252 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



LApkil 23, 1885. 



FLY NOMENCLATURE. 



JSditor Forest and Stream: 



Almost every angler Las had some difficulty in duplicating 

 his flies, arising from the misuse of names or careless tying, 

 or other cause. Some complaints have recently been made 

 through your columns, and a few additional words may not 

 be inopportune now that the trouting season has fairly 

 opened, and fly-books are being examined and replenished. 



The evil alluded to is not of recent, date; it has been grow- 

 ing with the ever increasing number of flies, until its extent 

 can hardly be realized. Mr. Roosevelt, in his "Game Fish 

 of the North," first issued in 1862, noticed its existence in the 

 following language: "It is to be regretted that there is not 

 more uniformity and pride in, or practical acquaintance 

 with, the subject among the principal tackle makers. With 

 the English makers it has always been an especial care that 

 their flies should be dressed well and with uniformity." In 

 1879 Seth Green and Mr. Roosevelt produced their "Fish 

 Hatching and Fish Catching," and the same complaint is 

 voiced. "Old and well known varieties," say the writers, 

 ' 'are continually coming up under new names till no man 

 can keep the run of them. What with the alterations of the 

 names of flies and the improvements in the learned names of 

 fish, it has got to such a pass that the poor angler no longer 

 can honestly tell what he catches nor what he takes it with." 



Seventeen years elapsed between the production of these 

 two books, yet the evil had not been remedied, and it will 

 not be pretended that it has disappeared since so late a date 

 as 1879. In a few instances the tackle makers have taken 

 steps in the right direction, but Mr. Roosevelt's words first 

 quoted are as applicable to-day to the dealers as a whole, as 

 when they were written What are the causes of this con- 

 dition of things? Mr. Holberton, in his communication to 

 your columns of Feb. 5 last, thinks much is "due to a want 

 of knowledge on the part of some of the dealers, and also to 

 the vanity of both anglers and dealers who are constantly 

 adding to the list of flies, changing slightly some old style of 

 fly and giving it a new name." 



If the~expression "a new name" means a total change of 

 name, I accept as operative the last cause assigned. Con- 

 ceding that a change in form should be followed by a change 

 in name, it does not follow that a new name is always desir- 

 able, especially when the fly is an imitation of a natural in- 

 sect whose name it bears. In such cases a change in name 

 by the addition to the former designation of some words in- 

 dicating that the insect imitated islhesame, but that there is a 

 chauge in the dressing, is, I think, much more conductive to 

 clearness and accuracy than the use of some entirely new 

 name. 



The other cause assigned is want of knowledge. Un- 

 doubtedly much is due to ignorance— to a lack of familiarity 

 with the writings of well-known anglers and fly-tyers, and with 

 the most generally received dressings, as well as to neglect to 

 inquire into the colors, shapes and habits of the insects in their 

 natural state. It is to be feared that few of the dealers who 

 supply flies are acquainted with the publications which treat 

 of this branch of their calling, and form in themselves, as 

 Mr. Orvis has aptly remarked, a "charming literature." 

 Still narrower is the circle of those who are informed of the 

 shapes and colors of the insect world, if we are to judge from 

 the wonderfully-made masses of feathers and silk exposed 

 for sale. It may be said that this natural history knowledge 

 is not absolutely necessary to enable the tyer to follow 

 samples or printed directions. Even conceding this to be so, 

 it will be of advantage in fitting him to work intelligently, 

 and in giving him an insight into the purpose with which 

 the various materials and shades of color are employed, while 

 without it he cannot hope to originate new or more perfect 

 imitations of nature. 



Another cause is the carelessness of dealers, who do not 

 appear content with the confusion naturally produced by 

 each one following a standard of his own, differing in some 

 particulars from those of his associates, but depart at times 

 in the most unblushing manner from their own accustomed 

 dressings. The alteration may be confined to the substitu- 

 tion of a lighter for a darker shade of the same color or the 

 opposite, or it may extend to the use of an entirely different 

 color, or even to the omission of a tail or some other part of 

 the usual dressing. 



