THE ELUSIVE QUARRY 33 



much disturbed to be coherent instantly, " This will 

 never do. 11 It is a strange sentence to find in the 

 writings of a learned and thoughtful naturalist. 

 His method of reciting the incident misleads. Back- 

 ward gentlemen of the Badminton school might not 

 consider themselves bound down to the assumption 

 that lures taken by salmon are in all cases taken to 

 be eaten. Perhaps they would admit the possibility 

 of another motive occasionally. They must know 

 that a cat does not always eat the mouse it kills; 

 that a tender leaves the slaughtered rat ; and that 

 the otter sometimes hunts mainly for the pleasure 

 of hunting. On reflection they would acknowledge 

 the possibility of similar actions on the part of 

 salmon. Besides flouting a philosophy that has never 

 been specifically advanced, Sir Herbert Maxwell, 

 by his method of exposition, pulls a screen over a 

 highly relevant moral deducible from the success of 

 his friend. It is he himself who makes a questionable 

 assumption. If the salmon took the Mayfly " with 

 gustatory intent/ 1 what becomes of the theory which 

 Sir Herbert has adopted ? The fish was in fresh 

 water ; it had eaten ; and it was meaning to eat again. 

 Nevertheless, knowing that one salmon did feed in fresh 

 water, he assumes that no other salmon ever does. 



At this stage of our inquiry the possibility that 

 salmon seize a lure from some motive other than 

 hunger has nothing to do with the case. The real 

 questions are : Do salmon in fresh water ever, before 

 spawning, take a lure with intent to eat? and, if 

 they do, how often ? 



3 



