Kitabı oku: «Fishing Flies»

Introduction

But nothing can compare with the moment that a fly of your own making … is accepted by the fish.

Preben Torp Jacobsen, in Judith Dunham,

The Art of the Trout Fly, 1988.

This Encyclopedia examines the whole range of fishing flies, from the smallest trout dry fly to the largest bait-fish imitation for catching huge predators. It also goes back in time to the first fly ever recorded for catching fish, almost two millennia ago, and includes some of the most recent fly designs. It also includes flies designed to catch fish in all the far-flung corners of Planet Earth: from the United States to New Zealand, from the British Isles to Patagonia, from Norway’s North Cape to South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope. Yet, though a fly may have been designed for one purpose (for example, catching peacock bass in an Amazon tributary), it may well be that the same fly might be useful in other situations (to continue our example – catching pike in a cool northern lake). So although a fly may be included in, say, the section on saltwater patterns, it may also be useful for catching freshwater predators, like pike and Nile perch. Thus, while this book is separated into sections, it is essential to remember that, to catch a particular species of fish, there may be relevant flies to be found in more than one section.

The great problem has been the selection of flies to include here: for it is impossible to include every fly that has been published somewhere (in magazine articles, books or on video/CD). The total number of published flies is quite likely to exceed 100,000 – it would be near impossible to account for them all – and the number increases every month. In his book Flies, published almost 60 years ago, J. Edison Leonard gave nearly 2000 different tyings that would catch most species of fish swimming in the rivers and lakes of the United States. But he was completely outgunned in 1960 by Donald Du Bois in his The Fisherman’s Handbook of Trout Flies. Some 5939 trout flies are listed … add to these the trout flies published since 1960 and the plethora of flies for catching salmon, steelhead and sea trout, bass and pike, and the full array of saltwater fish … and the list could become endless.

One game played by many an amateur and a few professional fly-tyers, is to claim a fly invented by someone else as their own invention. Another is to change the dressing of a fly just slightly and then to rename the fly. When done deliberately, this is tantamount to theft. Lefty Kreh complained of such behaviour in the Introduction to his Saltwater Fly Patterns:

During the past ten years many fly patterns, some developed generations ago, were renamed. Or someone sticks an extra feather on a new pattern, or changes the color slightly, and calls it by his or her name. This is something many people, including myself, find distasteful and unfair.

I agree.

One effect of this tendency has been that the number of published patterns has mushroomed needlessly. Consider just one category of fly, the Irish salmon shrimps (see here): there are now in excess of 130 published tyings, many of them only slightly different from earlier ones, with new ones being invented every year. Do we need so many? I don’t think so.

Ed Jaworowski and Bob Popovics described (in their quite revolutionary book on saltwater flies, Pop Fleyes) how a trout angler had approached them to sing the praises of a new nymph he had invented. Its virtue was that it caught trout. ‘Well, then, we probably don’t need it,’ they replied to the angler, who seemed taken aback by their response. ‘If you had said that your fly sinks, floats, or casts better, acts differently, absorbs water, sheds water, anything, that’s something else.’ Ed and Bob continue:

Thousands of flies are created annually, and it’s only natural that their creators fall in love with them. But the fact remains that flies like Lefty’s Deceiver, the Clouser Deep Minnow, the Muddler Minnow, the Dahlberg Diver, the Wulff drys, and some others are classics because they broke new ground. They redirected the course of fly tying and, as a result, fly fishing. They have a common element. They evolved from a need – a need to do something better. Note, we did not say they simply did something differently, rather, they answered a need. New fly designs should always strive either to do something previously not possible at all or to do something better than was previously possible, be it ever so small a difference.

By all means invent ‘new’ patterns for your own use, but don’t go to the press and tell them that your ‘new’ fly is essential unless it is really different in its tying or the way that it fishes!

Even worse is the publication of flies that have never caught a fish. There is one professional fly-tyer who has invented several salmon flies and published their tyings. That fly-tyer never goes salmon fishing! Some years ago a semi-professional fly-tyer had published, in a book, an imitation of a pale watery dun, but the following year, when pale wateries were hatching out from a river, he asked his host what they were! He had invented a fly to match a real insect that he had never seen! Such flies are untruths.

