Fish-hooks. 13 



He discusses the question as follows : 



"Extraordinary as it may seem in such a mechanical 

 age as ours, we cannot go into a tackle shop, and buy 

 a hook in which one or more glaring defects, or of 

 offences against the first principles of mechanics, cannot 

 be pointed out. The most common fault of all, perhaps, 

 lies in the shape of the bend. I have shown, when allud- 

 ing to this subject in the Book of the Pike, how great 

 is the difference in the penetrating powers of different 

 bends. Between the two extremes it amounts to no less 

 than cent, per cent. ; and yet even the best of these fall 

 below the point of efficiency which ought to be attain- 

 able. Another obvious fault is overfineness in the wire, 

 from which it results that when the point comes sharply 

 in contact with a bone or other hard portion of a fish's 

 mouth, or even on the sudden jerk occasioned by strik- 

 ing softer material, it l springs' that is, yields by a wid- 

 ening of the bend outward and so fails to penetrate. 

 On the form of the shank of the hook, again depends, 

 to a considerable extent in fly-fishing, the proper and 

 even swim of the lure ; and while the point and barb are 

 the first portions of the hook to be brought into requisi- 

 tion in practice, it would seem that they are the last on 

 which any theoretical consideration has been bestowed. 



" The theory of hooks, as based simply on mechanical 

 principles, should probably run somewhat as follows : 



" 1. What are the objects to be aimed at in a perfect 

 hook ? 

 11 a. Penetration. 

 " b. Holding power. 

 "c. Strength. 

 " d. Lightness and neatness. 



" 2. How are these to be attained and combined ? 



