156 FIRST MENTION OF A FLY 



" be deceived " by the small amount possible of attachment to 

 a little hook, of seaweed or moss or their larvce ? This is 

 infinitesimal when compared with the greater masses, giving 

 immeasurably ampler supply of larvcB, growing in the sea. 



Were it not for the incitement or excitement caused by 

 the fly's movements or novelty, hardly a salmon, I venture to 

 think, would rise to a fly ; but to our scarus, since alg(B and 

 moss {if the latter exist in the sea of sufficient length) are 

 familiar growths and constantly set in motion by the action of 

 the water, both these incitements are surely lacking. 



Even if neither of these arguments carries weight, the 

 objection brought forward by Gilbert appears to me to put the 

 reading musco out of court : " Suppose Martial knew what 

 Athenaeus and others state as regards this peculiar habit of 

 the scarus, surely this was not the place, where the Scarus is 

 introduced only as a representative of all fish, to air his know- 

 ledge — least of all in words such as ' quis nescit.' " 



In conclusion, if musca be the right reading, we can, I 

 think, definitely assert : 



A. That this passage contains the very earliest mention of 

 a fly being used for the taking of fish : 



B. That from Martial's employment of it as an illustration, 

 and from his not drawing attention to the novelty or oddness 

 of such use, and especially from the words " quis nescit," 

 which imply a general knowledge, fly fishing had been long 

 invented, and was a method common among anglers : 



C. That this solitary passage is inconclusive as to whether 

 the fly was simply a natural one attached to a hook, and 

 used perhaps as now in dapping, ^ or an artificial one. 



fishes, the scarus and his tribe alone are endowed. On p. 162, " The stomach 

 of a skaros is without a Ccecum, and appears to be of far simpler form than that 

 of most fishes." 



A trout often appears to ruminate, working its jaws quietly for a con- 

 siderable time — perhaps this is merely to settle its last mouthful comfortably 

 and to its liking. According to Banfield, in Dunk and other islands off 

 Northern Australia, a fish, very similar to only even more brilliant in hues 

 than the Pseudoscarus rivulatus, is able by the strength of its teeth (some 

 sixty or seventy, set incisorlike) to pull from the rocks hmpets (its chief food), 

 which when steadfast can resist a pulling force of nearly 2000 times their own 

 weight ! It swallows molluscs and cockles whole, and by its wonderful gizzard 

 grinds them fine. See Confessions of a Beachcomber (London, 1913), p. I5f>. 



* " Dapping," to which I miss allusion even in Dr. Turrell's excellent 



