I think New Zealand offers far greater chances of success. It is not only further removed from the tropics, but, if I am rightly informed, the streams are more abundant and constant than those of Australia and Tasmania--in fact, I believe it is as well watered as this country; and if the authorities there are as much alive to the importance of introducing these fish into their rivers, I would undertake to do this with much greater confidence of ultimate success than I should have if I undertook to introduce them into Tasmania or the sister colonies.

Some time since (it may be eighteen months or two years ago) there was a very intelligent correspondent of the "Field" newspaper, whose _nom de plume_ was the Maori one, "Wetariki no te wai Herekeke," or a similar one; and I having written something in the "Field" on this subject, the New Zealander asked for my address, which, for some private reason of his own, the Editor declined to give until so long a time had elapsed that Wetariki Herekeke had returned to the colony--this I learnt from an indirect source-- otherwise I should have tried to induce him to undertake the experiment of introducing all the various species of the genus Salmo which are to be found in our rivers.

If the colonists of New Zealand wish to make the attempt, I shall be most happy to render them all the a.s.sistance in my power, and I know no one so qualified as Birch to undertake the management of such an experiment; for he is exceedingly intelligent, has a perfect knowledge of the habits of both Trout and Salmon, and thoroughly understands the feeding of fish, both in their natural haunts and artificially, and would consequently be able to select suitable localities for conducting such an experiment to a successful issue.

NOTE.--No reply was given to this by the authorities of Tasmania, but a similar communication, addressed to the Governor of New Zealand, elicited a very polite reply from his secretary, in which he said that there were no funds available for such a purpose, but that the subject would be brought before the legislature on their a.s.sembling, and would no doubt meet with their favourable consideration; but the Maori troubles broke out immediately after, and I heard no more about it.

c.l.i.tHEROE, _October 14th_, 1859.

To the Editor of the "Field."

In the "Field" of some weeks since, it was stated that the colonists of Tasmania were offering a large reward for the introduction of live Salmon, Salmon fry, or the fertilized ova of Salmon.

Will you have the kindness to say what was the amount offered? who were the parties who made themselves responsible for the payment?

and what time did they give within which they would pay for a successful attempt?

I am the more anxious to have this information, because I have been applied to for advice by an exceedingly likely person, as the reward (L500) which he understood to be offered is to him so tempting a sum, that he would need very little encouragement to undertake the management of the experiment; and from what I know of him I will venture to a.s.sert that he will succeed, if success be practicable.

But before I speak confidently of success, I would like a little more information, and will thank any of your readers who are able to do so, to give me replies to the following questions:--

Are there any Salmon in the rivers of Spain, or in France, south of the Loire, or even in that river? If not, why not?

Are there any Salmon in North America, in any river (not a tributary of the St. Lawrence), south of that river? If there are, what rivers in the States contain Salmon.

Do any of the rivers on the west coast of America below the lat.i.tude of 40 degrees N. contain Salmon?

Do any of the rivers of China (not Chinese Tartary) contain Salmon?

If I am right in supposing that the rivers I have pointed out have no Salmon in them, is it not exceedingly probable that the high temperature of these southern countries is unsuited to the habits and uncongenial to the health of these fish? Or how is it when they are on the same seaboard further north, they don't ascend these rivers, unless there are some such objections to their doing so? And if these objections really exist, then do they not equally exist in the rivers of Australia and Tasmania?

But there may be other objections equally fatal: there may be fish in their rivers as voracious and destructive as our Pike; there may be Sharks and other fish in their seas and estuaries, which would snap up every Salmon that entered them. There may be Seals, Porpoises, Albatrosses, Man-of-War birds, and Cormorants, as well as fifty other nameless enemies, all combining their efforts to defeat so desirable a consummation; and, after all, there may be no one willing to make himself responsible for a repayment of the necessary expenses, for corporations and public bodies are proverbially untrustworthy.

