and then there is an end of the whole brood for that year. But on the contrary, if the close time commenced on the 1st of October, and all artificial obstructions were removed, the fish being drawn into the rivers by the equinoctial rains, would immediately avail themselves of the opportunity, and go to the places of which they are in search. Surely this is a case in which the laws of Nature should not be defeated by institutions grounded upon false reasoning and interested

views.

The great object is, the first flood after Michaelmas, the rivers being then swollen by the equinoctial storms. It is then that the salmon should be protected, and the rivers thrown open to them. Another strong reason why the close time should commence on the 1st of October, and all obstructions be removed to afford the fish every facility to go up the rivers, is, that these floods last but a very short time the waters once abated, the opportunity is lost, and the fish are again exposed to all the injuries which have been enumerated.

I therefore repeat, that the close time should commence on the 1st of October, that the fish may avail themselves of the first flood after Michaelmas; and I believe there is no foundation whatever, either in reason or fact, for supposing that salmon are in season in different rivers at dif ferent times. They are seasonable or unseasonable during the summer months, as they come from the sea, with the tokens upon them. Place two

fish side by side, taken in the same river, at the same time, the one going to the sea, and the other coming from it, and the truth of this observation will be manifest; the two fish will hardly look like the same species. The same may happen in two different rivers, and it is therefore not fair to conclude, as a general rule, that all fish are in season at different times in different rivers; they all come from the sea, and it is that alone which makes them seasonable.

The law of Nature must be the same at all places, and has the best claim to be adopted as our guide. Can we suppose that sea fish are in season at Southampton at one part of the year and at Torbay at another? Whatever may be the opinion of others, such a supposition appears to me irreconcileable with nature, with reason, or with

common sense.

ON THE SPECIES OF THE COMMON SALMON, THE SEA-TROUT, and the saLMON-PEAL; AN ENQUIRY WHETHER THEY ARE ONE, OR THREE DISTINCT SPECIES.

THIS is a most important and vital branch of the general subject, and the question should be put at rest, because if the sea-trout and the salmon-peal are allowed by the legislature to be taken, under an idea that they constitute a distinct species, while they are in fact the same species, then an immensity of mischief is committed; but if the three form but one species, then the two latter are unsizeable fish, and are prohibited by law, unless by the local act before-mentioned, from being taken. There is also a great diversity of opinion among mankind, some strenuously contending that they are three, and others as stoutly maintaining that they are but one species. I confess myself to be of the latter opinion, but I will endeavour to investigate the question dispassionately, and without prejudice. When the evidence of facts circumstantial and positive shall be placed before the public, they will judge and determine whether these fish are of the same or different species.

I will first state the affirmative evidence, that they are the same fish; and then produce what is

said, as far as I can collect, of a negative tenden

I have not the least

other, but as a pri

cy, to show that they are not. interest either one way or the vate member of the community; my object is solely to find out the truth, if I can, that justice may be done to this subject.

But before this enquiry is entered upon, it will be necessary to make a very few prefatory general observations on the species of animals. The only difference of animals in nature is species: by this word I mean, without giving a specific definition, animals of a particular kind that congregate and breed together; and in a state of nature, free from constraint, never amicably intermix with animals of a different kind; but under that constraint, if they do mix and produce with other animals of a very similar conformation, that such produce being male, are sterile and never reproduce. Without this law there would be universal confusion. Naturalists, according to their differ ent ideas, and for the conveniency of study, have classed certain animals which have certain general characters in common into genera; but in certain other animals of the same species there are varieties, such as the dog and the pigeon, and this occurs even in the vegetable world. Whether these varieties are natural and original, of whether they are the effect of accident or other causes, has nothing to do with the present question. Thus then, when authors speak of, I think, twenty-nine species of sal

mon, they must mean fish of the salmo genus; such as a great variety of fish which have some characteristics in common with the salmon, but are no more salmon, or any thing like it, than a pig is like a horse, further than that each has four legs. This then is only opinion, but that species is a natural distinction is a decided fact. They call a little grayling, which never exceeds seven or eight inches in length, a salmon, salmo salmoletus; a common trout, salmo fario; and the different sorts of chars are all ranked with the salmo, though they are entirely fresh-water fish, and never go into the sea. Authors may class 29,000 such fish among the salmo species, if they will, but that will scarcely make them salmon; they are all a distinct sort, having nothing to do with the salmo salar, or common salmon, which I believe is the sole object of the laws we have been just considering. I also believe that "fish of the salmon kind" means the peal and the sea-trout, which are now contended to be young salmon; and I do not think that of this fish there is more than one species, but rather that it is the same in England, Ireland, Scotland, and the north of Europe. What the American salmon may be, I know not, but I have been told they are not different from our own. Some contend for varieties of species, because the salmon in some rivers differ a little in figure, colour, and flavour from those in others: there is fifty times greater apparent dissimilarity among the oxen and the sheep of different parts of the king

D