192 FISHES 



is much too long for a salmon of this age. (2) Your specimen is a migratory 

 trout. If it had been caught in England or Scotland, I should not have 

 hesitated to call it a Salmo trutta, a sea-trout. (3) Your specimen is not a 

 common trout (Salmo fario), not having the vomerine teeth in a double 

 row, and differing from it in usual minor points. (4) There is one other 

 probability, that it is a cross between a salmon parr and S. fario. You, 

 knowing the history of the introduction of the salmonoids into the Selwyn 

 River as you do, will be able to judge whether such an assumption is possible. 

 I am unable to distinguish between these crosses and the migratory trout ; 

 I have seen some bred in captivity. Whatever the fish may be, one thing 

 you may rely upon, that it is not a young salmon. Also recollect that 

 sometimes the common Salmo fario wanders into salt water, and then 

 assumes a silvery and very deciduous coat. 



In 1 89 1 Mr Tanner, Hon. Secretary of the Southland Society, 

 sent home three fish from the Aparima River, which were supposed 

 to be from the salmon fry liberated in that stream in February-March 

 of 1890. They were from one and a half to two pounds in weight. 

 They were submitted to Dr Giinther, who reported on them as 

 follows : 



These specimens are most assuredly not salmon (Salmo salar), neither 

 are they the brook trout (S. fario). They are a kind of sea-trout (S. trutta), 

 looking extremely like the Irish White trout. But the different kinds of 

 migratory sea-trout are so closely allied to each other, that it is almost a 

 matter of impossibility to give an opinion on artificially reared fish, or 

 their offspring. 



The Field of 9th January, 1892, commenting on this statement says: 

 " This leaves the question precisely where it was, and will confirm the 

 opinion of those who insist that the acclimatised trout in Tasmanian 

 and New Zealand waters acquire a distinct character of their own." 

 On i2th August, 1 893 , The FzeW published a letter from Mr Tanner 

 in which he says : 



It is remarkable how the trout in New Zealand assume the habits and 

 aspects of sea-trout, whenever they are found towards the mouths of rivers 

 near the sea. They first make for the estuaries, then for the open sea, and 

 have been traced for more than twenty miles along the coast. Our trout 

 ova were obtained from Tasmania, which, we believe, was supplied from 

 the tributaries of the Thames in England. Is the explanation possibly that 

 the Thames trout was originally a migratory fish, but, being prevented 

 from going to sea, lost its migratory instinct, which has been recovered 

 in this country by the descendants under new and favourable conditions? 

 If this is so, it is a very interesting fact. Generally the trout in the Oreti 

 resemble most the white trout of Ireland. 



Sir James Hector made the same suggestion at a meeting of the 

 Wellington Society held in 1896, when he said: 



From enquiries he had made, he had satisfied himself that these fish 



