THE SALMON IN TASMANIA.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2192, 17 May 1870, Page 2

THE SALMON IN TASMANIA.

The Hoharl Town Mercury Las published the following important correspondence respecting the supposed salmon caught in the Derwent a few mouths ago, and sent home to England for the opinion of piscatorial authorities : “ To the Editor of the Mercury. “ Sir, —By this mail I received the [following letter from Dr Gunther, of the British Museum, in reference to the fish sent to England for his inspection and opinion. ‘ 1 1 also received a letter on the same subject from Mr J. A. Youl, an extract from which I enclose : (Extract from a letter from J. A. Youl, Esq., to Morton Allport, Esq.) “Feb. 25, 1870. “‘As soon as I heard of the arrival of tlie little fish, I went to see Dr Gunther, at the British Museum, and 1 believe my best plan will be to narrate to you exactly what took place. Dr G. as soon as I had informed him who I was and what I had come for, said —“The fish is not a salmo salar but a trout.” I asked him how he had arrived at that conclusion, the fish having been taken out of the salt water as briny almost as the ocean itself, and I thought the common trout would not live in very salt water. He replied they were sometimes found in salt water. 1 asked him to prove to me his opinion. He then took the fish nut of the jar, and pointed to the scales mi the shoulder and the number being different from the true salmon, and said from that fact alone be was certain it was not a ml mo -salar. I then asked him if there were any other means of confirming his opinion ; he said, “Oh! yes, the teeth” and forthwith out the strirg which >.ie 1 its jaws together, and which he had not previously lo iked at. When he had examined the teeth he pronounced it to be a salmon or sea trout. This opinion so asto* nished me that I could not help exclaiming “It is impossible and told him the only salmon trout eggs that ever were sent to Hobart Town were sent in January, 18(56, and were hatched out in April or May following This fish was caught in October, 1869, and therefore, if it was a salmon trout, must be abo.it three years and five months! He then examined the viscera, which he said were not very well preserved, and there were no signs of the organs of generation, if a male; or ovary, if a female ; and altogether it was a miserable wretch of a fish of that age, and that it would never have any power of reproducing itself, “ ‘ I told him every ovum sent out was examined and packed in moss by myself, and that Sir Robert Officer hail kept above 20 of the brothers and sisters of the fish (supposing it to be a salmon trout) in the ponds at the Plenty, where they had deposited their spawn, and hatched out young fry this year, and that I had heard the parent fish were beautifully grown and very handsome. He said that was impossible, for salmon trout could not have proper ova in them without going to the sea like the mlmo salar, and that these fish must lie hybrids if they had produced others, and it was easy, iu a hurry, to mistake a brown trout for a sea trout, and so impregnate the one with the other. 1 replied that old Mr Ramsbottom, whom I, had engaged to take the ova, never did things iu a hurry. He was an old fisherman, and knew the difference between a fullgrown brown trout and a sea trout as well as he did. “ ‘ I then put it to him categorically— are you sure it is not a “salmo salar A’ Ho said he was certain. Are you as certain it is a salmon trout (salmo trutta of Linnams) ? He replied he was, and, furtlv.r, he was certain that neither the one nor the other would ever become acclimatised cither iu Tasmania or New Zc dan 1. “ ‘ 1 told him that Sir Robert Officer was as certain he had seen a true salmon in the Derwent as that he had got a head on his shoulders, and that at least twenty people had likewise seen them. He replied it Mas wonderful how mistaken enthusiasts were--to which remark I said, and were not theorists often a? mistaken “ * He then showed me a hook he had published, wherein he had expressed his theory that the salmon would never be established in the Southern Hemisphere, “ ‘ Now, it does seem the height of impudence iu me to challenge the conclusions of such an authority as Dr Gunther, but I do, because to my mind his opinion is biassed by his foregone conclusions. If hq had saill it was a brown trout, I could not very well have doubled his judgment ; but when he said he was certain it avas a salmon trout knowing all the circumstances of its age, and that its fellows had bred with you, I cannot believe but that he is wroiur. The fish is of that age as to be constantly changing If it had been o’der or younger, Dr Guntaer s opinion would have been undoubted. —Yours, &c., ' “ ‘ Morton Allport, Esq., * Hobart Town.’ “I do not think much can be added to strengthen the able remarks of Mr You] but would point out that, if Dr Gunther is rUt that the fish scut is a salmon trout or a°hv’. bnd, it seems marvellous that that specimen

which was at liberty to choose its own habitation and food should remain undeveloped, while these unnaturally detained in the pond arrived at maturity and reproduced themselves. “From Mr Youl’s letter it appears that Dr Giinther has propounded a theory that no inigatory salmon can succeed in the Southern Hemisphere, which theory would receive a terrible shock if it w r as once admitted that the specimen sent to England was less than throe years and five months old, for then it could only be the offspring of fish which had been to sea, attained maturity, and returned to the river. “ Dr Gunther appears to regard the immaturity of this specimen as affording positive proof that the fish cannot succeed in Tasmania, while I look upon such immaturity as proving that the fish is not three years old, because everyone of those fish hatched in 186(5, which did not die or go to sea in 1868, have attained maturity notwithstanding their unnatural detention in fresh water. “I remain, yours, &c., “Morton Allpokt. “April 19.”