THE SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL FLIES. is | 
—viz., that Trout take the artificial for the natural fly— 
argues that because the natural dry fly usually floats 
passively down the stream, the artificial fly—zvet—should 
do the same. This is another analogical fallacy, the 
error of which would seem hardly to require an almost 
universally opposite practice for its demonstration. 
Ninety-nine men out of a hundred find it best to give a 
slight movement to the fly in the water. 
I fear we must include in the same “unproven” cate- 
gory, and for the same practical reason, the theory that 
flies should usually be cast up stream, rather than down. 
To sum up the foregoing arguments therefore, the true 
rationale of the matter seems to me to be as follows :— 
1. Whatever Salmon, et hoc genus, may do, Trout cer- 
tainly take the artificial for the natural fly. 
2. But as the artificial fly is necessarily presented in 
an abnormal condition—namely, wet instead of dry, 
sunk instead of floating ; and as the resemblance which 
wet feathers and silk under water bear to dry insect- 
down, fluff, and wings on the water, is imperfect,—(3) 
it is necessary for the purpose of hiding the counter- 
feit, and partly also to hide the hook, to give the fly an 
unnatural, life-like movement in the water ; adding to it 
also an unnatural quantity of legs (hackles) which open 
and shut, and move with the movements of the fly. 
4. These “movements” and alterations, however, 
make it quite impossible for Trout to discriminate 
