337 
that “ the Historia Piscium,” which bears WiLLoucHBY’s name 
onthe title page, and was edited by Ray, is clearly their joint 
production.” He also says: “Saw has demonstrated in the 
most conclusive manner that those small Salmonoids, generally 
called Par, are the offspring of the salmon, and that many 
males, from seven to eight inches long, have the sexual organs 
fully developed, and that their milt has all the impregnating 
properties of the seminal fluid of a much older and larger fish. 
That this Par is not a distinct species—as has lately been again 
maintained by Covcn—is further proved by the circumstance 
that these sexually mature Pars are absolutely identical in their 
zoological characters with the immature Pars, which are un- 
doubtedly young Salmon, and that no Par has ever been found 
with mature ova. But whether these Par produce normal 
Salmon, impregnating the ova of female Salmon, or mingle 
with the River-trout, or whether they continue to grow and 
propagate their species as true Salmon, are questions which 
remain to be answered.” 
In 1869 commenced the case of the Tay Fishery Board 
versus Minter, who was accused “‘in so far as, upon Saturday, 
the 26th June, 1869, or about that time, the said Rosrerr 
Minter had in his possession nine smolts or salmon fry.” 
First decided against the Fishery Board, who appealed, when 
the case was remitted back to the sheriff to enquire whether 
par was salmon fry? On the 8th of October, 1869, the sheriff 
found that “the defendant had in his possession certain fish 
commonly known as pars, but which are not named in the pro- 
hibitory and penal clauses libelled; but finding it not proved 
that he then had any fish known as smolts, the only fish named 
in the same section of the statute libelled, and declines to 
enquire and decide the question in natural science, whether 
par be, or be not, salmon fry.” The Sheriff-substitute, July 
12th, 1870, “ finds it not proved that, in the popular and well- 
understood sense, any of the pars found in the possession of 
* the accused on the day libelled were salmon fry.” He, how- 
ever, admitted that the evidence as a naturalist “would have 
led him to decide, as a point of science, that par, or at least 
