Chut. v. Fish Think. 57 



draw conclusions, and prompt to act upon them. It is the 

 with civilized man, it is still more markedly so with the savage, 

 while with the animal kingdom it is presumedly the sole field of 

 thought Still it is thought, and sometimes followed out through 

 a surprisingly long chain, and fish are no exceptions to the general 

 rule, even though their intelligence may not be so educated as that of 

 the domesticated animals that have been brought into closer com- 

 munion with the superior intellect of man ; and may not be so 

 much noticed and appreciated by man. because exhibited under the 

 water, an element with which he is necessarily less conversant 

 than earth and air. 



Fish have a brain, why then should they not use it, though it 

 is not as heavy as Cuvier's or Byron's or Thackeray's ? It has even 

 been suggested that there is a comparison between the weight of 

 brain and intelligence of different fish.* 



Why is it that you use a transparent, almost invisible, material 

 like silkworm-gut to attach to your hook ? Why do not you use 

 whijtcord or string ? It would be both stronger and cheaper. 

 Why ! because the tishis observant, would notice it, would conclude, 

 would think, aye think, there was something wrong, and would not 

 ich a fool as to take your bait. 



Not to multiply examples too much, how T is it that the trout in 

 a much-fished river are much shyer than in less frequented waters, 

 and require finer tackle and better fishermen to catch them ? 

 They are not really shyer of anything but man, they are not less 

 greedy of food than tiny were, but it anything the reverse, because 

 of their fewer opportunities of feeding, they are only more discrimi- 

 nating, more educated, more intelligent. They have learnt to dis- 

 tinguish between an artificial fly and a natural one ; they recognize 

 the figure and the shadow of a fishing man, and dash away ; while 

 they feed securely on in presence of the ox grazing on the bank. 

 They may not be a " cooking animal " kke you and me, but they 

 are thinking animals all the same, and no fools either, and if we 

 wish to do anything with them we should not take them for any- 

 Ihing but intelligent beings. If you do, and only then, shall we 1"' 

 inclined to think there is some sense after all in Johnson's well- 



• "The proportionate weight of brain in a Pike as compared with its body, i< 

 as 1 to 1,300 ; in a Shark as 1 to 2,500 ; and in the Tunny, a remarkably stupid fiph, 

 but as 1 to 3,700." — The Angler-Nuturalist, II. Cholmondelr Pennell. 



