336 
deprived of them.” ‘ Mr Suaw’s conclusions, in some particulars, 
appear to be far from satisfactory; and, as regards the true 
nature of a fish he terms the par, the question appears to be 
exactly where he found it.” 
Bertram (“The Harvest of the Sea,” 1865, page 105) 
observed: “Indeed, the experiments conducted at the Stor- 
montfield ponds have conclusively settled the long-fought 
battle of the par, and proved indisputably that the par is the 
young of the salmon, that it becomes transformed to a smolt, 
grows into a grilse, and ultimately attains the honour of full- 
grown salmonhood. The anomaly in the growth of. the par was 
also attempted to be solved at Stormontfield, but without 
success. In November and December, 1857, provision was 
made for hatching in separate compartments the artificially 
impregnated ova of—(l.) par and salmon; (2.) grilse and 
salmon; (3.) grilse pure; (4.) salmon pure. It was found, when 
the young of these different matches came to be examined early 
in April, 1859, that the sizes of each kind varied a little; Mr 
Buist, the superintendent of fisheries, informing us that—(1st.) 
the produce of the salmon with salmon are four inches in 
length ; (2nd.) grilse with salmon, 3} inches; (3rd.) grilse with 
grilse, 34 inches; (4th.) par with grilse, three inches; (5th.) 
smolt from large pond, five inches. These results, of a varied 
manipulation, never got a fair chance of being of use as a proof 
in the disputation; for, owing to the limited extent of the 
ponds at the time, the experiments had to be matured in such 
small boxes or ponds as evidently tended to stunt the growth 
of the fish.” 
Dr Gunruer (“Catalogue of the Fishes of the British 
Museum,” vi., 1866, pp. 11-34) places the Salmulus of WitLovcHBY 
as the young of a variety of sea trout, which he termed 
S. cambricus ; while the Salmulus of Ray he considered an 
immature salmon, observing in a note that “ under these names 
the young not only of the salmon, but also of other salmonoids, 
have been described.” Ray’s description is almost verbally 
identical with that of WiLLouGHBy; and in the “ Introduction 
to the Study of Fishes,” by Dr Gunrusr, 1880, it is observed 
ee 
