204 
FOREST AND STREAM 
TO LURE THE WILY TROUT 
HF IS NO LOVER OF NONDESCRIPT DISHES, AND EXACT IMITATIONS 
OF HIS NATURAL FOOD MOST SURELY APPEAL TO HIS APPETITE. 
By DR. HARRY GROVE 
T HERE is no question at present 
that is exciting more interest among 
scientific fly-fishermen than to what 
extent the artificial fly on the cast should 
resemble the natural insect. The 
utility of high-class fly-dressing is 
practically determined by its answer. 
The exact imitation theory is a safe 
one by which to be guided only when 
fish are well on the feed. From direct 
experience, I have found that when sev¬ 
eral species of flies are on the water at 
the same time, a feeding fish as a rule 
will confine himself to one of them. The 
examination of a great number of the 
stomachs of trout, has conclusively dem¬ 
onstrated to me, that the salmo fontin- 
alis is no lover of nondescript dishes, or 
of variety for variety’s sake. Vv hy. a 
trout should exercise this selective 
faculty, would be difficult to explain, 
that lie apparently does so, is in evi¬ 
dence. 
If then the habits of a feeding trout 
are such as I have attempted to prove, 
the exact imitation theory stands on an 
exceedingly firm basis. It is impossible 
to affix an indelibly inscribed label to 
the character of any species, which at all 
times shall truly describe it, and it is 
not unlikely that now and again we 
should meet with contrary instances. 
These contrary instances are not so 
numerous as they would seem to be. 
There is nothing to prevent our think¬ 
ing, in many cases where the "wrong 
fly” is taken, that it is rather for its 
resemblance to the “right one, than 
its divergence from it. 
I N sustaining an argument, it is not well 
to overlook anything that has a par¬ 
ticular bearing, directly and sometimes 
indirectly, upon the question at issue. 
The statement I have madq—that trout 
exercise selection—when founded on the 
fact that examination of their stomachs 
indicates their preference for a particu¬ 
lar species of insect at times, is ques¬ 
tionable, when referable to whether or 
not their taste is epicurean enough to 
really exercise what we understand as 
selection. 
The statement made by that master 
of the art of angling, the late John Har¬ 
rington Keene, that the ephimeudae 
are the favorite food of the trout, is 
not to be gainsaid. As a rule, these 
species appear on the water in suc¬ 
cession, and it follows as a certainty 
that at these intervals, one form of that 
character must be largely in the ascend¬ 
ency. Bearing in mind that hunger is 
one of the desires—a desire of quantity, 
not of quality; especially strong and un¬ 
controllable in a predatory animal—it is 
in evidence that a hungry fish will gratify 
this desire as quickly as possible, with 
an insect the most plentiful and easiest 
of access. And this must not be over¬ 
looked in the consideration of the selec- 
use of the term instinct, being well 
aware of the fact that it is not a scientific 
one; for want of something better, we 
will allow it to stand. 
I NVARIABLY present to a feeding 
fish an imitation of the species of 
ephimeudae most prevalent on the 
water, especially if it be at or near his 
usual hours of gratifying his appetite. 
There are a certain class of anglers 
with a fixed idea, who consider it of 
little importance what kind of an arti¬ 
ficial fly is used; this when stated as a 
general truth, is a creed which does dis¬ 
credit alike to fishermen and fish. A 
feeding fish cannot be considered to be 
in an ordinary casual state of conscious¬ 
ness. It is, by virtue of being a feed¬ 
ing fish, in a state open to receive one 
certain impression, namely, the image of 
the fly upon which it is feeding; and re¬ 
latively impervious to all other impres¬ 
sions of no greater inherent magnitude. 
To present a fish in this condition with 
an artificial, representing a different fly 
or designedly “freakish,” is therefore 
without any excuse that I am able to 
find, and is only calculated to arouse 
suspicion and draw attention to the 
main point of “freakishness”—namely, 
the presence of the hook. At best it is 
only to substitute for an imitation of 
something the fish expects, wants, and 
knows it wants, an object having no such 
certain recommendations. 
