138 



ON THE NATURE OF THE PAR, 



probably exceeding* a foot, never attains half the weight of its smaller 

 parent, and measures at most six or seven inches. Again it is singu- 

 lar, that in rivers where par lie, they muster as ten to one, compared 

 with the common trout, a most extraordinary proportion of mules ! 

 which, if we consider the well-known precautions of salmon, while 

 spawning - , could not possibly be produced. These fish in ascending" 

 our streams pair off as spawner and milter ; the female to deposit her 

 roe, and the male not merely to impregnate, but guard the spawn 

 against the attacks of trout and smaller fish, who naturally, instead of 

 doing- the same office, molest and devour it ; and in the case of trout 

 roe, the reverse happens ; it is a favourite food of the salmon, and not 

 likely to be impregnated by him, who is well known to watch so 

 devoutly the operations of his own spawner. Hence, a very meagre 

 portion indeed of the ova can possibly (and that by chance, when the 

 water is heavy) be so crossed as to produce mules, if such a production 

 were the consequence. How then is the fact of the par being- found in 

 such large numbers reconcilable, supposing them to be mules, with the 

 other fact of the comparatively accidental crossing, which takes place 

 between the salmon and trout ? We submit the question to the main- 

 tainers of this theory for a solution. Again, what is the ground upon 

 which the opinion is founded, that par are a sort of mules ? Simply 

 this, that they are incapable of breeding — that they have no spawners 

 among them, and are seemingly all milters. We allow the statement 

 to be true, although, as we shall presently show, it is somewhat ques- 

 tionable whether or not they be all spawners ; at any rate they are all 

 of one sex. But is this the case with mules ? On the contrary, as is 

 well known, the male and the female mule are just as fully developed 

 in every part, as the stallion and mare are among horses. You have 

 both the one sex and the other perfectly distinct, and their only inhe- 

 rent defect is a mutual incapability to extend the species. The forma- 

 tion of the par is, however, precisely the same in every individual. 

 You have not that essential difference in mouth, by which the sex of 

 fresh-water fishes is so easily ascertained. The internal structure of 

 each is the same, examine whatever number you may ; so that, if 

 mules, they want the property common to them with other animals ; 

 a separation into sexes. And here we shall be asked, to which sex do 

 we suppose the par to belong? The natural reply is, that they are 

 milters ; and thus we hold, in spite of the argument of a Clyde fisher 

 from Hamilton we met with during a ramble, some summers ago, who 

 cut up in our presence several of these fish, and pointed out in each of 



