The Lat­eral Line Chang­ing the Game


Carpworld - - CONTENTS - - Ivan Car­son

In a break from the norm, Ivan takes a far more sci­en­tific ap­proach to­wards our quarry and has a look at some of the whys and where­fores in­volved in bet­ter un­der­stand­ing their be­havioural habits...

YHEou’re at a party and the host says, “Have you met Bill (or what­ever his name is)?

fishes.” And you think to your­self: thank heav­ens for that, the chap talk­ing to me was chew­ing my ear off! “Talk later” you say, (but you prob­a­bly won’t), “I’m just go­ing have a quick chat with Wil­liam”.

Three and a half hours later (he fishes for the same species as you do), you and your new best mate are into the heart of fish­ing: the sneaki­est tweaks, the finest rigs, se­cret baits – the Cam­pari and so­das have re­ally been flow­ing. We’ve all been there, and it’s great when that hap­pens, but when he was at­tribut­ing his suc­cesses to ‘Fire Pat­tern The­ory’, you thought - Qué?

We know that the most ar­dent an­glers are sorted in terms of their tackle, tac­tics, tech­niques, baits, venues, rigs, not to men­tion ap­proaches but there’s some­thing miss­ing from this list that isn’t tuned to the same de­gree: the game, think like a fish. We do pon­der this, lose sleep over it even, but typ­i­cally we are an­thro­po­mor­phis­ing – that is to say hu­man­is­ing the sit­u­a­tion: we like to think what we would do if we were the fish, which can only get us so far. What if you knew how a fish pro­cessed in­for­ma­tion on top of this in­stinct... what could that do for your fish­ing?

Mount Ever­est is 29,029ft high, and I reckon spe­cial­ist carp an­gling has come 29,000 of those feet but there’s still 29 feet to go – and that level takes us to the cat­e­gory of the super-spe­cial­ist! This is opin­ion ad­mit­tedly, and Clint East­wood, as Cal­laghan, said of opin­ions, “They’re like ar*eholes. Every­one’s got one!” How­ever, I be­lieve this ‘push for the sum­mit’ is worth ex­plor­ing.

If you pur­sue the most pres­sured, big­gest, old­est, wis­est fish, and you con­sider that fish in­tel­li­gence can and does have a bear­ing on fish­ing, then this ar­ti­cle’s for you. If not, in the nicest pos­si­ble way, have you seen Dirty Harry?

Don’t look for of­fer­ings that will do for your fish­ing what wood to car­bon did for rods, or catgut to monofil­a­ment did for lines? Those leaps are done. As we’ve got bet­ter and bet­ter at what we do, im­prove­ments have got­ten harder and harder to come by (a bit like a sprinter try­ing to knock a hun­dredth of a sec­ond off his 100m PB), but whilst these ad­vances grow ever slim­mer, they ar­guably in­crease in their sig­nif­i­cance?

The ques­tion is does know­ing some­thing about how a fish pro­cesses in­for­ma­tion help us when pur­su­ing pres­sured, old and wise leviathans?

This ex­tends to con­sid­er­ing an an­gler’s in­ten­tion to catch the main mem­bers of an apex pod and asks if it comes down to some­thing more than just luck: more than a mat­ter of max­imis­ing the ‘dos’ and min­imis­ing the ‘don’ts’.

You may al­ready fish in a way that out­wits the fish’s pro­cess­ing ca­pa­bil­i­ties, with­out know­ing it – not im­plau­si­ble, al­beit that you might not be

able to ex­plain how and why your meth­ods work. So what, you sim­ply fish in a way, co­in­ci­den­tally or oth­er­wise, that ac­counts for ‘fish in­tel­li­gence’? But then again, maybe you don’t?

In this ar­ti­cle we delve into the brain of the fish to con­sider how it works and what, if any­thing, know­ing about these things can do for our fish­ing. It’s a heavy sub­ject, but one that I’ve sim­pli­fied (whilst try­ing to re­main true to the sci­ence of course). It as­sumes that we can all be a ‘Baldrick’ from time to time, but cred­its us with Plato-like pow­ers of thought as well. It goes with­out say­ing that the sci­en­tists among you will prob­a­bly squirm with my ex­am­ples, which is not in­ten­tional. Put the ket­tle on and let’s get to it.

