62 Oh no no, not for Joe. Chapt. v. 



even been suggested that there is a comparison between 

 the weight of brain and intelligence of different fish.* 



Why is it that you use a transparent, almost invi- 

 sible, material like silkworm-gut to attach to your hook? 

 Why do not you use whip cord or string? It would be 

 both stronger and cheaper. Why ! because the fish is ob- 

 servant, would notice it, would conclude, would think, 

 aye think there was something wrong, and would not be 

 such a fool as to take your bait. 



Not to multiply examples too much, how is it that the 

 trout in a much-fished river are much shyer than in less 

 frequented waters, and require finer tackle and better 

 fishermen to catch them? They are not really shyer of 

 any thing but man, they are not less greedy of food than 

 they were, but if any thing the reverse, because of their 

 fewer opportunities of feeding, they are only more dis- 

 criminating, more educated, more intelligent. They have 

 learnt to distinguish between an artificial fly and a natu- 

 ral one, they recognize the figure and the shadow of a 

 fishing man, and dash away; while they feed securely on 

 in presence of the ox grazing on the bank. They may 

 not be a "cooking animal" like you and me, but they are 

 thinking animals all the same, and no fools either, and 

 if we wish to do any thing with them we should not take 

 them for namskulls. Indeed if the truth were known, I 



* "The proportionate weight of brain in a Pike as compared with its 

 body, is as 1 to 1300; in a Shark as 1 to 2500; and in the Tunny, 

 a remarkably stupid fish, but as 1 to 3700." — The Angler-Naturalist, 

 H. Cbolmondely Pennell. 