Yet, notwithstanding all these doubts of success, I think the experiment ought to be made; for its success would confer so great a boon on the colony in which it was made, that they (the colonists) ought to incur considerable risk and outlay for the chance of success, however small. I don't think there will be much difficulty in carrying fertilized ova there, but when hatched I fear they would not thrive.

I think New Zealand offers far better chances of success: it is further from the tropics, it abounds in suitable rivers, the climate and temperature are more like England, and I believe the rivers never degenerate into mere water-holes, as they seem to do in Australia; and I think the residents of that colony ought to make a vigorous attempt to introduce Salmon, Salmon Trout, and the common brown Trout into their rivers immediately; and I should be delighted to render all the a.s.sistance in my power to accomplish so desirable an object.

ON THE FORMATION OF ICE AT THE BOTTOM OF RIVERS.

_Anchor Frosts._

A correspondent of the "Magazine of Natural History," in endeavouring to explain the causes why water freezes at the bottom in rapid streams, says this unusual phenomenon may be rationally accounted for by anyone who has attended to it; that the streams in which anchor frosts occur generally are those which contain water of different temperatures--viz., surface-drainage and land springs and main springs, the first being always colder than the latter, in winter these never being less than 40 degrees, even in severe frosts.

These colder globules being first frozen, float on the surface of the water individually, being prevented from coalescing by the intermediate main-spring-water, and where the water pa.s.ses in a shallow stream over the pebbles the crystals are intercepted by the interstices of the stones, and then become heaped together in thick beds.

The fact of the crystals of ice (which are specifically lighter than the water) sinking below the surface, is a circ.u.mstance requiring explanation. They do not sink from their specific gravity, but in the commotion of the current they are occasionally submerged, and while so are stopped by any obstruction, when they commence and compose the aggregation.

Thinking this was an erroneous view of the matter, I replied as follows:--

J. M., in his remarks on anchor frosts, appears to me to have fallen into several errors in endeavouring to account for them (they are called bottom frosts in Yorkshire); for, admitting that main springs are of the temperature stated (40 degrees) when they issue from the earth, I am by no means prepared to believe that they keep that temperature long, or that the water issuing from them does not mingle intimately and immediately with the water of the river into which it flows; especially in the situations where anchor frosts are most common, which are rough and rapid streams.

From J. M.'s statement it would appear that globules of water of different temperatures mix together without the one imparting its excess of caloric to the other, which is contrary to the experience of everyone; it is true, that in still places there will be different temperatures in the same body of water, but it is not owing to the main springs of which J. M. speaks, but to the peculiar way in which water is affected by cold. It is well known that water increases in density down to 40 degrees, below which temperature it begins to expand, and this expansion continues until it reaches the freezing-point, so that in severe frosts there will be strata of different temperatures from 32 degrees to 40 degrees. Again, he says that "the crystals of ice are intercepted by the interstices of the stones, and then become heaped together in thick beds;" but if my observations are correct, these depositions begin first round the large stones, which are not likely to stop small spiculae any more than are the water-gates of mills, where, he says, the acc.u.mulations also take place.

Anchor frosts are most common in the rapid streams occurring below deeps in rivers, and I have seen a weir on the river Wharfe which had a wall of ice four feet high formed upon it in a single night by a sharp north wind. In my opinion a sufficient explanation of this freezing at the bottom of rivers is to be found in the fact that water when kept still may be cooled down below the freezing- point without being congealed; but if the vessel in which it is kept be shaken, a portion of it will be converted into a porous, spongy ice, and the temperature immediately rises to 32 degrees.

In the deeps of rivers the same cooling below the freezing-point takes place without congelation, but as soon as this water reaches the stream below, the agitation immediately converts a portion of it into ice, which collects round the large stones at the bottom in the same way that crystallization commences in a solution of salt or sugar around a piece of thread or other substance which may be suspended in it. If a severe frost is followed by a bright day, thousands of these detached pieces of spongy ice may be seen rising from the stones which have served as nuclei for them; which proves that the detention of them is not merely mechanical, but that precipitation (if I may be allowed to call it so) takes place in the first instance, the stone serving as a nucleus, and that this adhesion is destroyed by the action of the sun's rays.

