In Rothery, Yorkshire have a good man to go in first. He appears to have great defensive powers and can cut with dexterity, and he brought off some fine hook strokes at Lord’s in his scores of 32 and 88. He will be a better bat when he scores more runs in front of the wicket.
Yorkshire with a more pronounced “tail” than they have shown of late years did not start the season with such an appearance of solidity as usual. On the other hand, Surrey, rejuvenated under the inspiriting leadership of Lord Dalmeny, began in fine style against some not very strong opponents, such as Hants, Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, and up to the time of our writing this the Surrey batsmen all seem to be at the top of their game and the Surrey bowlers seem to be unplayable. Against Northamptonshire, Tom Hayward scored 219, as against 136 and 79 by the whole of Northamptonshire, so that he alone beat them by an innings and 4 runs, a great and unusual performance.
On this occasion Mr. J. N. Crawford took nine wickets at a cost of 46 runs, so it looks as if he and Hayward, with a boy or two to field, might beat Northamptonshire comfortably enough on their own. Surrey look like being well in the running for the championship this year, as many of their men, including their captain, seem to improve every day; and Tom Hayward, whose long and invaluable services to his country entitle him to the endearing term of veteran, has been hitting away with all the vigour of a kicking colt.
The Surrey team remind us of the sheep of Bo Peep, and with the warnings of past muddles in our memory we feel inclined to quote to the Surrey Committee the invaluable and slightly altered advice of the poet, “Leave them alone and they’ll come home, and very likely bring the championship behind them.”
Quid.
The Salmon’s Visual Apparatus.
There has been no end of speculation on salmon flies, for every angler has his favourite patterns in which he professes to have implicit faith. After all, these personal predilections, however strong, do not carry us very far. They are merely individual experiences, certainly of interest, but not founded on any scientific principle. Before assuming that the salmon has a liking for a particular colour, it would be more scientific to settle, if possible, whether the salmon is sensitive to colour, to discover the range of his colour perception and the effects of the refraction of water upon objects presented to his eye. Such an enquiry involves the science of anatomy as well as the science of optics; but granted an investigator adequately equipped in both departments and endowed with a little constructive imagination, we see no reason why the problem of the salmon’s vision should not be solved. There is no doubt that the proper way to go about the enquiry is for the observer to examine the salmon’s optical apparatus in comparison with man’s, to project himself in imagination to the bed of the river and applying his knowledge of optics to the refracting effect of water, to try to construct a picture of any object as it would appear to the human eye under such circumstances. When this is done it proves a very illuminative method. The two following papers show a laudable attempt to apply such principles, and if they do not say absolutely the last word on the subject, they are uncommonly suggestive, and make a valuable contribution to the solving of the problem. It is often assumed that the salmon sees a fly merely as a dark silhouette against the sky. That is now shown to be a very rare occurrence. He would seem to be sensitive to colour, and under certain circumstances has a distinct sense of the gaudiness of the lures presented to his observation.
The investigation is not without its bearing on trout-fishing, for it brings home to the angler the conditions under which, in clear water, the trout may behold him and his rod from the bank; it explains, perhaps, why, in certain conditions of air and water, the fish miss the fly, and it throws indirect light on many other mysteries that trouble the angling mind.