If you’re like me, it’s prob­a­bly taken you a life­time to amass all you know about fish­ing. If you had to teach a be­gin­ner all that knowl­edge, the things such as knot ty­ing, line strengths, rod test curves, etc. would be easy to teach, but you can’t know fish­ing by look­ing at these things – that’s like try­ing to un­der­stand English Lit­er­a­ture by study­ing ink.

Fish­ing’s more than its ‘mech­a­nis­tic’ parts, just as fish aren’t mere ‘net vis­i­tors’. How we talk of spe­cial cap­tures, or what it is to be ‘moved’ by na­ture’s won­der are the things that get us closer to the essence of the pur­suit.

Just as the set­ting of an idyl­lic lake is com­prised of el­e­ments (the sun, trees, birds, etc.), viewed not as in­di­vid­ual items, but as a ‘whole’, so by de-con­struct­ing our quarry, to see what el­e­ments com­prise them, we should be able to bet­ter un­der­stand them.

Enough big talk! The in­tel­li­gence of our fish is as a di­rect re­sult of our fish­ing for them: they are A.I. – ‘an­gling in­tel­li­gent’, and can learn to recog­nise cer­tain an­gler-re­lated hall­marks and avoid cap­ture un­der cer­tain con­di­tions.

Avoid­ing cap­ture is to be dif­fer­en­ti­ated from

when we say we ‘lost’ a fish. A ‘lost’ fish is one that was hooked (past tense), but you didn’t get it in the net – you lost it. Avoid­ing cap­ture is dif­fer­ent: it is to evade or even es­cape the hook, more­over, and is done so by some­thing more than sheer co­in­ci­dence/luck and im­por­tantly, you may never know if and when this hap­pens!

This start po­si­tion grants that a fish can avoid cap­ture (em­pha­sis­ing the phrase ‘un­der cer­tain con­di­tions’) and it is fine if you don’t agree with that state­ment. The cyprinid has a so­phis­ti­cated ‘cir­cuitry’: a ner­vous sys­tem that trav­els around its body like the wires of a cir­cuit board con­nect­ing things up. At the ter­mi­nus of all this ‘wiring’ is the brain! Mes­sages sent to the brain are ‘af­fer­ent’. Mes­sages sent from the brain are ‘ef­fer­ent’. Af­fer­ent mes­sages are sent from the senses to the brain for pro­cess­ing. Ef­fer­ent mes­sages are pro­cessed to the point that they trig­ger move­ment. In fact, in fish­ing terms, they can re­sult in ‘noth­ing’ (i.e. there is no ob­vi­ous ac­tion), which sits be­tween ‘eat’ and ‘avoid’.

For an ac­tion to be trig­gered (the cor­rect term is ‘elicited’), a change in the en­vi­ron­ment must stim­u­late one or more of the senses. Fish re­ceive mul­ti­ple stim­uli, which as we will see, can vary in sig­nif­i­cance.

Take sight. As the fish moves around its en­vi­ron­ment, its eyes scan the world form­ing men­tal rep­re­sen­ta­tions (in­ter­nal­i­sa­tions) of the scene. Do you re­mem­ber the old cine films? They came on reels and made a flick­er­ing sound when they played. If you’re too young to re­mem­ber these, what about those draw­ings you sketched at the bot­tom of your maths book: when you flicked the pages they ap­peared as a car­toon? The film was made of in­di­vid­ual frames (the car­toon, of in­di­vid­ual pages) but only when ran at speed (or in the case of the book, flicked) would they cre­ate the il­lu­sion of move­ment. Each new frame of the film, or sketch in the book, rep­re­sents the ‘lat­est, most up-to-date’ ver­sion of what you are see­ing – it is a con­tin­u­ally re­fresh­ing view.

The fish is do­ing some­thing sim­i­lar, in the sense that its eyes are cap­tur­ing (‘ap­pre­hend­ing’) any­thing that they see and dis­cern, and we need to give this phe­nom­e­non an an­gling term. In this in­stance, in the case of vi­sion, it is a Retino-tec­tal-pro­jec­tion. (Retino, as in retina (i.e. of the eye), and Tec­tal, as in Tec­tum, the re­gion of the brain that spe­cialises in pro­cess­ing visual in­for­ma­tion. Lit­er­ally, an eye-brain-im­age or brain-eye-im­age, which­ever you pre­fer.)

