THE PAR. 91 



very much their breeding in either stream. The fry 

 of these fish have not been discovered of late years in 

 any shape, whether as common smelts or par. 



We have thus disproved two theories respecting the 

 par : 1, That it is a mule between the salmon and 

 common river trout ; and, 2, That it is the male of the 

 sea trout, whitling, and finnock. We are now narrowed 

 to the following conclusions either that it forms a se- 

 parate and distinct species of fish, or is the real fry of 

 the salmon in a certain condition. In disposing of one 

 of these points, we prove the other. 



Now, as to its being a separate species of fish, we 

 need only refer to the facts alluded to above, in order 

 to refute this notion namely, its known relation to the 

 sea, along with its want of any thing like a fully deve- 

 loped roe. But, besides these, we may further remark, 

 that the par is known to grow rapidly, and that the 

 same individuals do not remain in our rivers above a 

 single season, because, as will be observed, the supply 

 of every succeeding year is a supply of young and fresh 

 formed fish, without any intermixture of a former breed. 

 What, then, has become of the vast quantity left in 

 our rivers during the bygone season ? The fact is, 

 they all proceed naturally to the sea, there to undergo 

 those processes which submit them back to us in the 

 shape of grilse and salmon. 



Nay, there is no other refuge for our opponents in 

 this discussion to take to, unless they revert, as we 

 once heard an angler do, to the cross system, and 

 maintain the par to be a breed betwixt the minnow and 

 trout, both of which fish exist in waters inaccessible 

 to the salmon : moreover, the folly of the cross system 

 is here re-exposed, because we imagine it more likely 

 for the minnow and trout to produce a mule than a 

 half sea-fish with one absolutely fresh-water. 



