IMITATION OF THE NATURAL INSECT 163 



likely to prove effective than a nondescript, is 

 logical, beyond question, not only because the 

 imitation is likely to delude the fish, but also 

 because of the appeal it makes to the angler's 

 own sense of fitness; for it is more than likely 

 that the angler, knowing his imitation to be a 

 correct one, will feel a confidence that will en- 

 able him to make a cleaner presentation of it, 

 and to simulate more closely the great essentials 

 action and position. And yet within the ex- 

 perience of every angler there have been times 

 when the very closest imitation of the insect 

 upon which the trout were presumably feeding, 

 presented in the l>est possible manner, has 

 failed to excite any interest on the part of the 

 fish, and when an artificial in no way resem- 

 bling the natural in colour took trout quite as 

 well as the closest imitation. On such occasions 

 the faith of the advocate of close imitation 

 probably received a rude shock. 



Although considered out of fashion among 

 fly fishermen of, the present day, one occasion- 

 ally meets an angler who still adheres to what 

 is known as the "routine" system. The advo- 

 cates of this system believe in the necessity of 

 presenting to the fish a certain series of artificial 

 flies in February, another series in March, and 