The same carelessness may be noticed in flies tied from 

 samples. I have recently seen two flies tied from a pattern 

 by well-known dealers; the one produced a tolerably accur- 

 ate copy with bright scarlet feathers and body; the other 

 turned out a fly similar in shape and details, but dyed a deep, 

 lusterless brick red. There was no excuse for this. The 

 tyer not having the exact shade at hand took no trouble to 

 procure it, but contented himself with the closest imitation in 

 his own stock of materials. 



Still another cause is the "improvement" by the dealers 

 of well-known flies. By some occult means they discover 

 that the addition to established forms of some golden pheas- 

 ant or other feather, or of gold or silver tinsel or ribbing, 

 makes them more attractive to the trout. Of course this is 

 done in a spirit of kindly consideration for the angler, and 

 with a desire to help him fill his creel ; but I have observed 

 that expensive feathers are most frequently used, and the 

 "improvement" generally carries with it an increase in price. 

 No doubt anglers are responsible for some of these changes, 

 but only a small percentage of them can, I think, be fairly 

 charged to the fly-fisher. 



In the present'state of lamentable confusion Mr. Holber- 

 ton's plate of flies has been alluded to, and that gentleman 

 has forcibly asserted its correctness in your columns and 

 holds it out as the standard which most of your correspond- 

 ents look for as a thing of the future. If his plate is of this 

 high accuracy, anglers should rejoice that it has been put in 

 the hands of "mostof the leading fly -dressers in this country." 

 If not— Well Mr. Holberton should be credited with good 

 intentions, and the fly-fisher must bear his disappointment in 

 a patient spirit. With the exception of the stone fly, which 

 Mr. Holberton states is made according to the directions of 

 Mr. Ronalds, he does not seem to have followed any one 

 writer or tyer. Had he done so, his accuracy could easily 

 have been determined. As the matter stands, the only fair 

 test seems to be to observe how closely Mr. Holberton's de- 

 signs agree with the forms of dressing most commonly 

 accepted by writers and tyers of acknowledged repute, and 

 to note how far they reproduce the coloration and appear- 

 ance of the insect imitated. 



Before making any comparisons, reference may be made to 

 the writers who will be named. It is not within the scope 

 of this article to discuss the merits of the numerous English 

 authors who have written of flies and fly-tying. Suffice it 

 to say that the names of Bainbridge, Bowlker, Blacker, 

 Jackson, Ronalds, Theakston, Francis and Foster are well 

 known, occupy prominent positions, and are cited on disputed 



points. Of the number Alfred Ronalds has deservedly re- 

 ceived very uniform praise, and his work is a close approach 

 to a text book. To use the language of Messrs. West- 

 wood and Satchell in the ' 'Bibliotheca Piscatoria, " ' 'though in 

 some respects inaccurate fit] displays a rare combination of 

 entomological and piscatorial science." In our own country 

 Mr. Brown, in his "American Angler's Guide," draws largely 

 upon Hofland. Mr. Norris gives some dressings of his own, 

 and takes others from the same English writer. Frank For- 

 ester, in the body of his work on "Fish and Fishing," first 

 issued 1849-50, also follows Hofland. A supplement to this 

 work, added afterward, contains more descriptions of flies 

 from the pen of the same writer, and a very considerable 

 essay on flies and fly-tying by "Dinks," Captain Peel. 

 The latter follows Ronalds, giving a list of his 

 flies changed by substituting the feathers of American 

 birds for the English ones named in his dressings. Mr. 

 Roosevelt speaks of this contribution of Captain Peel's as the 

 "only work of any value" from an angler in American 

 waters, at the time of his writing, 1862, and refers to its 

 author as "a gentleman who is a thorough sportsman, and 

 alongside of whom I have often had the pleasure of casting 



+1->o flrr " T„ fh,* ,,•„„.. !„„*■ 4-: J -»>_ -n n ° 



given, with the substitution in the directions for dressing of 

 feathers and materials more available to American tyers. 

 There is also an interesting chapter on the natural history 

 and characteristics of the insects most frequently imitated', 

 which will repay perusal. Mr. Roosevelt bears tribute to 

 Mr. Ronalds's worth, and states that he selected his work 

 "because its descriptions are imitations of real flies and not 

 of traditional or conventional nondescripts." Mr. Genio C. 

