CLEAEING UP THE QUESTION. 369 



the salmon species which never went to the sea, called the 

 " Salmo samulus," because, after the great annual migration 

 of the smolts, parr were yet found in the rivers, and it was 

 thought that as all parr became smolts in fifteen months, 

 those which staid behind must be of another species alto- 

 gether. But science and fish-culture have dispelled this er- 

 ror, and it is now known that the "Salmo samulus" is a 

 myth. 



When the smolt went down to the sea for the first time, it 

 was generally supposed that it returned to the river again in 

 a period of from two to four months, and its extraordinary 

 and unusal increase was always cited as one of the most val- 

 uable qualities of the salmon ; for, if it could grow from the 

 weight of only two to three ounces to eight or ten pounds in 

 three months, it was almost a lusus naturce* But, though 

 smolts do grow very remarkably under favorable circumstan- 

 ces, a strong doubt has been thrown upon the fact of salmon 

 growing quite so fast as this,/rom the smolt state, by experi- 

 ment and experience ; for it has been found uniformly in 

 all cases where the waters were what are termed virgin 

 waters, that is, waters never before inhabited by salmon : that 

 when such waters were stocked with young salmon fry, or 

 with ova laid down for hatching, a period of fifteen instead 

 of three months invariably elapsed before the emigrating 

 smolts came back to the river as well-grown grilse of six or 

 seven pounds' weight ; and in the instance of much larger 

 grilse, as those which are at times met with of even eleven 

 pounds' weight, that a yet longer period may have elapsed. 

 This, however, is merely conjecture. In the late remarkable 

 experiments in Australia, where no such thing as a salmon 

 ever was known, it was clearly proved that the smolts were 

 a year and some months at sea before they returned, and in 

 other waters never before tenanted by salmon the same re- 

 sult has ensued. This is very strong evidence against the 

 two or three months' theory, particularly when the evidence 

 supporting that theory was gathered from well-stocked rivers, 