The flies that have been selected for this book have all made a major contribution to the progress of fly-tying. They are proven catchers of fish, are good examples of a category of fly, and can be tied because the materials they incorporate are readily obtained. Above all else, the selected flies are for fishing and because many fishing flies have a short life span (sometimes only one cast in a piranha-infested river!) – they should not take too long to tie. Someone once said that if a fly takes more than five minutes to tie, time has been wasted! That may be a little hard … but imagine if you were to spend half an hour tying one fly, and the loss whilst out fishing was ten or more flies per day. Each day’s fishing would require a full day spent in tying.

There are, of course, many books of fly-tying recipes. This Encyclopedia goes further, and includes details of the history of the flies, of who invented the different styles and categories, and where and when. So contained within it are many of the world’s greatest fly-tyers. It also gives some brief notes on where and when and how flies should be fished. There are also many books, videos, CDs and DVDs on how to tie flies. The beginner should use them and join a fly-tying class, for there is no better way to learn than in the company of someone who is a good tyer and a qualified teacher of fly-tying.

Above all else this Encyclopedia is a celebration of the world of flies, an important part of the finest occupation that anyone in the world can have – that of a fly-fisher.

WHAT IS A FISHING FLY?

One of the most apparent and widespread developments in American fly tying has been the increasing use of flies that do not imitate real flies. “Fly fishing” has come to mean, to most people, at least, the use of a fly rod and fly line to cast something we still call a fly but might imitate anything from blobs of stonefly eggs to a baby muskrat.

Paul Schullery, American Fly Fishing: A History, 1987.

The fishing fly greatly predates the fly-fishing rod and heavy fly-fishing casting line. Until the eighteenth century artificial flies and baits were both used on the same rod and line. These early flies were attempts to imitate the flies that hovered over water and that, when they landed on the water’s surface, were preyed on by trout. So when the angler spotted a trout (or other fish) rising to take real flies from the surface, bait tackle was cut from a fine horsehair line and an artificial fly that had some passing resemblance to the real one was knotted in place. Often, in these bygone days, the angler might take a bag of fly-tying materials to the waterside, and use them to produce an imitation of the type of fly the trout were eating as they watched. The fly could not be cast as we can today with the use of heavy fly-line – for the horsehair line was not weighty enough. Instead the fly-fisher used the breeze and a long fishing rod to dap or dib the fly on to the water’s surface. That most (if not all) fishing flies back then were designed to match real species of fly is borne out by the writings of anglers in those far-off times (see here).

A further step in the development of the modern fishing fly was taken in the tying of fishing flies that did not imitate flying insects. Instead, other stages of aquatic insect life cycles were imitated: nymphs, larvae, pupae and, most recently, that remarkable and very short-lived stage, the emerger. Once that step had been taken, then it was logical to imitate other subsurface aquatic trout foods: crustaceans such as shrimps (scuds) and hog-lice (sow-bugs), water snails and fish fry. If these creatures are acceptable as flies, the argument continued, why not tie flies that imitate larger fish or frogs to catch predatory species such as pike and largemouth and smallmouth bass? Go one step further, argued those anglers who lived by the shore. So a huge number of bait-fish imitations were concocted for catching species such as striped bass and bluefish, some very special shrimp imitations for catching bonefish, and crab imitations for casting to feeding permit. All these imitations – though far removed from a mayfly or stonefly imitation – we still call flies.

When a fly-fisher sets out to catch a fish, the important two questions usually are:

 What is the fish eating? And,

 What fly shall I use to match that food?

Such questions are irrelevant when it comes to catching species such as salmon, sea trout or steelhead, for they do not usually feed on their return to the river from their oceanic feeding grounds. It is true that sometimes such fish can be seen taking some sort of food and that they can sometimes be caught on food-imitating flies. To catch these fish, special flies have been designed that arouse aggression or curiosity. For example, in the autumn when cock Atlantic salmon are nearing the time to spawn, a fly with a lot of orange in its dressing is often most effective (see here). Because shrimps and prawns turn some shade of orange when they are cooked we often refer to these flies as shrimp flies, but the salmon does not take the orange fly because it resembles something that it ate out at sea. It takes the fly because its vision is most sensitive to reds and oranges and because, with its high level of testosterone, the cock salmon is highly aggressive at that time of the year.

