THE SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL FLIES. I I 



guments of the two schools are mutually de- 

 structive. 



The position of the " formalists" is as follows : 



" Trout," they say, " take artificial flies only 

 because they in some sort resemble the natural 

 flies which they are in the habit of seeing ; if this 

 be not so, and if colour is the only point of im- 

 portance, why does not the ' colourist' fish with a 

 bunch of feathers tied on the hook promiscuously ? 

 why adhere to the form of the natural fly at all ? 

 Evidently because it is found, as a matter of fact, 

 that such a bunch of feathers will not kill ; in 

 other words, because the fish do take the artificial 

 for the natural insect. If this be so, it follows 

 that the more minutely the artificial imitates the 

 natural fly, the better it will kill ; and also, by a 

 legitimate deduction, that the imitation of the 

 fly on the water at any given time is that which 

 the fish will take best." 



To the above argument the " colourists" reply: 



" Your theory supposes that Trout can detect 

 the nicest shades of distinction between species of 

 flies which in a summer's afternoon may be 

 numbered actually by hundreds, thus crediting 

 them with an amount of entomological knowledge 

 which even a professed naturalist, to say nothing 

 of the angler himself, very rarely possesses ; whilst 

 at the same time you draw your flies up and 

 across stream in a way in which no natural insect 

 is ever seen, not only adding to the impossibility 



