7O MODERN PRACTICAL ANGLER, 
ana (0), that from the way in which the fly must be pre- * 
sented to them it is difficult to be recognised; the 
logical deduction is, not that form is of no consequence, 
but on the contrary that it is of the utmost consequence, 
and that the fly should be as “ fly-like” and characteristic 
as possible, so that, notwithstanding its rapid and un- 
natural movements, z¢ may be at once and unmistakably 
tdentified as a fly. 
I do not see any escape from this position, which if 
accepted puts the colourists as entirely “out of court” 
as by the previous argument are the formalists. 
The superadded theory of the latter, that the imitation 
of the natural fly on the water at any given time is that 
which the fish will take best, falls as a logical sequence 
with the proposition on which it was based. As might 
be expected, this theory was never found to stand the 
test of practice, the experience of every fly-fisher teach- 
ing him that when a particular natural fly is on the 
water in abundance, Trout will commonly take better an 
artificial fly imitative of any other species. To this 
principle there is only one exception—namely, the case 
of ‘‘ May-fly fishing with the dry fly.” In this case, owing 
to the large size of the fly, it is possible to really simulate | 
nature by presenting the artificial insect literally dry, and 
floating passively, Thus the exception proves the rule. 
_ Mr. Stewart, who has written one of the most able 
books of modern times on Trout fishing in clear water, 
founding on the same sound proposition as Mr. Ronalds 
