"

transformation, could any one believe, that the caterpillar, the aurelia, and the butterfly were one creature? All the opinions of naturalists which I have seen, rest wholly on observation on external marks, and some other trivial distinctions, than which nothing can be more fallacious throughout nature, particularly between the male and the female of birds and of fish. They give no other reasons-no kind of proof by experiment- no positive fact, or any series of reasoning, or comparison of analogy, by which we can come to a satisfactory and decisive conclusion that the fish are different. Opinions which are not formed of sound and solid materials, fact and reason, are like a vapour, they carry conviction not beyond "the whistling of a name." A truth proved by such experiments as those of my Carlisle correspondent, is worth all the loose and hasty opinions and assertions of all the naturalists in the universe.

وو

"Pride often guides the author's pen,

Books as affected are as men."

To find out truths, we must go to facts and experiments. Recollect what that sublime writer, Buffon, says of the change of an ox's horns, continued through three editions of his "Natural History.' Let it prove to us, that we should be cautious how we repose implicit confidence in the dicta of any man. Facts, then, are of much more consequence than the names of authors. I have seen and know so many instances of naturalists

E

being wrong, that I would take nothing for granted. An universal zoology is more than any man can accomplish of his own knowledge, and three parts of what is published are taken from the reports and the credit of others.

It is not easy to ascertain, either the sincerity or the correctness of an opinion. It may be extending this article, perhaps, further than is necessary, but whilst we are upon the subject, a page or two more may be pardoned. By analogy to other animals, we may see how ill-calculated external appearances alone are, without referring to other circumstances, to distinguish one species from another. In birds in particular this is the case, where the cocks and hens vary so much in plumage, that were they not reared from the same nest, and had we no other positive evidence, no man living would believe that they were of one and the same sort; but simple experiments in this way, prove the fact beyond a doubt. It is by experiment, that we know the cock and hen sparrow-hawk, the cock and hen kestrel, varying so much in size and plumage, and a great variety of other kinds, both wild and domestic, which it might be deemed pedantry to mention in this place, to be the same species. Every writer treats the ringtail, and the white falcon as two species (what we call the hen-harrier or furze kite), but from nestlings I know them to be one species. I shall stop short in the investigation of this very favourite subject, my fondness for which might carry me into an unreasonable length, by conclud

ing, that if fish are to be pronounced of different species, merely by slight marks, spots, and bodily distinctions, though agreeing in all material points, it seems to me to be fixing opinion on a slender and treacherous foundation, when there are other facts and circumstances of infinitely more importance, and much better calculated to lead us to truth.

Whether salmon-peal are young salmon, or are not, has been a long-agitated question, and, as far as concerns merely public curiosity or natural history, perhaps it is a matter of no great consequence; but, as it concerns the welfare of the salmon fisheries, it is a matter of first rate magnitude; for, as has been frequently observed already, if they are so, (and that they are, I should think there cannot be a doubt in the mind of any unprejudiced and disinterested person,) they are then unsizeable fish, and ought not to be taken. It is evident to me that they were so considered in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when the mesh of the net was fixed at two inches and a half broad to enable them to escape; and there is nothing in the case to induce a contrary opinion. The capture of salmon-peal, then, is an incalculable injury to the salmon fishery, and it ought to be prohibited.

I do not detail the many other comparisons which I have made with a great number of seatrout and salmon. I shall only observe, that I have made such, and that they all terminated in the same result an exact similitude.

The mesh of the net was fixed by the ministers of Queen Elizabeth, and great consideration should be paid to what was done by those giant-minded men, before any thing is lopped off from the act of the fifty-eighth of her reign.

53

ON THE PAIRING OF SALMON.

THOSE who do not feel a particular interest in pursuits of this sort, may, perhaps, think that this is carrying the subject more into detail, than necessity requires; but others, who are as partial to it as I am, will agree that "even the very dregs are sweet." I should not, however, advance a word more on this topic, if it did not give me an opportunity of applying a few additional observations to the general question. It is material to know, whether salmon pair or are polygamous; inasmuch as, if they do pair, a very pernicious habit is practised, in allowing only an unseasonable female, or one very big with roe, to escape, and reserving the male for destruction, because the one cannot produce a progeny without the assistance of the other. I have seen this practised many times at the Totness fish-lock; that is, I have seen the female taken out and put into the fresh water above, and I have seen the kipper knocked on the head; if they pair, this is a most ruinous practice, and therefore it is very material to ascertain, if we are able, whether they do pair or do not.

No fact is mentioned by any naturalist-no experiment has ever been tried no series of

X