It is important to note that through the almost four centuries that flies have been tied for catching salmon, they have always been called ‘flies’, even though they imitate nothing living, and certainly not real flies. Because the salmon fly is usually not designed to imitate what the salmon is eating, some fly-fishers may prefer to call it a lure. This takes us into a second category of flies, for, besides feeding, most fish use their mouths to investigate what is, for them, new, and to attack intruders. Look at a range of tarpon flies, for instance (see here). Many look nothing like the lesser creatures that tarpon eat. Yet, when fished in front of a tarpon, the tarpon looks and responds by giving such a fly a good chew.

Two large categories of flies may be taken by the fish as imitation food or as lures. These are streamers (see here) and poppers (see here). Some streamers are quite fish-like, so they may be taken as food. Others look nothing like something that has lived. Poppers, bobbling across the water surface, may suggest a meaty frog or injured bait-fish to a hungry largemouth bass or pike. But both streamers and poppers might just as easily be taken because they lure the fish to take out of curiosity or aggression.

Traditionally flies are ‘tied’ or ‘dressed’. They are not ‘made’ or ‘constructed’. The tying or dressing involves fixing the materials that go into the fly’s construction – traditionally hair, fur and feather – onto using nothing but thread. The majority of flies are still tied in this way. However, glues are increasingly being used in fly construction, and some flies are constructed, not dressed. One of the most primitive examples of this is the Wake Lure used to catch Atlantic sea trout in their natal rivers in the dead of night. This ‘fly’ simply consists of a piece of cork from a wine bottle, cut and trimmed to shape, lashed to the top of a hook shank. Painted a nice colour, or embellished with a couple of feathers, it’s still just a bit of cork tied to a hook! The Wake Lure originates from the 1930s (see here). Today similar flies are being constructed from deer hair or wool, that have all the properties of Rapallas and other wobbling plugs to catch saltwater species and pike. Cast them out and retrieve quickly: they dive and wobble from side to side in a way that predatory fish find so attractive.

There are some fly-fishers today who believe that fly-fishing should be solely about imitating real, winged flies and that to fish with ‘flies’ that do not (such as streamers, poppers and saltwater flies) is not fly-fishing but fishing with a fly-rod and line. Those controlling the fishing on some English rivers are perhaps the strictest, with ‘dry fly only’ or ‘maximum hook size 10’ rules. They are entitled to their opinions and to set whatever rules they want on their own waters. But does it matter? After all, fly-fishing and fly-tying for most people is a way of escaping for the day-to-day job of earning a living, of feeding the family, of maintaining a home. It is not about politics, argument and rules.

FLY-TYING MATERIALS

This book contains the dressings of a large number of flies and, consequently, a huge number of materials from which those flies are tied. In the fly-tying recipes as much detail as possible is given as to precisely what materials should be used.

HOOKS

A hook is the one essential ingredient in every fly. Since the 1960s the number of hook types designed for fly-tying has increased greatly, and some have been devised for the tying of one special style of fly. An early example of this came with the book The Trout and the Fly (1980) by John Goddard and Brian Clarke, and its accompanying TV/video spin-off. Though the first upside-down dry flies had been tied on ordinary dry fly hooks, hookmakers Partridge of Redditch were persuaded to produce special USD hooks that helped keep the point and bend of the hook pointing upwards, out of the water. Three decades on and the USD hooks are no longer made and consequently the flies promoted by Goddard and Clarke are rarely, if ever, tied. A current example is the Klinkhamer, a very popular emerger pattern devised by Hans van Klinken (see here). Originally the fly was tied on Partridge Long Shank/Caddis hooks code K12ST, later a special Klinkhamer hook code GRS15ST. Should Partridge (part of the Mustad company) cease the manufacture of these hooks, then it will become impossible to tie Klinkhamers … Well, not quite. Parachute emergers, of which the Klinkhamer is but one, can be tied on a range of hooks – just observe the commercially tied Klinkhamers available in tackle stores!

Many tyers who publish their fly recipes give quite precise instruction as to what hook should be used: manufacturer and hook code. Here, precise hook sizes are given, but other than that, usually only a general category is given: e.g. wet fly, size 14; dry fly, size 18; stainless steel streamer, size 2/0; midge, size 22–28; salmon low water, size 6–12. Readers may then examine tackle catalogues, or visit tackle shops or web sites and choose an appropriate hook by their favourite manufacturer. If a fly recipe specifies that a fly must be tied on one specific hook, it becomes defunct if that hook becomes unavailable or the manufacturer goes bust.

