Opinions regarding Artificial Flies. 19 



in number the writers themselves ; and ere long 

 the statement that anglers differ, though not per- 

 haps fraught with such eventful issues, will become 

 quite as proverbial as the trite one that doctors 

 do. In the interests of a successful career as fly- 

 fishers, let me hope as I in truth sometimes 

 suspect that however much they may differ 

 in their theories, they may, even at the expense 

 of their consistency, be more uniform in their 

 practice. 



Some philosophers possibly those who, as 

 "Ephemera" suggests, "read insect nature through 

 the glass cases of museums " assert that there is 

 no resemblance whatever between the natural fly 

 and what appears to be the best artificial imitation 

 ever dressed. Others, such as a writer in 'The 

 Angler's Souvenir/ take up a different standpoint, 

 and assure us that, whether possible or not, it is 

 at all events needless to make a good imitation of 

 any fly, as " the greatest number of trout is caught 

 with flies which are the least like any which fre- 

 quent the water." Stoddart, Stewart, and others 

 of a more sober frame of mind, hold that " a neatly 

 made natural-looking fly will, where trout are shy, 

 kill three trout for one which a clumsy fly will;" 

 but that, to kill at all, "it is only necessary to 

 make the artificial fly resemble the natural insect 

 in shape," as " it is not likely that trout can see the 