 Scott can hardly be said to treat of flies in his "Fishing in 

 American Waters." There are two or three short lists of 

 dressings scattered about the volume, but the author does 

 not attempt to enter to any great extent into the subject, but 

 contents himself with descriptions of certain flies which he 

 recommends. Let us now examine Mr. Holberton's plate, 

 noting that the flies can be conveniently divided into two 

 classes ; one where the name of a natural insect sought to be 

 imitated is used, the other where the flies bear no such name 

 or are creations of fancy. 



Green Drake.— There is a peculiarity of the natural insect 

 overlooked by Mr. Holberton. Not only are the joints of its 

 body marked in brown, but there are patches of the same 

 color of considerable extent at the tail and shoulders. A 

 glance at any Well executed plate of this fly, especially if 

 colored, will show these spots distinctly. Ronalds, Jack- 

 son, Hofland, Dinks, Blacker, and Francis, notice their 

 presence and direct brown silk, or mohair, or peacock herl, 

 to be tied at the tail, and the first four require the addition at 

 both extremities of the body. Mr. Holberton has contented 

 himself with a ribbing of brown silk which may be taken to 

 represent the joints in the body of the insect, but his plate 

 shows nothing to imitate the spots referred to and reproduced 

 so carefully by the writers named. The difference in ap- 

 pearance between the fly, as shown by Mr. Holberton, with 

 a yellow body lightly ribbed with brown silk, and a similarly 

 colored body with a mass of brown silk or peacock herl or 

 mohair at each extremity or at the tail alone, can readily be 

 pictured. 



Gray Drake.— The natural fly has similar dark spots at the 

 lower extremity of the body to those noticed in the green 

 drake. A glance at the writers referred to in connection 

 with that fly shows that they all notice this peculiarity in 

 their dressings. But Mr. Holberton does not. He gives a 

 white silk body ribbed with silver tinsel. 



March Brown. — The original of this fly may first be 

 noticed. The color of the body of the male insect is given 

 as light brown by Mr. Theakston, and that of the female is 

 described as greenish brown by Mr. Ronalds and Mr. Roose- 

 velt, and it is dressed by the former with an olive green 

 wool body. Mr. Holberton has apparently had the female 

 fly in mind. His plate shows the body divided in two nearly 

 equal portions, the upper one extending from the shoulders 

 to the middle of the body colored green, and the lower half 

 is dark reddish brown. Here the two component colors in 

 the insect are separated instead of being blended, and the 

 idea conveyed is that the natural type is parti-colored, which 

 is contrary to the fact. Mr. Theakston describes the wings 

 of the insect as "a dun light brown ground, broken with 

 strong dark lines." Mr. Ronalds used the same color wing 

 for the female as for the male fly, and for the latter requires 

 a quill feather of the hen pheasant's wing, as do Theakston, 

 Jackson, Ephemera, Blacker and Francis. Dinks, Frank 

 Forester, and Hofland use a partridge tail feather, and Roose- 

 velt the mottled wing feather of a brown hen. All these 

 writers employ feathers with a brown tinge of color, in imi- 

 tation of the natural insect, while Mr. Holberton gives the 

 wings of a pale gray or light lead color. 



Ronalds's Stone Fly. — This is the name used by Mr. Hol- 

 berton, and the test of accuracy is to compare his design 

 with Ronalds's directions. The later gives the body as fur of 

 hare's ear mixed with yellow worsted or camlet, and ribbed 

 with yellow silk, leaving most of tne yellow at the tad. Mr. 

 Holberton depicts it of a pale gray or light lead color, ribbed 

 with gold tinsel or yellow silk. Mr. Ronalds directs the tail 

 to be two strands of a brown mottled partridge feather, the 

 wings to be quill feathers of a hen pheasant's wing, and the 

 hackle to be stained a greenish brown or natural grizzle. 

 Mr. Holberton shows the tail, hackle and wings a pale gray 

 or lead color. It would be hard to imagine a greater differ- 

 ence than is shown between the brown, yellow and greenish 

 brown hues of the one fly and the light lead color of the 

 other. Yet they are supposed to be counterparts. 



