the Flying -fish rrollem. 329 



flyiug-fisli fly or do not fly, and entirely ignoring the new 

 muscle aspect opened l)y Whitman, 



Among the distinguished naturalists thus referred to iu 

 support of" Miiljius's theory, Prol". ]NJose!ey, as being of the 

 ' Challenger' Expedition, and ]\Ir. lioulcnger are prominently 

 mentioned. Jiut Moseley, who cannot see the Exocoetus 

 flap[)ing, eau see the Dactylopterids doing so (p. 512) : the 

 possibility of which act is denied by Mobius from personal 

 observation as strongly as iu the ease of E.vocoetas ! Whilst 

 Boulenger merely quoted the verdict of others, he himself 

 retained, then as now, as he informs me, an open mind 

 upon the question. 



It is surprising how largely this " general verdict " is 

 influenced by the researches of ]\i6bfus, the very Professor 

 whose solitary so-called proof is questioned by Whitman ; 

 so we will examine more closely what he says about the 

 muscles. The quotation is continued from " ' aloft iu the 

 air/ " above. 



" ' The pectoral muscles of birds depressing their wings 

 weigh, on an average, one sixth of the total weight of the 

 body, the pectoral muscles of bats one thirteenth, the muscles 

 of the pectoral fins of Hying-fish only one thirty-second.' " 



If this proves anything — Mhich to the purpose it does 

 not — it may prove that, as flying-fish have somewhat less 

 than half the comparative muscle of bats, and (aceordiiig to 

 aeroplanists) cannot, for this reason, fly, therefore biits, 

 which have somewhat less than half the comparative muscle 

 of birds, cannot fly. 



Or, the other way about : — Birds can fly. Bats, having 

 rather less than half the comparative muscle of birds, can fly ; 

 therefore flyiug-flsh, having rather less than half the com- 

 parative muscle of bats, may ^\. 



Those are reasonable deductions, but " therefore flying- 

 fish cannot fly " is an unreasonable one. 



It is quite clearly a question of degree, and the true 

 deduction is that bats, if they can fly, cannot be expected to 

 fly like birds, and flying-fish, if they can fly, cannot be 

 expected to fly like either bats or birds ; and, I may add, no 

 one thinks or claims that they do so fly. 



But an even greater claim is made by aeroplanists. It is 

 recognized that there are two kinds of bird-flight, " sailing" 

 and " rowing," the sailing being greatly the superior form. 

 Sailers can always row, but rowers cannot prop rly sail on 

 account of their low wing to weight ratio ■^. Mow flying-fish 



o. rr i- . p 1 A/wirio^-surface in sq. cm. , . , , , . 



* Hartiugs formula - .^, . . — > which governs this 



>/ weight iu grammes. 