Be­cause in­for­ma­tion sent to the brain streams in from more than just the sense of sight – for ex­am­ple, mes­sages can be chem­i­cal in na­ture, or carry water-borne in­for­ma­tion, etc., the pro­jec­tions can be thought of as ‘sense images’ or ‘sense pro­jec­tions’.

The eyes then scan the world, send­ing visual data to the brain, data such as shape, size, colour etc. When a piece of visual in­for­ma­tion reaches the brain, let’s say ‘shape’, it is di­rected to the place that deals with, yep, you’ve guessed it, shape. Sim­i­larly, in­for­ma­tion about move­ment or a chem­i­cal cue is di­rected to its cor­re­spond­ing re­gion of the brain for pro­cess­ing.

The job of di­rect­ing in­com­ing data is the role of spe­cialised brain cells called neu­rons that re­side within their spe­cialised re­gions. Visual in­for­ma­tion, for ex­am­ple, is di­rected by ‘tec­tal neu­rons’, i.e. neu­rons em­bed­ded in tec­tum, and there are 15 known dif­fer­ent tec­tal neu­rons in cyprinids, re­spon­si­ble for a range of op­er­a­tions that we’ll come to.

Let’s sum­marise so far: the senses get stim­u­lated. They stream in­for­ma­tion into the brain. The in­for­ma­tion can be dif­fer­en­ti­ated by which sense it re­lates to, so that data picked up by the eyes (visual info) con­nects to a spe­cific re­gion of the brain that deals with vi­su­als; data picked up by the chemo-re­cep­tors (chem­i­cal info) con­nects to a spe­cific re­gion of the brain that deals with chem­i­cal pro­cess­ing, and so forth. The spe­cialised neu­rons within these spe­cific re­gions, link to other parts of the brain in or­der that ‘full’ pro­cess­ing can oc­cur. Fully pro­cessed in­for­ma­tion reaches the mo­tor cen­tre where an ef­fer­ent sig­nal will elicit an ap­pro­pri­ate ac­tion (‘eat’, ‘avoid’, ‘noth­ing’).

The highly spe­cialised na­ture of these brain cells, and their con­nec­tiv­ity to other ar­eas of the brain, means that a visual mes­sage can­not be pro­cessed in a re­gion of the brain that deals with say move­ment, nor a chem­i­cal mes­sage be pro­cessed in the re­gion of the brain that deals with say vi­su­als. The ‘wiring’ makes that im­pos­si­ble. You can’t flick the down­stairs kitchen light on, and

the up­stairs bed­room lights go off, (well, I do know an electrician called Dave who...). This means that an ac­tion can­not be in­ap­pro­pri­ately elicited: The brain of a healthy roach for ex­am­ple would not in­struct ‘eat’ when perch loom into view. Apart from the fact that the shoal flee ev­ery time large, two-tone, ‘moves in cer­tain ways’ crea­tures ap­pear on the scene. To stay be­hind when your shoal­mates have gone, as­sum­ing this doesn’t con­fuse the perch of course, is only go­ing to hap­pen once, and your flawed brain cir­cuitry will then have been re­moved from the gene pool!

It is sim­ply the case that young fish, in this in­stance, roach, learn very quickly what two-tone, ‘moves in cer­tain ways’ crea­tures, means, be­cause if you don’t... you’re brown bread! On the sub­ject of learned preda­tor avoid­ance; if you hap­pen to be in the busi­ness of stock­ing fish, please speak to me first.

How­ever, and it’s a big how­ever, in terms of try­ing to per­suade a big old, wise carp to take a hook­bait, this does not mean that you can­not lead the brain to elicit an ac­tion that you are try­ing to make hap­pen.

Note the word ‘lead’ here, not ‘fool’ or ‘trick’, be­cause to fool or trick, is to at­tempt to de­ceive the brain into do­ing some­thing that it could think it shouldn’t be do­ing, and this is to in­cur risk – not ideal when fish­ing for a once in a life­time fish.

To think of an­gling as fool­ing fish is not mis­taken, but when it is through the de­ploy­ment of meth­ods that have worked pre­vi­ously, par­tic­u­larly when you haven’t con­sid­ered fish in­tel­li­gence be­fore, this is not ex­act­ing enough. It is pre­cisely be­cause some­thing has worked more than once that the po­ten­tial for risk arises in the first place, and this runs to luck more than it needs to. Keep in mind that we are push­ing for the sum­mit – en­ter­ing so-called super-spe­cial­ist ter­ri­tory!