Perhaps the best piece of advice when it comes to choosing which hook to use comes from George Selwyn Marryat, the driving force behind the great and sadly maligned pioneer of the dry fly, F. M. Halford. A good hook, said Marryat, ‘should have the temper of an angel and penetration of a prophet; fine enough to be invisible and strong enough to kill a bull in a ten-acre field.’ In other words, buy the finest and strongest hooks you can find for the fly-tying bench and with an eye to the fishing situation in which it will be used.

TIP: With the increasing prevalence of ‘catch-and-release’ – either because of fishery rules or reduced fishing stocks – buy barbless hooks, or crush the barb before tying the fly.

THREADS

Up to the second half of the twentieth century the choice of threads (then mostly real ‘silks’) available to the fly-tyer was very limited – with Pearsall’s Naples and Gossamer probably most popular. Today there are several manufacturers, producing ever stronger and finer threads. As with hooks, some writers specify precisely what thread (manufacturer and thread thickness) should be used to tie their flies. In general, this is unnecessary.

TIP: All fly-tyers are advised to find a brand and thickness of thread that they find they get on with for most of their small to medium-sized flies (hooks about size 10 and smaller). A thickness of approximately 10/0 to 12/0 is ideal. Buy several spools of every colour. Tune all your bobbin holders to the spool size of the brand of thread, by bending the bobbin arms so that the thread will run off the spool easily when pulled, but the spool will not turn unless the thread is pulled. Without different-sized spools of thread from several manufacturers, you avoid the need to retune your bobbin holders with every change of thread.

Buy some thicker and stronger threads for larger flies (size 8 and larger), and perhaps a very fine thread (Spider Web 20/0 is the finest currently available, though it comes only in white and must be coloured with a spirit-based pen) for the smallest of flies, and give them their own, tuned bobbin holder.

FUR AND FEATHER

There is of course some natural variation in the colour, shade and texture of natural materials, especially those taken from wild birds and mammals (e.g. hare’s ear, speckled brown partridge). Fish seem not to notice. When it comes to other natural materials, there is a wider range of high-quality product now available to the fly-tyer than there has ever been. Half a century ago, cock hackles for dry flies came mostly from the Indian subcontinent and the best of them were grossly inferior to the specially bred ‘genetic’ capes available today.

TIP: The only problem with the genetic cock hackle is that it often has a thick stalk that, when the hackle is wound, twists around unless very tightly bound down with many turns of thread. Take the hackle from its cape and trim away the lower barbs. Then, before tying the hackle in, soften with stalk close to where it will be first wound, between the nails of thumb and forefinger.

Many flies were devised years ago, before there were worldwide concerns about endangered CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) species. This Encyclopedia includes mention of no CITES species, other than in the sections dealing with historical fly-tyings (where the feathers used come from very old collections) or with species bred in captivity for fly-tying (e.g. jungle cock). There is no need to use CITES species when tying flies to catch fish.

Legislation varies from country to country when it comes down to owning and using feathers of birds that are protected. In the UK, the grey heron and waterhen are protected, but it is not unlawful to gather moulted heron quills from the riverside in summer or the feathers from a roadkill waterhen. Always check the legal situation – especially if planning to travel abroad – with fly-tying materials.

Synthetic materials have increasingly been used in the design of many fishing flies since the Second World War. They often have properties lacking in natural materials. They are usually consistent in colour and texture: contrast the variation of hare’s ear or natural rabbit fur with a synthetic fur such as FlyRite. Sometimes they have properties not provided by any natural material: for example, no natural material provides such a soft, realistically segmented and translucent body for nymphs as Flexibody. However, there is a problem with synthetics. Rarely are they made solely for the fly-tying market and usually the fly-tying market is a tiny part of their sales. Consider Antron, made by the Dupont Corporation, which just about every fly-tyer in the world now uses. Almost 100 per cent of Dupont’s production goes into carpet or similar manufacture and a fraction over zero per cent to fly-tying. So should furnishing fashions change and Dupont stop manufacturing Antron, fly-tyers could find many of their tying techniques compromised.

