20 Fly-rod^ and Fly-taMe. 



board, with the bevel down and in contact with the 

 board. The bevel here guides the edge, and forces it to 

 advance parallel with the surface upon which the bevel 

 rests ; there is not the slightest tendency to bury. It 

 would seem to follow from this that the hook shown 

 in the first of Mr. PennelPs figures is by no means 

 theoretically perfect as to penetration (or promptness 

 " to bite/' which is the idea I understand Mr. Pennell 

 intends to convey), but on the contrary it is both theo- 

 retically and practically imperfect in this respect. 



Now let us. reverse the chisel and apply it to the board 

 with the bevelled side uppermost, and at such an angle 

 that the flat side (which will then become what we have 

 termed the " following " side) does not touch the board. 

 Here we have an exact reproduction of the penetrating 

 point of a fish-hook, one governed by exactly the same 

 laws. Attempt to cut with the chisel held in this posi- 

 tion ! It buries at once in the board and comes to a halt. 

 The " advancing " edge, the bevel, guides and forces it 

 downward. 



In considering the penetration of a fish-hook, it must 

 not be forgotten that the problem is not to pierce an 

 obstacle squarely across the path of the hook ; but its 

 point is to engage with an oblique surface, and when so 

 engaged it should turn at once from its former path and 

 bury downward. 



If the foregoing is true, then it again follows that the 

 " outer line " of the barb should not point to the shank 

 of the hook, since then the "following" side of the 

 penetrating edge is in contact with the surface to be 

 penetrated, and must guide the point in its own line ; 

 and thus any tendency to deviate therefrom in other 

 words, to bury is checked. 