I have never seen any attempt to explain the phenomenon of bottom- frosts before this of J. M.'s, and I am not philosopher enough to speak positively on the subject; but the above is the way in which I have always endeavoured to account for it. Perhaps some of your scientific readers may be able to give much better reasons for it than have been offered either by J. M. or myself. (January 17th, 1832.)

Another writer (J. Carr, of Alnwick,) says that anchor frosts are merely long and severe ones where long ma.s.ses of ice are frozen to the stones at the bottom of rapid streams, and this is simply owing to these stones acquiring a degree of cold far below the freezing-point, and the water in contact with them freezing and spreading into large sheets of ice, which are sometimes torn up and carry away the gravel adhering to the under surface.

Thinking that this was an error, I again wrote to the "Magazine of Natural History" as below:--

I perceive that others beside myself have endeavoured to account for anchor frosts. Mr. Carr says they never occur except in long and severe frosts, and that the adhesion of the ice to the stones at the bottom is owing to their acquiring a degree of cold far below the freezing-point. He is in error when he says they never occur except in long-continued frosts, as the walls of ice which are sometimes raised on the crowns of weirs are invariably (so far as my observations have extended) deposited there _before_ the water in the reservoir above is frozen over, which proves that the frost has not been of long continuance, although it may have been severe. As to what he says about the stones acquiring a degree of cold far below the freezing-point, and imparting that coldness to the water, I would just ask how it is that a stone at the bottom of a river acquires this excess of cold, and if it is not more probable that the stones impart warmth to the surrounding water? I can easily conceive how the stones may, by the action of the sun's rays upon them, warm the surrounding water; but I do not see how they can impart cold, or, in other words, how their temperature can be reduced below that of the water by which they are surrounded. Stones certainly impart warmth to the water they are in, in bright weather, as the rays of the sun do not give much warmth in pa.s.sing through any transparent medium; but on coming in contact with any opaque bodies, the heat is absorbed or reflected as the case may be, and in this way transparent media such as air and water acquire a warmth by contact which they would not otherwise possess. Thus, if an anchor frost is followed by a bright day, the rays of the sun impart so much warmth to the stones at the bottom of the river as is sufficient to liberate the ice from them, and on such days thousands of pieces of ice may be seen rising from the bottom and floating down the streams.

Since my former observations were written I have had the satisfaction of finding my views on the subject confirmed by a very eminent chemist, [15] and if the discussions in your Magazine were to be settled by authority, and not by argument (which I trust will never be the case), he is one to whom many would be inclined to appeal, and to whom few would refuse to submit. (May 2nd, 1832.)

To the Editor of the "Agricultural Gazette."

In a leading article of the 10th of January, 1852, after an account of the effects produced on water by radiation and the protection afforded to plants by the ice with which ponds are covered in winter, you go on to say that there are some circ.u.mstances under which water-plants suffer greatly, and from a singular cause, but one which when looked into is sufficiently simple and intelligible. As you do not appear to have hit upon the true reason, allow me to quote a little further, and then give my reason for this singular effect.

You say that on a very fine but still night, water is cooled less rapidly than the earth: under such circ.u.mstances the bottom of the pond cools more rapidly than the surface, the plants become colder--in fact, some degrees below the freezing-point, &c. &c.

I submit that such reasons are inadmissible, for there would be an immediate upward current, which, as water is such an excellent conductor of heat, would immediately equalize the temperature of all the water above 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and stratified (if I may use the expression) above the water of this temperature there would be another layer of water of equal but gradually decreasing temperature until it fell below 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

The explanation I offer is this. It is well known that if water is kept perfectly still it may be cooled down considerably, or at least some degrees below 32 degrees, without freezing; but the moment it is shaken a portion of it is converted into a spongy, porous ice, and the temperature rises to 32 degrees.

