156 FIRST MENTION OF A FLY 
“be deceived ’’ by the small amount possible of attachment to 
a little hook, of seaweed or moss or their lavve? This is 
infinitesimal when compared with the greater masses, giving 
immeasurably ampler supply of /avve, growing in the sea. 
Were it not for the incitement or excitement caused by 
the fly’s movements or novelty, hardly a salmon, I venture to 
think, would rise to a fly; but to our scarus, since alge and 
moss (if the latter exist in the sea of sufficient length) are 
familiar growths and constantly set in motion by the action of 
the water, both these incitements are surely lacking. 
Even if neither of these arguments carries weight, the 
objection brought forward by Gilbert appears to me to put the 
reading musco out of court: ‘‘ Suppose Martial knew what 
Atheneus and others state as regards this peculiar habit of 
the scarus, surely this was not the place, where the Scarus is 
introduced only as a representative of all fish, to air his know- 
ledge—least of all in words such as ‘ quis nescit.’ ”’ 
In conclusion, if musca be the right reading, we can, I 
think, definitely assert : 
A. That this passage contains the very earliest mention of 
a fly being used for the taking of fish : 
B. That from Martial’s employment of it as an illustration, 
and from his not drawing attention to the novelty or oddness 
of such use, and especially from the words ‘‘ quis nescit,”’ 
which imply a general knowledge, fly fishing had been long 
invented, and was a method common among anglers : 
C. That this solitary passage is inconclusive as to whether 
the fly was simply a natural one attached to a hook, and 
used perhaps as now in dapping,! or an artificial one. 
fishes, the scayus and his tribe alone are endowed. On p. 162, “‘ The stomach 
of a skaros is without a cecum, and appears to be of far simpler form than that 
of most fishes.” 
A trout often appears to ruminate, working its jaws quietly for a con- 
siderable time—perhaps this is merely to settle its last mouthful comfortably 
and to its liking. According to Banfield, in Dunk and other islands off 
Northern Australia, a fish, very similar to only even more brilliant in hues 
than the Pseudoscarus rivulatus, is able by the strength of its teeth (some 
sixty or seventy, set incisorlike) to pull from the rocks limpets (its chief food), 
which when steadfast can resist a pulling force of nearly 2000 times their own 
weight! It swallows molluscs and cockles whole, and by its wonderful gizzard 
grinds them fine. See Confessions of a Beachcomber (London, 1913), p. 156. 
1 Dapping,” to which I miss allusion even in Dr. Turrell’s excellent 
