s.\i.M<» iirciio. 125 



and arc caui^lit l»y tlir luK)k. Tliis 'I'rout rcrtiiiiilv ovists in the 

 larj^r rivers and ponds in the interior, hnt deteriorate in size. 

 They arc hronj^ht from New Ham|is|iire in the wintei-, IVo/en, 

 for tlu' markets, and from the northern parts of Maine, whore 

 spoeimens linve been taken as hirj^i; as any proilueed in the 

 •rreat rivers of Knropo." 



This passau'e I qnote from tlie " Ami'riean AnirU-r's (ini(U\" 

 and I do so, to (h-ehu'C that this fish is, in tlie tirst instance, not 

 thi' Ilneho: anil, seeoiidly, to ])oint ont that no sneh li^h has 

 ever been anthentieally pnxhieed at all. A Ilneho of the Lay- 

 baeli, of two feet in length, by eleven inehi's' ;rirth, and three 

 inches' thickness, was fonnd to woi-;!! fonr potmds two and a half 

 ounces. Now, fishes increase in weiirht in the ratio of their 

 brcadtli and depth, not of their leng:tli, a Trout of thirty-one 

 inches wei;;hinf; seventeen pouiuls. Whctlnr any Tront or 

 Salmon has ever been taken, of full four feet in lenjj:th, I -^'reatlv 

 doubt. If so, its wei«rht must be enormous: the larjjest Salmon 

 ever known, the oi-rhty-threc poinuler, which came into the 

 possession of Mr. droves, the London fishmonger, in 1^*21, is 

 described as ha\in;,^' l)een a short tish fur tlu* wcij^ht, and, 1 am 

 convinced, would not have mea»nre(l four feet. 



Now, it remains to impiire what is this tish, which Mr. Smith 

 desiffuatcs n-s the Ilneho ; and is there any such fish in existence, 

 rlsowherc than in that pentlennin's imafjination ? 



Now, I fear, the answers to these questions must be in the 

 negative, since, most asHurctily, then? is no scnrlet-s|»otted Trout 

 on reconi, at nil appronchin}; to the size described by Mr. Sniith, 

 which wc must reekon nt til. rate of from seventy to one Inindred 

 pounds' weight. 