Alder Fly.— Mr. Theakston describes this fly under the 

 name of the light dun. He gives the colors as follows: 

 "Top wings, near the shade of the outer skin of a dried 

 onion, with faint mottles and crossings a shade darker; 

 body, thighs and legs a light beeswax hue and transparency," 

 and adds, "They are imitated with feathers from the land rail, 

 brown owl, dotterel, brown hen, etc., with tawny, coppery- 

 colored silks of lighter or darker hues." Ronalds, Jackson, 

 Blacker, Francis, Dinks and Roosevelt agree in using for the 

 wing the feather of a brown hen's wing, and Ronalds, as a 

 secondary dressing, permits the pea hen's wing feather. 

 Hofland uses the brown speckled feather from the mallard's 

 back. It is plain that a brown-colored wing feather best 

 represents the natural fly, and is generally adopted ; but Mr. 

 Holberton shows a dark gray or dark lead color feather, 

 something very different. 



Cow-Duns Fly.— Mr. Holberton depicts this with a light 

 olive green body, ginger or red hackle, and plain pale gray 

 or lead-color wing. Mr. Theakston gives the color of the 

 insect's body as dusky orange, and the wings red brown, 

 shading to orange at the shoulders. Ronalds adds that the 



female fly is a "greenish-brown." Evidently Mr. Holber- 

 ton had the female fly in mind. His olive green body dress- 

 ing and ginger hackle blend to produce the general color 

 effect of the insect, but what do the lead-col or" wings repre- 

 sent? Bowlker, Francis, Foster, Theakston, Frank Forester, 

 and Dinks give dressings using a land rail's wing feather 

 which is brown. Norris recommends a brown mallard or 

 brown hen feather. Roosevelt favors the feather of a brown 

 thrush or rail. These writers, it is true, mainly dress the 

 male fly, but Mr. Ronalds gives a buzz dressing for the 

 female, and directs the wings and legs to be made "of a red 

 cock's hackle changed to a brown color by putting it into a 

 solution of copperas." Mr. Holberton has substituted wings 

 for the buzz dressing, but he should have colored them after 

 Mr. Ronalds's hackle, or have used some feather of brown 

 hue to accord with the writers mentioned, and not shown a 

 pale gray or lead color. 



To trace the various fancy flies depicted by Mr. Holberton 

 to their originals would occupy much time and space. 1 

 will only call attention to two' of them, the professor and 

 the grizzly king, both well-known and both attributed, as 

 noted by Mr. Holberton in his letter of Feb. 5. to Professor 

 Wilson, and described in his book "The Rod and the Gun." 

 In his plate Mr. Holberton represents the body of the pro- 

 fessor as ribbed with gold tinsel and supplied with a tail. 

 Neither in the printed directions for tying given by Professor 

 Wilson nor in the woodcut he gives of the artificial fly is 

 there any authority to be found for these improvements. No 

 gold tinsel nor tail is mentioned or shown. Mr. Holberton's 

 grizzly king has the body ribbed with gold tinsel and the 

 hackle is red or brown. Professor Wilson directs the use of 

 a gray hackle, and does not represent in his cut nor mention 

 in his directions any gold tinsel. Moreover, Mr. Holberton 

 in his communication of Feb. 5, so often referred to, has 

 given directions for tying this fly which accurately follow 

 those of Professor Wilson, omit the tinsel, call for a gray 

 hackle and show the inaccuracy of Mr. Holberton's plate- 

 In selecting these flies for notice, I have endeavored to 

 choose a few which were well known. I do not wish to be 

 understood as implying that all the flies shown by Mr. Hol- 

 berton are inaccurate or open to sharp criticism. There are 

 others open to comment and many more which accord with 

 the best dressings. The point to which I invite attention is 

 that no plate ought to be accepted as a standard which pre- 

 sents in well known flies such instances of departure from 

 the original of the fancy fly in the one case, and from the 

 colors of the natural insect and the dressings given by well 

 known and careful fly-tyers in the other. A word may be 

 said of the technical execution of this plate. The flies called 

 red hackle and brown hackle respectively, are shown by the 

 same shade of color. The ginger hackle is perhaps lighter. 

 Of course there is no difficulty in reproducing these flies as 

 their names accurately indicate the color hackle to be used. 