In 1924 J. W. Dunne published Sunshine and the Dry Fly (2nd edn, 1950), in which he described a new range of dry flies. These, he argued, were ‘far more natural looking’ than previous dry flies. Their bodies had a natural translucency brought about by winding ‘cellulite floss’ fibres over a hook shank that had been painted white. Cellulite flosses came in a variety of colours and shades that were given code numbers by their manufacturer, Wardle & Davenport. For the body of any fly, two or three strands of different shades had to be wound together according to Dunne’s formulae. The angling wholesaler of these flosses, Messeena & Co, also sold cock hackles dyed to Dunne’s instructions and special tying threads, and they too had their codes. The following is one typical tying, DUNNE’S DARK MAYFLY SPINNER (presented in modern form, but with quotes from Dunne’s recipe):

Hook: Size 9.

Thread: Silk M2.

Tails: Cock pheasant tail herls, not dyed. ‘Ends of whisks should be 1 ½ inches from eye of hook.’

Body: ‘2 (298A) + 2 (298) + 2(226). Thickness behind hackle, about 8/100 inch. Taper to half this thickness.’

Rib: Fine gold wire.

Outspread wings: Cut from hackle H2 (including plenty of brown markings). Total spread, 1 ½ inches.

Hackles: Four turns of N behind wings, and four turns of N in front. Maximum width across shank, ¾ inch.

Eyes: ‘Unnecessary.’

Wardle & Davenport ceased production and so today we have no idea what M2, 298A, 298, 226, H2 or N were, we cannot obtain them, and Dunne’s flies will never be tied again.

More recently, a material called Swannundaze, which was highly recommended in the 1970s for forming the segmented bodies of larvae and nymphs, has vanished from the fly-tying scene (see here).

Many fly-tying recipes in this book include synthetic materials, such as Krystal Hair and Poly Yarn. It is likely, should such synthetics disappear from the market, that reasonable alternatives will become available.

TIP: One of the greatest pleasures in fly-tying is to gather materials for nothing. It may be a road-kill, or some distant aunt may have a fur coat that she wants to get rid of, or the local game dealer may have some rabbit or deer skins that he doesn’t want, or a shooting friend may have a bag of mallard or pheasants that need plucking, or the family next door may have some hens and an aged cockerel with the most superb grizzle hackles! Never say no! Rub borax into skins and the cut ends of wings to prevent fungal and bacterial growth. If you are unsure that the material may hold parasites (e.g. feather mites or moth larvae) that could ruin a fly-tying collection, put the item in a plastic bag, knot the bag and put it in the deep freeze for a month. Store all natural materials in sealed plastic bags.

Often recipes require dyed fur or feather. Dyeing your own materials is good fun, provided the kitchen remains undyed! And when a colour is required for a tying recipe, consider a blend of material that gives that colour. For instance, if medium olive fur is needed, mix the fur from two or three sources (such as hare, rabbit and perhaps a synthetic) so that there is variety in texture. Perhaps also mix in a little yellow or red or orange to break up the flat tone of the olive. For a good example of this, see JC HATCHING BUZZER, see here.

DO WE NEED SO MANY DIFFERENT FLIES?

The answer is, of course, no! This Encyclopedia contains the tyings for nearly 250 different dry flies designed for catching trout and other fish that take insects from the water surface. By varying size and, sometimes, colour/shade, it would be possible to use one pattern to match several species of real fly, so from the practical fishing point-of-view, the 250 could become over a thousand flies in the box. If it were essential to carry so many imitations, the hatch would be over before a fly was cast! In The Floating Fly (2008), Malcolm Greenhalgh described just eleven different dry and emerger patterns that, he argued, would catch any fish eating any insect floating at the surface of any river or lake anywhere in the world! Seventy-five years earlier, Edward Hewitt listed ten dry flies (five winged and five hackled) in Hewitt’s Handbook of Fly Fishing (1933) and added: ‘Personally, I would not want any more patterns of dry flies than the above … Don’t get a raft of patterns. They are not necessary at all [his italics].’ Ray Bergman (in Just Fishing, also 1933) agreed, noting that: ‘I think it is possible to get along with half a dozen [dry fly] patterns ranging from [sizes] 10 to 15.’