If you’ve got a list of most de­sired fish to catch be­fore you leave your body be­hind, why em­ploy a tac­tic that has a de­gree of risk in it when there are tac­tics you can em­ploy that im­part less risk, or if you pre­fer, ap­peal less to chance? To lead a fish im­plies that all as­so­ci­a­tions and com­mu­ni­ca­tions have been re­moved not less­ened. You keep the recog­nis­ables you want, and re­move the ones you don’t. (I pre­sented this as a plau­si­ble ex­pla­na­tion for Begin­ners Luck Phe­nom­e­non).

Imag­ine it’s day­light, clear water, and a wrig­gling worm has caught the carp’s eye. The eyes are stim­u­lated and the brain cells be­come ‘ex­cited’. A pro­jec­tion takes place, in this case a retino-tec­tal-pro­jec­tion.

Note that whilst the sense in this ex­am­ple is sight, the fea­ture ac­tu­ally be­ing ob­served is a char­ac­ter­is­tic of move­ment, namely, see­ing the ‘wrig­gle’. The look of the wrig­gling worm, where it can be seen of course, is com­bined with the feel that wrig­gling makes in the water as de­tected by the lat­eral line, and any smell, as de­tected by the chemo-re­cep­tors, as well as other things of course, for ex­am­ple, lo­ca­tional cues. (How of­ten the fish has ex­pe­ri­enced a wrig­gly worm, and there­after how many of those ex­pe­ri­ences were pos­i­tive or neg­a­tive, and over what time pe­riod, are ques­tions we will be con­sid­er­ing). See­ing the wrig­gling worm causes the brain cells of the tec­tum to be­come fired-up, or ac­ti­vated. You know that if tec­tum is be­ing ac­ti­vated, it must be a visual stim­u­la­tion that took place.

If sight was not pos­si­ble, for in­stance the water was too murky, or it was night, and the fish sensed

the wrig­gling worm via the lat­eral line or­gan only – i.e. it ‘felt’ the wrig­gle; that sense would project to its cor­re­spond­ing re­gion of the brain, where its cells would fire-up. If you know what re­gion of the brain is be­ing ac­ti­vated, you can know what sense it re­lates to.

The lat­eral line is a so­phis­ti­cated sense and can re­port a great deal of in­for­ma­tion to the brain: depth, pres­sure, tem­per­a­ture, ori­en­ta­tion, cur­rent, iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of shoal mem­bers, threat and prey recog­ni­tion, co­or­di­na­tion, main­te­nance of dis­tance, sense of speed, di­rec­tion, courtship rit­ual – the list is long. Here, we con­cern our­selves with the ‘water-borne hall­marks’ that trig­ger feed­ing (which in­cludes the be­hav­iours of crea­tures other than fish – for ex­am­ple, cray­fish, tad­poles, ducks, etc.), and the ‘bolt sig­na­ture’, i.e. that which the lat­eral line knows so well. We also give thought to depth sig­na­ture, es­pe­cially when there is an over-fish­ing of cer­tain places.

Back to the ‘fir­ing’... The phe­nom­e­non by which brain cells ‘fire-up’ has a num­ber of terms; pop­u­la­tion cod­ing, dis­tri­bu­tion pat­tern and more, and can be thought of as the spe­cific pop­u­la­tion of brain cells that ac­ti­vates in re­sponse to a spe­cific af­fer­ent (in­bound) mes­sage. It’s a bit like those images you’ve prob­a­bly seen of a hu­man brain that ‘light-up’ when we think cer­tain things. The point is, each time we think that cer­tain thing, the same area lights up. Con­clu­sion: cer­tain parts of the brain are re­spon­si­ble for cer­tain things.

Now com­bine in­for­ma­tion sent in from the eyes with the in­for­ma­tion sent in from the lat­eral line or­gan, from the chemo-re­cep­tors and so forth, and then add in size, shape, colour, etc. and we quickly iden­tify a num­ber of de­tectable fea­tures that our wrig­gling worm can pos­sess.

