THE DOMESTIC FOWL. 193 



made useless. This certainly is not what the strong 

 instinct of the fish, in other respects, would lead one to 

 expect. It is not in accordance with the economy of 

 nature, which allows of no such capricious conduct or 

 glaring extravagance. 



What then, I ask, is to be presumed from the fact 

 that a female salmon can perform the generative func- 

 tions, as Mr. Shaw terms them, unassisted? Simply 

 this that she is in the same position that any hen-bird 

 is. She is laying her ova. These ova may, it is very 

 possible, prove, under certain circumstances, unfruitful. 

 Take the case of the common barn fowl. Every one 

 knows that the actual production of the egg in the female 

 does not depend upon the male bird. It is his office to 

 endow and fructify that formation. A hen kept quite 

 separate from intercourse with its mate will continue 

 for a long period to produce eggs, but these it can never 

 hatch; they are barren. Now, this is frequently the 

 case with regard to the ova of salmon. In failure of 

 any intercourse having taken place with the milter, the 

 spawner is not therefore itself necessarily unproductive. 

 It produces barren ova. But I ask, following out the 

 analogy I have adduced, would any one in his senses 

 think it a natural or befitting process were the barn- 

 door cock, instead of holding direct intercourse with the 

 female bird, to transfer it to the newly-dropt egg ? Yet, 

 this is exactly what Mr. Shaw and others would have us 

 believe is the method by which the ova of salmon are 

 impregnated. They deny everything approaching to a 

 direct and completed intercourse betwixt the milter and 

 spawner, substituting in its stead the imperfect, unna- 

 tural, I might justly add impossible process of amalga- 

 mation subsequent to expulsion. Can anything be so 

 utterly absurd? Take the case as it is supposed to 



K 