Life would, however, be incredibly boring if we tied and carried only a few patterns that we knew nearly always caught fish. Most of us do carry our favourite flies, the ones in which we have lots of faith. But we do enjoy tying and trying new ones. The worst scenario would be the discovery of the Holy Grail, the fly that catches every fish it is cast to. For then there would be no need to tie or carry any other fishing fly, there would be no challenge, and it would signal the end of fly-tying and fly-fishing.

THE PRESENTATION OF FLY-TYING RECIPES

There are two main ways of presenting fly-tying recipes.

The first is to list the parts of the fly in the order that they are tied in. So if the wing is tied in first, it appears after hook and thread detail, whereas if the wing is tied in last, it appears at the end of the recipe. This way lacks uniformity in that the order changes depending on what fly is being tied.

The second is to consider the finished flies (shown in this volume as photographs) and to list all the parts in order beginning with hook, then thread, then tail, body, rib, hackle and so on. In seeking to present the recipes in a clear uniform manner, this method will be used throughout this Encyclopedia.

PARTS OF A FLY

Hook: This may be one of several types (e.g. wet fly, dry fly, nymph, streamer, low-water salmon) and sizes. Some flies may also be tied on double and single hooks, tandem mounts, and tubes or Waddington shanks to which a separate hook is fixed. Note that often there may be restrictions as to what hooks may be used on particular stretches of water.

Thread: The ability to use thread well marks the difference between a good tyer and a poor one. The great tyer Terry Ruane used to say that, for the fly-dresser: ‘the hook is the canvas, the thread the brush, and the materials the paint. A good artist is one who can use the brush.’

Tag (sometimes called ‘butt’): Small amount of material (e.g. two or three turns of tinsel or floss silk) wound around the shank before the tail. But note that sometimes ‘tag’ means ‘tail’ (e.g. RED TAG, see here).

Tail: Represents the real tail in some flies based on insects and fish, but added simply to lend movement in, for instance, modern salmon and saltwater flies.

Butt (sometimes called ‘tip’): At the base of the tail and immediately before the body, this is usually added to salmon flies and some loch/lough/sea-trout flies to add a hot spot that might attract the fish’s attention (e.g. a turn of fluorescent floss).

Body: May be separated in insect imitations into abdomen and thorax.

Rib: Suggests segmentation in many imitative flies or, adds extra ‘flash’ (a tinsel rib) in salmon and other flies. Note that, when tying flies that imitate insects, the novice tyer is urged by the expert to rib evenly so that every segment is the same width. Yet in real larvae, pupae and adult insects, the segments will vary in width!

Body hackle: This is a hackle wound spirally around the body. It may be tied in at the end of the body, wound forward and then tied in at the front. Or, it is tied in at the front of the body, wound back around the body, and then fixed in place by bringing the tinsel ribbing forward through it. Note too that in some flies the body hackle is wound in touching turns (e.g. BIVISIBLES, see here), whereas in others it is wound in open turns (e.g. Troth’s ELK HAIR CADDIS, see here).

Wing cases: In nymphs. Usually a slip from a feather, tied in on the dorsal surface between abdomen and thorax, and then brought forward over the back of the thorax after the thorax has been completed and legs tied in.

Shellback: In scud/freshwater shrimps. Usually some synthetic strip tied in at the end of the hook shank and then brought forward over the back of the fly just before completion.

Hackle: Wound at the front of the fly. In a false hackle, hackle fibres are tied in, in front of the body or in front of a fully wound hackle (e.g. GOLDEN-OLIVE BUMBLE, see here). In a parachute hackle, the hackle is tied in and wound around a ‘posted’ wing (e.g. KLINKHAMER SPECIAL, see here).

Legs: In imitative flies. May be a false hackle. Or a feather is tied in by its tip on top of the hook shank, pointing backwards, either before the body (in scuds/freshwater shrimps) or thorax (nymphs) is created. The feather is then brought over the back of the body or thorax and tied in. The fibres sticking out to either side to imitate legs.

Wings: In early flies represented the wings of real insects. Now also means feathers or hairs tied back over or alongside the body in streamers, salmon flies, many saltwater patterns etc. In parachute dry flies and emergers a single wing is tied in first, brought upright and then ‘posted’ with several turns of thread around its base. The parachute hackle is later wound around this posted base.

