Mr Penneirs Views criticised. 27 



ing them up and across, but by casting up-stream 

 and allowing them to float gently down. 



" Because trout," says Mr Pennell, " take the 

 artificial for the natural fly, the ' formalists ' argue 

 that the one should be the exact counterpart of the 

 other, ignoring the fact that the two insects are 

 offered to the fish under entirely different condi- 

 tions. The artificial fly is presented under water 

 instead of on the surface ; wet instead of dry ; and 

 in brisk motion up, down, or across stream, instead 

 of passively floating. Thus at the very outset we 

 find ourselves compelled to simulate life instead 

 of death in our flies, and for this purpose impart 

 to them a wholly unnatural motion whilst swim- 

 ming ; and as it is found that a naturally propor- 

 tioned insect is deficient in movement, an unnatural 

 quantity of legs (hackles) are added to it." 



Now our position is, that just as in our imitation 

 of the fly we endeavour to approach as nearly as 

 possible to an exact counterpart of the prototype, 

 so in our mode of offering it to the trout we main- 

 tain the " dear deceit," by presenting the artificial 

 fly under conditions corresponding as closely as 

 possible to those under which the natural fly would 

 appear. With this intention we adopt the method 

 which the English school of anglers condemns, and 

 fish up-stream. The manifold advantages of this 

 method will be described farther on ; but one of 



