IMITATION VERSUS NON-IMITATION. 125 



point we have, in the same chapter, ventured 

 briefly to remark. We now resume the subject, 

 but without pretending to enter into an examina- 

 tion of the different notions entertained, much 

 less those of any particular author. We shall 

 simply write what our experience has led us to 

 consider true, and what we believe to be not 

 opposed to nature and to reason. 



At the outset, then, we unhesitatingly say that 

 much of the exact imitation system appears to us 

 very much like quackery. We have been for 

 twenty years mixed up with anglers of different 

 grades of intelligence and skill, and have inva- 

 riably found that what is commonly called imita- 

 tion namely, an old-womanish fastidiousness 

 about the minutest colours, the most daguerreo- 

 type copy of some fancied fac-simile of nature, 

 selected as a " pattern fly," is by no means a 

 proof of the existence of a commensurate amount 

 of practical skill and consequent success. As a 

 general rule, and for ordinary circumstances, we 

 believe that a very few sorts of flies (say the 

 red palmer and the duns) are sufficient for every 

 useful purpose. But there are peculiar circum- 

 stances, arising from the natural fastidiousness of 

 trout in the waters of England, at all events, 

 and also from the variations in the state of the 



