68 Colour in Flies proved Essential. 



hesitation, that colour in flies, as being so easily and cer- 

 tainly detected by the quick-sighted trout, is of pre- 

 eminent consequence to the dresser, whose object it is to 

 produce an enticing lure. 



Mr. Stewart has failed in his endeavour to prove that 

 it is not necessary to imitate any individual specimen of 

 the insect tribe. He goes on to say that " we must now 

 consider what it is necessary to imitate, or what do trout 

 take, or rather mistake, the artificial fly for ? " Did any 

 one ever suppose they took the artificial fly for a whale ? 

 Why so much palaver about " what they take it for ? " 

 They cannot mistake it they must take it for a natural 

 insect, dead or alive, for it represents nothing else. He 

 says also, " a neatly made, natural-looking fly will, where 

 trout are shy, kill three trout for one which a clumsy fly 

 will." What a grand discovery Mr. Stewart has here 

 made ! What becomes of his clumsy-looking hackles 

 after this assertion ? 



It might as well be asserted by Mr. Stewart that when 

 trout are feeding on the blacJc midge he could kill fish 

 with the white, scarlet, or even a harlequin. Why, too, 

 does he recommend more than one colour if colour is 

 not essential ? He is, to say the least, inconsisent, for he 

 recommends, p. 70, three distinct coloured flies, and, at p. 

 71, three more. Now, if these colours are essential, why 

 may not other combinations representing natural insects 

 be more so ? If trout can distinguish those colours, it is a 

 very strong argument in favour of their being able to 

 select others; so that, if a dark can be distinguished 

 from a light, we may reasonably presume that a yellow 

 can be distinguished from a brown, and a plain from a 

 mottled wing. 



I grant that flies of the same species differ much in 

 colour j according either to locality, or season, as early or 

 advanced ; or, to the natural change which they them- 



