62 THE SALMON. 



number of assumptions propounded as settled facts, and 

 afterwards more or less quietly withdrawn, and the cor- 

 rection substituted. Look, for instance, even at the 

 excellent James Wilson's article " Ichthyology," in the 

 seventh edition of the Encyclopcedia Britannica (1838), 

 and at the answer which, more Scottice, he gave himself 

 in 1840, by asking in Blackwood the question, "What's a 

 Parr ?" Although the fact is chiefly due to the previous 

 absence of question or controversy, still it is a fact, that 

 almost any naturalist, if asked how he knows that a 

 grilse is a young salmon, would not be able, on the 

 moment, to lead any more satisfactory evidence than 

 general and apparently instinctive belief. But such 

 answers will not suffice in questions susceptible of proof 

 by fact and experiment, though necessarily admissible, 

 and often even the best of evidence, in cases of another 

 class. There is a story told of a Scotch minister, on a 

 catechizing raid, after having got the proper answer 

 from a ploughman to the question, Who made you ? 

 proceeding most unfairly to the further question, " How 

 do you know ?" Jock grew red in the face, scratched 

 his head, and then, rising, by an instinctive leap, to the 

 height of the argument, replied, " It's the common clash 

 o' the kintra." Now, this was a sound if grotesque 

 answer, on the main question of natural theology, in 

 which a general assent, founded on instinctive per- 

 ception, is one of the best of evidences. But in such 

 questions as those of natural history, or at least in this 

 question, where there are attainable facts sufficient to 

 settle it one way or the other, it will not do to adduce 

 the " common clash." It is only lately, however, that 





