Mr PenneWs Views criticised. 29 



they not therefore be often seen and seized by the 

 fish under water, as well as on the surface ? How, 

 then, can our author say that flies presented under 

 water are in an " abnormal condition " ? 



But even granting that the artificial fly is, as it 

 appears to the trout, in an unnatural condition, I 

 do not see how matters are to be mended by adding 

 to its unnaturalness in dragging it up and across 

 stream. Mr Pennell says, "We must simulate 

 life instead of death in our flies, and therefore we 

 must impart to them a wholly unnatural motion 

 whilst swimming." How does Mr Pennell make 

 out, that in order to " simulate life " we should be 

 " unnatural"? Is this the theory of an artist? Or 

 would any one, while attempting to deceive a cat 

 by an artificial mouse, atone for the imperfection of 

 the imitation by arranging that the mouse should 

 move backwards or walk on its hind legs ? Is 

 a trout less likely to take a perfect imitation of 

 a fly passively, though, mark you, naturally going 

 with the current, half drowned to all appearance, 

 or wholly drowned if you will, than an admittedly 

 defective imitation of a nondescript, frantically 

 endeavouring to keep up a false appearance of 

 exuberant life by what are acknowledged to be 

 " unnatural movements " ? Is it not at least just 

 as likely that the fish will detect an unnatural 

 movement as an unusual appearance ? At all 



