support the theory that the sea-trout is only an anadromous brook-trout. Indeed the difference in color between the brook-trout and sea-trout ranges within a far narrower scale than that between parr, grilse, and salmon." The reader who has not read the paper would doubtless thank me for quoting it entire. As will have been seen, the conscientious and lamented Thad. Norris, when he wrote as above quoted, thought that the Canadian sea-trout were not the English Salmo Trutta, nor the Salmo Fontinalis, and as proof gave this table showing the number of rays in the fins of the following fish:

D. P. V. A. c.

Sea-trout (S. Trutta).

Canadian Tront (S. Canadensis).

Brook or River Trout (S. Fontinalis)..

12 13 9 10 19

10 13 8 9 19 10 12 8 9 19

He adds, speaking of the last two fish-" there being only a difference of one ray in the pectorals, which may be accidental." I am credibly informed that some years after his book was written, and after a more familiar acquaintance with the S. Canadensis, his views underwent an entire change, and that he wrote "the S. Canadensis is the S. Fontinalis gone to sea."

The space allowed me for this paper will not admit of my quoting further from the writings of those above mentioned or of others upon this subject.

I will now state, as briefly as I can, my own views re

sulting from long familiarity with brook-trout, gained by thirty-five years of angling for them, my acquaintance with the sea-trout of Long Island, and those found in Canadian waters. In regard to the markings of the fish immediately after migrating from salt to fresh water it is unnecessary to say more, except that the vermicular marks differ somewhat in different fish. Some that I caught and examined closely had, as Scott says, “vermiculate marks on the back very plain and distinct." And on others, as Norris writes, "the markings on the back were lighter and not so vermiculated in form, but resembling more the broken segments of a circle." The fish in this respect differ from each other far less than often do brook trout, taken from the same pool. Norris thinks the sea-trout more slender in form than the brook-trout until the former attains the weight of two pounds. I have not been able to discover this difference between sea-trout and the brook-trout taken from the waters of this State. The trout of Rangeley Lake, and waters adjacent in Maine (I assume, as I believe, they are genuine brook trout), are thicker and shorter than trout of the same weight caught in the State of New York, or the Canadian sea-trout. I have two careful and accurate drawings-one of a sea-trout which weighed four and one-quarter pounds, and measured twenty-two and one-half inches in length, and five and one-eighth inches in depth-the other of a Rangeley trout that weighed eight pounds, and measured twentysix inches in length, and eight and a half inches in

depth. I have seen and measured several Rangeley trout-two of seven pounds each, one of four and onehalf pounds, etc., and in all I think there was a similar disproportion as compared with the other trout above mentioned.

As regards the number of rays in the fins of sea-trout I can only say that while fishing for them I counted the rays and found them to compare in number with those of the brook-trout as given by Norris in the table inserted ante.

All the writers from whom I have quoted, and all persons with whom I have conversed who have fished for these sea-trout, concur in the opinion that soon after the sea-trout enters fresh water, a change in color and appearance begins, which ends in assimilating, as nearly as may be, the fish in question to the brook trout. On the first day's fishing, when my guide accompanied me, he opened the mouth of a trout and called my attention to small parasites-"Sea-lice," he called them—in the mouth and throat of the fish. He said that the presence of these parasites was a sure indication that the fish had just left the salt water; that they would soon disappear in fresh water. As a matter of curiosity I examined the mouths of several fish, and invariably found that if they presented the appearance described by Norris and Scott, the parasites were present; but if they had assumed a gayer livery none were to be found. The change in color, which begins with the trout's advent to fresh water, is progressive, and ceases only when

the object of its mission, the deposit and impregnation of the spawn, is accomplished. In proof of this I will state that during the last days of our stay on the stream, and notably in fish taken fifteen or twenty miles from tide water, it was not infrequent that we caught trout as gorgeous and brilliant in color as the male brook trout at the spawning season. Whether this change of color is attributable to the character of the water in which it "lives, moves, and has its being," to the food it eats, or other causes, it is impossible to say. I often caught from the same or adjacent pools, trout fresh from the sea and dull in color, and those showing in a greater or less degree the brilliancy of the mountain brook trout. Of course they differ widely in appearance, and therefore it is not surprising that the "Indians all say," as expressed by Mr. Macdonough, "that the contrast between the markings of the two kinds of fish forbids the idea of their identity."

As mentioned by Mr. Macdonough the sea-trout have their "haunts at the lower end of pools" [and upper end he might have added with truth], "behind rocks, among roots," in short, in the same parts of a stream that an experienced angler expects to find and does find the brook trout.

The sea trout will take the same bait, rise at the same fly, and rest at the same hours of the day, as brook trout. The flies that I ordered, made from samples furnished by Mr. Macdonough, who had had some years' experience on the stream before I accompanied him, were much

larger and more gaudy than the usual trout flies, and ordinarily were sufficiently taking in character; but, on very bright days, when the water was low and clear, we' found that the flies used by us on the Beaver Kill, and Neversink, in Sullivan County, New York, were better. The largest trout taken by us on this bout-four and one-quarter pounds-was hooked with a stone fly made by Pritchard Brothers, of New York, for use on those streams. On one occasion, I took at one cast, and landed safely, two trout, weighing three pounds and one-quarter, and one and three-quarters pounds, respectively, upon one of the said stone flies and a mediumsized gray hackle.

In conclusion of this part of my article, I will say that, for the reasons above given, I have no doubt but that the Canada sea-trout are anadromous brook trout, and that they should be classed with the salmo fontinalis, or, if preferred, salvelinus fontinalis.

The trout in question come up the St. Lawrence from the ocean in large numbers, and file off, probably in accordance with the instinct of anadromous fishes, to the streams in which they were severally hatched. The detachment for our stream reaches it invariably in the first days of August. "When once fairly in the current” (I quote from Mr. Macdonough's paper), "their movements up-stream are very rapid. Passionless and almost sexless, as the mode of the nuptials they are on their. way to complete may seem to more highly organized beings, they drive with headlong eagerness through tor