 But examine others. Take the cinnamon fly and the hackle 

 is in the same shade of color as used on the red and brown 

 hackles. It may be taken to represent either one or the 

 other of these colore and certainly would not suggest a ginger 

 buckle which no doubt is intended. Again look at the Coch- 

 y-bond-dhu, the hackle is light brown shading to a deep 

 brown at the head, but hardly darker than would result 

 from the thickness of the hackle at that point. I doubt if 

 anyone unacquainted with the fly would even imagine that 

 a furnace hackle was intended. I admit there is some diffi- 

 culty in accurately representing hackles in colors, but it is 

 not insuperable, especially when done by hand. At all events 

 it is possible to use different shades of color for the several 

 hackles, so that the presence of a given shade shall at all 

 times represent the same hackle. The criticism is of some 

 significance in view of Mr. Holberton's statement that the 

 leading fly-tyers have this plate, presumably to follow it. 



Mr, Holberton's handiwork is dated 1882. A year 

 later, Mr. Orvis and Mr. Cheney produced their "Fish- 

 ing with the Fly," which contains numerous colored 

 representations of trout flies as dressed by the former. 

 These plates were not dubbed "standards" by their author, 

 but they are so widely distributed and so well known as to 

 have secured a public position for themselves, and they can- 

 not be passed by in this connection simply because Mr. Orvis 

 has not publicly offered them as candidates for the "stand- 

 ard" position. Let us look at the same flies in Mr. Orvis's 

 book that have been noticed in Mr. Holberton's plate. 



Green Drake.— Mr. Orvis gives the customary yellow body 

 but omits the dark spots at the head and tail which exist in 

 the insect. The wing is shown as a barred feather of a dark 

 yellow or ochre color. Ronalds, Jackson, Blacker, Francis, 

 Roosevelt, Dinks, Theakston, Hofland and Ephemera agree 

 in staining a similar feather a greenish shade. Mr. Theak- 

 ston says the wings of the insect are "of a light grass-green 

 ground and dim transparency, veined and crossed with 

 darker lines; two or three small blotches near the middle." 

 It is true that Mr. Foster uses a gray mallard feather dyed 

 yellow, and Ephemera gives the same as a secondary form 

 of dressing, but with it he requires a yellow-green mohair 

 body. Mr. Orvis's fly, with its yellow body, brown hackle 

 and ochre-colored wings, has no 'trace of the green shade of 

 the insect. It is more like some dressings of the little yel- 

 low May fly which precedes in its appearance the green drake. 



Gray Drake.— Body white silk, but no attempt is made to 

 reproduce the dark spots at the lower extremity, noted by 

 other writers. The ribbing is apparently blue silk and gold 

 tinsel. Ronalds and Jackson use silver tinsel, but Blacker, 

 Francis, Ephemera, Theakston and Dinks do not mention it 

 and I do not find any allusion to blue silk. Possibly this is 

 a misprint as it does not appear in the same fly dressed as a 

 lake fly. . 



March Brown.— Mr. Orvis uses a brown wing and his. 

 dressing very well represents the shading of the natural in- 

 sect as given by Mr. Theakston, and agrees with the author- 

 ities named in considering Mr. Holberton's plate. _ 



Stone Fly.— Body light gray, ribbed with white silk or 

 silver tinsel; tail several fibres of the same color; hackle and 

 wiugs darker gray color. This is very much the same 

 dressing as used by Mr. Holberton and it has been shown 

 not to accord at all with Mr. Ronalds. As Mr. Orvis does 

 not say where he finds his authority, the insect itself and 

 writers other than Mr. Ronalds may be examined. Mr. 

 Theakston describes the insect as having a yellow body, each 

 joint marked with brown; legs, light brown; top wings, 

 brown o-rizzly hue, adding, "the foundation color is orange 

 or yello°w, darkened in the upper and prominent parts with 

 brown." ' Blacker, Francis, Bowlker, Theakston, Foster, 

 Roosevelt and Dinks, to answer these requirements, give a 

 yellow brown body, differ somewhat as to the precise color 

 of the hackle but agree on a wing of a brown shade, using 

 hen pheasant, copper brown mallard, partridge, wild drake, 

 or brown hen's feathers. Certainly Mx. Orvis's representa- 

 tion is too light in color. 