Pause for a sec­ond! How many fea­tures are needed, be­fore you can dis­cern what it is that you are sens­ing, is what you are sens­ing? In other words, what is the min­i­mum num­ber of fea­tures you need be­fore you can ‘know’ what it is that you are sens­ing? Key ques­tion!

Con­sider that some fea­tures rank higher than oth­ers, and in ad­di­tion, fish may de­pend on dif­fer­ent senses for dif­fer­ent sit­u­a­tions, for ex­am­ple those of super-clear habi­tats may have pro­nounced sight, whereas those of tur­bid habi­tats may have pro­nounced ‘chemo-de­tec­tion’ etc.

We ad­dress these ques­tions un­der speci­ficity cod­ing, and hi­er­ar­chi­cal pro­cess­ing, which ex­ist as phe­nom­ena and ap­pear to give pref­er­ence to some fea­tures over oth­ers, es­pe­cially in the threat cir­cuitry.

We know that a small black thing on the sur­face of the river for a trout is ‘go-get’, just as a long thin thing that moves is ‘goget’ for a toad. These fea­tures are ‘species spe­cific’. Note that a toad will stare at a mo­tion­less worm and be un­re­spon­sive, but as soon as the worm moves – it ‘snaps’! Worm grunt­ing is an­other, a good ex­am­ple of how a ‘fea­ture’ (in this case, vi­bra­tion) causes worms to come to the sur­face im­me­di­ately when a notched stake, driven into the ground, is ‘raked’.

Sim­i­larly, when a large black spi­der runs near your foot and you don’t make it out at first, but when you do, you jump out of your skin! You’re pro­grammed to re­act to these fea­tures, for ex­am­ple, long legs and the way in which they move!

If it were the case that all fea­tures of our worm needed to be de­tected be­fore a de­ci­sion could be made, a dead worm wouldn’t be taken in clear water (be­cause the wrig­gle wouldn’t be felt) and a wrig­gling worm wouldn’t be taken in murky water (be­cause it couldn’t be seen), which isn’t the case.

It only re­quires a min­i­mum num­ber of key fea­tures to be de­tected be­fore a fish can make a pos­i­tive iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, and a pos­i­tive iden­ti­fi­ca­tion in this con­text means ‘def­i­nite de­ci­sion made’ and ap­plies to sit­u­a­tions that may re­sult in a neg­a­tive re­sponse!

In light of the idea that a fish’s senses may vary in terms of their dom­i­nance, and as an­glers we may ap­peal to spe­cific senses, plus the no­tion of fea­ture rank­ing – i.e. the idea that some fea­tures rank more favourably than other oth­ers, when we con­sider the past ex­pe­ri­ences of the fish and the past prac­tices of the an­gler – you can see how the num­ber and type of key fea­tures can vary from sit­u­a­tion to sit­u­a­tion. Pay­ing at­ten­tion to this idea, will out­trump any­one prac­tic­ing ‘staythe-same’ meth­ods.

We know that visual pro­cess­ing takes place in its own spe­cific re­gion of the brain, as does ol­fac­tory pro­cess­ing and so forth. When in­for­ma­tion streams in from a num­ber of dif­fer­ent senses, the depart­ment of the brain that ends up com­mand­ing the ul­ti­mate ac­tion is the one that has the strong­est cor­re­la­tion with a past ex­pe­ri­ence (ex­pe­ri­ence – mem­ory).

Let’s sum­marise again: The senses get stim­u­lated, they stream in­for­ma­tion into the brain. In­for­ma­tion from the senses goes to their spe­cific re­gions of the brain for pro­cess­ing. Spe­cialised neu­rons di­rect the in­com­ing info. Spe­cific pop­u­la­tions of brain cells in their re­spec­tive re­gions ‘fire-up’ to form in­ter­nal­i­sa­tions, or ‘fire-pat­terns’, ei­ther from a sin­gle, key fea­ture, where there is a strong cor­re­la­tion (pos­i­tive or neg­a­tive), but also as the re­sult of a com­bi­na­tion of key fea­tures, again recog­nis­able, or not. An ap­pro­pri­ate re­sponse will be elicited (eat, avoid, noth­ing).

We can re­duce these ideas to over-sim­pli­fied ex­pres­sions:

VFP wrig­gle: visual fire pat­tern – wrig­gle: wrig­gling worm ‘seen’, pro­jec­tion by the eyes to brain re­gion A, caus­ing fir­ing pat­tern X.