Topping: Fibres of herl or golden pheasant ‘topping’ feather etc. tied over the top of wings.

Cheeks: Small feathers, e.g. jungle cock eyes, tied in at sides of wings.

Head: Often not mentioned if only of tying thread.

THE EARLIEST FLIES

The history of fly fishing is so long that we will never know who first had the inspired idea of tying feathers round a hook.

Andrew Herd, The Fly, 2003.

THE MACEDONIAN FLY

The first recorded fly was published by a Roman called Claudius Aelianus in a manuscript book De Animalium Natura in about AD200. The fly was used to catch fish ‘with speckled fins’, which must have been trout. The trout rose to catch flies at the surface of a river then called the Astraeus in what was then Macedonia. Research by Andrew Herd and Dr Gorin Grubil has shown that the Astraeus is now known as the Arapitsa, and it flows through modern Greece. The real flies were known at the time as hippouros and they appear to have had combined characteristics of a midge, a wasp and a bee. Investigations by Fred Buller (in The American Fly Fisher, vol. 22, 1996) into the identity of hippouros indicated that it was either a horsefly Therioplectes tricolor or a drone-fly Episyrphus balteatus.

The imitation of the MACEDONIAN FLY was simple: ‘They fasten red wool around a hook, and fix onto the hook two feathers which grow under a cock’s wattle, and which in colour are like wax’. Or, to give it as a tyer’s recipe:

Hook: Not given; suggest dry fly, size 14.

Thread: Not given; suggest red or brown.

Body: Red wool.

Wings: Two wax-coloured cock hackle points. [Wax coloured? Beeswax is a light creamy-buff.]

It seems clear that fly-fishing is a very ancient way of catching fish. Andrew Herd traced it back as far, perhaps, as the ninth century BC, and showed that by the early Middle Ages (late twelfth and early thirteenth century) fly-fishing was well established in Japan, in Spain, in central Europe and in Britain. The central European school is especially interesting for it produced an early fifteenth-century Bavarian manuscript, translated into English by Professor Richard Hoffmann, and called Fisher’s Craft and Lettered Art. It included flies for catching several species of European freshwater fish, but the way the flies were tied and some of the terms used (for example, ‘stingel’) are not clear in their meaning. Two examples are given below. The resultant flies were tied with a great deal of guesswork!

BAVARIAN CHUB FLY

This is an imitation of a beetle called ‘wengril’. ‘The feathering should be black brown with the silks green and black and around the stingel green and brown.’

BAVARIAN PIKE FLY

The feathering should be of different sorts mixed together, with lead coloured and light blackish and ash coloured therein a black feather, with the silk pale coloured and around the heart black light blue silk, around the stingel pinkish coloured silk.

It is highly likely that many other manuscripts describing flytying and fly-fishing were produced in the early Middle Ages. Some will have been destroyed; others may be hidden deep in the vast library of the Vatican or in some other dustgathering ancient corner. There can be no doubt, however, that the compiler of the first printed book on fishing used several of these manuscripts as sources.

THE FIRST FLIES TO APPEAR IN PRINT

William Caxton was born in Kent in about 1420. In 1441 he left England for Bruges and then Cologne, where he learnt the art and business of being a printer. In 1474 he published the first book ever to be printed in the English language, The Recuyell of the Histories of Troye. Two years later, Caxton returned to England and set up a printing press in London at Westminster, where he printed 96 books. One of these was The Book of Hawking, Hunting and Blasing of Arms, published in 1486, and also known as The Boke of St Albans. When Caxton died in 1491 his German assistant Wynkyn de Worde took over the press and, in 1496, he produced a new edition of The Boke of St Albans. This included the first slender volume on angling, A Treatyse of Fysshynge with an Angle. Many years later the authorship of the Treatyse was attributed to an abbess called Dame Juliana Berners, but there is no documentary evidence that she ever existed (see Fred Buller and Hugh Falkus, Dame Juliana, the Angling Treatyse and its Mysteries, 2001). What is certain is that Wynkyn gathered the material contained in the Treatyse from across Europe, something no fictitious abbess could ever have done.

The opening page of the Treatyse of 1496. The gist of the introduction to the Treatyse is that fly-fishers live a long and happy life: ‘Here begins the Treatyse of fishing with an angle [rod]. Solomon in his parables says that a good spirit makes for a flowering age, that is, a fair age and a long one …’ Note that fishing vests and waders had not been invented in 1496!