We will take it for granted that we 
have established the fact that the 
ephimeudae are the favorite food of 
surface-feeding fish, that examination of 
their stomachs indicates that they con¬ 
fine themselves generally to one par¬ 
ticular insect of that class, and also that 
as a rule it is the one mostly in evi¬ 
dence on the surface of the stream. 
Under these considerations, it is most 
certainly necessary that we present to 
these fish an artificial fly constructed to 
represent the object of their pursuit. 
T HE exact imitation theory, in my 
estimation, has particular bearing 
only upon fish well on the feed. 
By no means, however, must you con¬ 
sider I even imagine that when fish arc 
not feeding, anything in the way of a fly 
would be an efficient lure. To cater to 
a trout when he is not feeding involves 
one of the nicest and most difficult prob¬ 
lems in artistic fly-tying. I make this 
statement fearlessly: that the steps here¬ 
tofore taken in this direction are of the 
most crude and unscientific character. 
The ephimeudae are, of all insects, the 
most fragile, transparent, and iridescently 
beautiful,— 
Glistening rovers of the river, 
Argosies, with silken sails, 
Pilots of the purple twilight, 
Sailors of the summer gales. 
To what extent can artistic manipula¬ 
tion and selection of material imitate the 
glory of these transcendently elegant 
creations of nature? Alas! The fact re¬ 
mains that our best attempts must fall 
far short of perfection. Francis Francis, 
describing the Jenny Spinner, writes as 
follows: The wings—ah! those wings! 
what shall we do to imitate their clear, 
delicate watery transparency? 
Since Francis wrote, we have certainly 
made some progress. The earnest seeker 
after truth was advised by a certain great 
philosopher—Descartes—to begin his 
quest by knowing nothing. Literally 
construed, this advice is impossible to 
follow; broadly construed, it has been 
followed by many and has led to much. 
The course I usually follow is to go 
direct to nature for my model, and select 
the material I consider most suitable to 
imitate her production, knowing nothing 
about stereotyped dressings. For the 
above-mentioned flies, as far as I have ex¬ 
perimented, their transparent wings are 
best imitated by the large scales of a 
shad, and the thin tough membrane ob¬ 
tained from the outside of the quill of an 
ordinary crow’s wing feather. 
I WILL endeavor to reply to the ques¬ 
tion: To what extent must an arti¬ 
ficial fly on a cast resemble a natural 
insect? As it is beyond our ability to 
construct anything in the way of an im¬ 
itation of the ephimeudae worthy of the 
term perfect, we will consider the 
method we must pursue to reach the 
desired result. This desired result is 
contained in an artificial fly that in its 
general impression, resembles a natural 
insect. In our effort, correctness of 
size, color and shape must play a lead¬ 
ing part. 
Another great essential is that its con¬ 
struction has in it the illusion of motion. 
You will certainly conjecture that move¬ 
ment can be imparted to it, when at 
the end of a cast, by a wriggle of the 
wrist. Of a certainty, movement can be 
given to it, but of such a character that 
it will ruin the best effort that can be 
made by correct construction. In con¬ 
nection with this, it is worthy of re¬ 
mark that the ephimeudae are water- 
flies, and float serenely on the surface, 
without a struggle. 
In the dressing of an artistic fly, 
it' is the object of the artist to endow 
that inanimate body with such a life-like 
appearance that it will be indicative of 
motion, and it is the extreme nicety of 
the art. For experiment’s sake, we will 
fill a wash-bowl with water, and at the 
bottom place a small mirror; on the 
surface of the water above the mirror, 
the natural fly we wish to imitate must 
be in position. Looking down upon the 
mirror, we are at once in possession of 
the general impression the natural fly as¬ 
sumes when floating on the surface of the 
(continued on page 228) 
