STREAM-FISHING 95 



his success as a practical angler it sometimes led him 

 to erroneous conclusions. 



"For the angler," he writes, "to attempt by any 

 motion of his hand to give to his flies a living appear- 

 ance is mere absurdity." "We must," he elsewhere 

 contends, " suppose that the fish takes the artificial fly 

 for a dead one or one that has fairly got into the stream 

 and has lost all power of resistance. A feeble motion 

 of the wings is the only attempt which a fly in such a 

 case could make. What, then, must be the astonish- 

 ment of the trout when they see a tiny insect which 

 they are accustomed to seize 

 as it is carried towards them, 

 crossing the stream with the 

 strength and agility of the 

 otter?" He admits that the 

 angler drawing his flies up 

 and across stream does take 



fish, and "this," he maintains, "is the strongest evi- 

 dence that the trout are not the profound philosophers 

 the notions of some would have us suppose." No pro- 

 found philosopher, he reasons, would take, for a real 

 fly, the artificial fly battling successfully against the 

 stream ; but the trout takes it for a real fly ; therefore 

 the trout is no profound philosopher. We may accept 



