to determine the species, and to let you know the result 

 of my examination. The example is 9 inches long, and from its general 

 appearance, small size of the scales, form of the caudal fin, arrangement of 

 teeth on the palate, number of pyloric appendages, there cannot be the 

 least doubt that it is an example of sea trout (Sahno tnittaj. I am in- 

 formed that a lot of sea trout eggs were forwarded to Tasmania several 

 ye.irs ago, and hatched in May, 1866 ; if you never on any other occasion 

 received eggs of salmo trutta, it would follow that this example is 3^ years 

 old, and consequently what may be called a stunted individual, as a fish 

 of that age ought to have attained to a larger size, and exhibit a certain 

 development of the sexual organs, of which no trace could be discovered 

 in the individual sent." Dr. Giinther is with respect to reptiles and fish, 

 ■what Professor Owen is to mammals, and it would simply be presumption 

 in me to doubt the correctness of his opinion as to the species of the par- 

 ticular fish sent to England, but I must demur to his assumption that such 

 fish was 3| years old, and therefore a stunted individual. The fact that it 

 was immature, affords to my mind the most conclusive proof that the fish 

 sent was not S-^- years old, and my view is borne out by all the facts 

 relating to the salmon trout eggs received in this colony, such facts being 

 far more within the cognizance of the Tasmanian Salmon Commissioners 

 than Dr. Giinther. In April, 1866, the only salmon trout eggs ever 

 received by the Commissioners arrived. In May and June following they 

 hatched. The majority of the fry were placed in the same pond with the 

 salmon fry of that year, and the remainder were placed in a separate 

 pond and rill, specially prepared for them, in the hope that these salmon 

 trout might arrive at maturity, and spawn be obtained from them without 