What may be the case in the rivers of the South of England I do not know, but in the rapid streams of the North this process may be seen on a very extensive scale in severe frosts. The water in the still pools (before they are frozen over) is cooled down to below 32 degrees, and so soon as this cooled water reaches the next stream, precipitation (if I may so call it) takes place, and the spongy ice lays hold of every projecting pebble, which serves as a nucleus in the same way as threads and bits of stick serve in the crystallization of salts. After a severe frost, when followed by bright sunshine the next morning, I have seen thousands of these bits of spongy ice rising from the stones to which they had been attached to the surface of the water. I have seen after long- continued frost the course of a stream completely altered by this bottom-ice (as it is called here), and I have also seen a weir with a wall of ice on it three feet high (raised in a single night) by the same cause. Now apply this to the bottom-ice in ponds (which however I must confess I never saw). The night being calm, the water gets cool below 32 degrees, but then a breeze springing up the water becomes agitated, precipitation takes place, and the plants serving as nuclei become immediately clothed with this spongy ice, and the sun shining next morning imparts so much warmth to the plants that the ice thaws which is in contact with them, and rises to the surface. Of course if the sun does not shine next morning, and the frost continues, the plants may be clothed with ice for a long time.

To the foregoing the Editor of the "Agricultural Gazette" replied as follows:--

We cannot admit the soundness of our correspondent's explanation of the formation of bottom-ice or ground _gore_. We are well acquainted with the statements of Arago and other writers as to the cause of this curious phenomenon, and after a careful consideration of the subject believe that it is due to radiation and not to any other cause. Bottom-ice has been observed in ponds on perfectly still nights when there was no breeze to agitate the surface of the water.

The waters in the pools between the rapids of rivers can hardly ever be still enough for the water to fall below the freezing- point and yet remain fluid; the temperature of water in such situations is not below 33 degrees.

The following was my rejoinder:--

You say at the end of remarks about bottom-ice that you cannot admit the soundness of my explanation, and that you are well aware of what is said by Arago and others on this curious phenomenon, and that bottom-ice has been observed in ponds when there was no breeze, and that the water in pools between the rapids of weirs can hardly ever be still enough to fall below the freezing-point, and yet remain fluid.

I was not aware before seeing your remarks that either Arago or any other philosopher had ever written about bottom-ice, and even now I do not know what are their opinions on the subject, and if the discussions in your paper are to be settled by authority and not by argument, I can only make my bow and withdraw; but if it meets your views to allow your correspondents to state their opinions temperately, and support them by such arguments as occur to them, I do not yet feel inclined to give up my notions about bottom-ice. Will you allow me to ask whether you ever personally saw ice at the bottom of a pond when there was none on the surface? and if so, under what circ.u.mstances? I have heard of such an occurrence, but never witnessed it, and feel inclined to doubt the fact unless you will vouch for it; for it appears to me that the moment the water at the bottom falls below 40 degrees it will begin to rise to the surface, and it is so excellent a conductor that it will instantly equalize the temperature of the mud at the bottom with that of its own temperature.

I am neither chemist nor meteorologist, and therefore I am not able to say much about radiation; but my idea of it is, that its effects in water would be much greater in still pools than in rapid streams, and that, therefore, if radiation was the cause of bottom-ice, there ought to be more of it in the pools than in the rapid streams. But the contrary is the fact, for after a severe night's frost, I can frequently find the streams filled with this bottom-ice, when none can be observed in the pools.

Again, can the fact of the weir which had a wall of this bottom- ice three feet high in a single night, be accounted for by radiation? It appears to me to be very easily accounted for by supposing that the water in the deep above was so quietly cooled down as to retain its fluidity until the shaking it got on flowing over the weir suddenly produced congelation. I think that radiation would not go on at the crown of the weir alone.