TONE 33 



the light is in any way in his eyes or eye. He might 

 therefore be far less critical of a fly passing on the sunny 

 side than on the shady side of him. The theory allows 

 nothing for the fact that so many natural flies have bodies 

 more or less translucent, nor for the light thrown on to the 

 underside of their bodies by reflection of light from the 

 surface of the water, from the bottom (brown gravel, grey 

 chalk, or red rock), or from the often brilliant-coloured 

 weed-beds below. Looking up from a glass- walled chamber 

 beneath water-level at artificial trout flies floating on the 

 surface, one certainly sees them in much more detail than 

 the theory under consideration would suggest — to say 

 nothing of their being enveloped in iridescent colours, an 

 effect which may be due to their being seen through a 

 prism of water. One sees them thus even where the body 

 of the fly is opaque and gets its effect from reflected light ; 

 and it may be that it presents to the trout by reflected light 

 the same effect as the semi-translucent natural fly presents 

 by means of light partly transmitted and partly reflected. 

 There are, of course, many artificial flies in which, by means 

 of dubbing, or celluloid, or stained gut, or horsehair, an 

 effect of translucency of body is obtained similar to that 

 of the natural insect represented, and often a bit more 

 brilliant. In such cases the trout would get the effect of 

 transmitted as well as reflected light — and one may appeal 

 to the experience of anglers as to the efficacy of such 

 patterns to combat the tone theory. That theory, more- 

 over, hardly accounts for the specially attractive effect 

 of scarlet on the trout. It is not one with which the writer 

 holds, and accordingly he sees no special advantage in the 

 silhouette fly patterns advocated by that very interesting 

 writer and skilful angler, Dr. J. C. Mottram. 