LFP wob­ble: lat­eral line fire pat­tern – gen­er­ated by the wrig­gling worm in the water: worm ‘felt’, pro­jected by the lat­eral line to brain re­gion B, fir­ing pat­tern Y.

CFP smell: chemo-re­cep­tor fire pat­tern – the smell of the worm: pro­jected by the ol­fac­tory sense to brain re­gion C, fir­ing pat­tern Z.

We know that visual pro­cess­ing takes place in its own spe­cific re­gion of the brain, as does ol­fac­tory pro­cess­ing and so forth. When in­for­ma­tion streams in from a num­ber of dif­fer­ent senses, the depart­ment of the brain that ends up com­mand­ing the ul­ti­mate ac­tion is the one that has the strong­est cor­re­la­tion with a past ex­pe­ri­ence

To com­pli­cate things fur­ther, these fire pat­terns (the spe­cific set of brain cells that fire in their par­tic­u­lar re­gions to a spe­cific af­fer­ent) may over­lap. This could be due to sit­u­a­tions where there is a lack of a clear cue, or in­for­ma­tion?

As in­for­ma­tion streams in, key data ends up trig­ger­ing a re­sponse, but where that key data has been pre­vi­ously en­coun­tered, FPT, or fire-pat­tern­the­ory en­ables us to grap­ple with the be­gin­nings of how ex­pe­ri­ence, mem­ory and learn­ing oc­curs in fish.

When a wrig­gling worm has been ex­pe­ri­enced many times (with­out a neg­a­tive out­come), the as­so­ci­ated sen­sory cir­cuitry also fires many times. The fish came to know the ‘thing’ they are sens­ing by way of the devel­op­ment of re­li­able ‘in­ter­nal­i­sa­tions’, i.e. the ‘fire pat­terns’ that are gen­er­ated each time the worm is ex­pe­ri­enced and the cor­re­spond­ing re­sul­tant ac­tion is the same. The repet­i­tive and con­stant ‘fir­ing’ of the cir­cuitry leads to a process of synap­tic plas­tic­ity: the strength­en­ing of the cir­cuitry as the re­sult of its con­tin­ual and repet­i­tive fir­ing. It pre­dis­poses the cir­cuitry to ‘fire’ more read­ily at the next ex­pe­ri­ence where things are the same. We can say that the worm’s key fea­tures trig­ger spe­cific cir­cuits over and over, and in do­ing so ren­ders those cir­cuits ‘SP High’ (i.e. they have a high synap­tic plas­tic­ity), that is, they are ‘well­fired’, ‘burned-in’, ‘en­grained’. The worm be­comes recog­nis­able to the fish be­cause the key fea­tures cause a repet­i­tive fir­ing of the same cir­cuits, which in turn trig­gers the same out­come.

What can we re­li­ably say? Fish have senses. They send af­fer­ent mes­sages to re­gions of the brain that deal with spe­cific sense data. Spe­cialised brain cells, in those re­gions, re-di­rect the in­com­ing info in or­der that it is ‘as­sessed’ (shape, move­ment, size, colour etc.). The checked data leads to ‘in­ter­nal­i­sa­tions’ – spe­cific pop­u­la­tions of brain cells ‘fir­ing’ in their re­spec­tive re­gions. When the cir­cuitry in­volved in these in­ter­nal­i­sa­tions re­peats many times, within a cer­tain pe­riod of time, a process of synap­tic plas­tic­ity takes place. The reg­u­lar en­counter of these spe­cific stim­uli leads to the cir­cuitry be­com­ing ‘SP high’, and, so long as the out­come is a con­stant, and the as­so­ci­a­tions be­tween those key fea­tures and their cor­re­spond­ing out­come re­mains the same: recog­ni­tion takes place and events be­come pre­dictable/know­able.

Next, we look at ‘dis­tri­bu­tion cir­cuits’: what these are, what they do, and why and how they mat­ter to our fish­ing. Un­til next time...

ABOVE Au­tumn gold TOP LEFT A nicely pro­por­tioned fish BOT­TOM LEFT THE BEN­E­FITS OF BE­ING AN ARBORIST





ABOVE Coaxed into a le­gal, YET UNFISHABLE SWIM

ABOVE A beau­ti­ful old fish

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.