16 THE PRACTICAL FISHERMAN. 



Against these conclusions an eminent authority is, however, set. 

 Ronalds, from his observatory by the side of the Cottonian Dove, 

 whilst acknowledging the difficulty of coming to precise conclusions 

 without blinding- the fish, gives some very unequivocal results of 

 experiments on the taste and smell of trout. I am sure I shall be 

 forgiven if I reproduce what he says in reference to this question, 

 for, although it is an interesting ichthyological question, we neverthe- 

 less cannot dismiss the history of fancy baits without showing their 

 truth or falsehood. "I once threw upon the water," he remarks, 

 "by blowing through a tin tube successively ten dead house flies 

 towards a trout known to me by a white mark on his nose (occasioned 

 by the wound of a hook), all of which he took. Thirty more, with 

 cayenne pepper and mustard plastered on the least conspicuous parts 

 of them, were then administered in the same manner. These he also 

 seized, twenty of them the instant they touched the water, and not 

 allowing time for the dressing to be dispersed, but the other ten 

 remained a second or two upon the surface before he swallowed, 

 and a small portion of the dressing parted and sank. The next 

 morning several exactly similar doses were taken by the same fish, 

 who probably remembered the previous day's repast, and seemed to 

 enjoy them heartily. From these and similar experiments, such as 

 getting trout to take flies dipped in honey, oil, vinegar, &c., I con- 

 eluded that if the animal has taste (or smell ?) his palate is not 

 particularly sensitive." Again, M. Dameril, of the French Institute, 

 on careful investigation, was led to believe that the sensation of 

 taste or some equivalent sensation "is imparted to them by the 

 apparatus which has hitherto been considered as adapted to receive the 

 emanations of odorate bodies, and that no real smell can be perceived 

 in water." 



These authorities notwithstanding, I am obliged to believe, from 

 hundreds of observations of fish when feeding, the enumeration of 

 one-tenth part of which would be out of place and tedious here, that 

 fish do possess a sense, a perception call it what you will which 

 is independent of sight, although of course greatly aided by it. We 

 are told by scientists that odour is due to a mechanical emanation of 

 particles from the substance which we commonly deem is itself 

 odorous. Why these multitudinous and infinitesimally minute particles 

 cannot mechanically affect, though perhaps in a lesser degree, the 

 olfactory nerves in a fish it is hard to say. I am inclined to believe 

 they are given off, and do permeate between the grosser atoms of 

 water, and reaching the duller nerves of sensation, do cause a percep- 

 tion of greater or lesser intensity. Taste probably has something to 