The Treatyse outlined twelve artificial flies, but the way that they were tied is unknown. Sadly few, if any, actual flies tied before the middle of the nineteenth century have survived, for natural silk threads rot in light and humid conditions, and moth and mites move in quickly to devastate unprotected fur and feather. So any modern tyings of these flies may not be as they were tied more than 500 years ago. Two fly-tying historians produced plates of flies for Buller and Falkus (2001): Malcolm Greenhalgh and Jack Heddon. Examination of the plates in Buller and Falkus will reveal differences between their tyings – the set illustrated below were tied afresh by Greenhalgh without reference to his earlier tyings. Again there are differences in interpretation. It is quite likely that different tyers five centuries ago, having only the Treatyse as reference, would have tied the flies differently. The same applies to the other ancient flies illustrated in this section.

In the following, medieval spellings have been modernised.

FOR MARCH

THE DUN FLY

The body of dun wool and the wings of the partridge.

ANOTHER DUN FLY

The body of black wool; the wings of the blackest drake and the jay under the wings and under the tail.

FOR APRIL

THE STONE-FLY

The body of black wool and yellow under the wings and under the tail, and the wings of the drake.

IN THE BEGINNING OF MAY

A GOOD FLY

The body of red wool and ribbed with black silk; the wings of the drake and of the red capon’s hackle.

MAY

THE YELLOW FLY

The body of yellow wool, the wings of the red cock’s hackle and that of the drake dyed yellow.

JUNE

THE BLACK LOUPER

The body of black wool and ribbed with the herl of the peacock’s tail and the wings of the capon with a blue head.

THE DUN CUT

The body of black wool and a yellow band along either side; the wings of the buzzard tied on with barked hemp.

THE MAURE FLY

The body of dusky wool; the wings of the blackest mail of the wild drake.

THE TANDY FLY AT ST WILLIAMS’S DAY

The body of tandy wool and a pair of wings of the whitest mail of the wild drake.

JULY

THE WASP FLY

The body of black wool and ribbed with yellow thread; the wings of the buzzard.

THE SHELL FLY AT ST THOMAS’S DAY

The body of green wool and ribbed with the herl from the peacock’s tail; wings of the buzzard.

AUGUST

THE DRAKE FLY

The body of black wool and ribbed with black silk; wings of the mail of the black drake with a black head.

Today we rarely tie and use flies that were devised over a hundred years ago. However the flies contained in the Treatyse were reprinted and recommended by several other writers up to and including Izaak Walton in The Compleat Angler (first published over 150 years later, in 1653).

A DOZEN EARLY FLIES FROM SWITZERLAND

In 1558 Conrad Gesner of Zurich published a large tome called Historia Animalium, the fourth volume of which was De Piscum et Aquatilium Animatium Natura, or Of Fish and of Aquatic Animal Life. He began his section on fishing flies with: ‘Certain skilful fishers fabricate diverse kinds of worms and winged insects from the feathers of birds in various seasons of the year …’ (trans. Andrew Herd). ‘Worms’ probably included all subsurface forms including larvae and nymphs. As in the Treatyse there were twelve patterns for catching trout and grayling. They lacked names, but were tagged to the months in which they were most effective, the first for each month being a grayling fly, the second a trout fly.

APRIL

Body: White [thread or wool?].

Wings: Whitish feather from the partridge belly.

Body: Red silk.

Wings: Red cock hackles.

Head: Green [thread?].

MAY

Body: Segmented black and white by twisting together black and white thread before winding down the hook shank [see DARK WATCHETT, (see here); FOOTBALLER MIDGE PUPA, see here].

Wings: Varied (i.e. hooded) crow back feather.

Head: Blue.

Body: Red silk and gold [tinsel?].

Wings: Red cock hackles.

Head: Black.

JUNE

Body: Green ‘from the feathers of the breast of the wild duck’ [which are brown – were these wound round the hook shank?].

Wings: Dark heron tail.

Body: Blue silk and gold [tinsel?].

Wings: Partridge underwing coverts.

Head: Yellow.

JULY

Body: Blue silk.

Wings: Hooded crow belly feathers.

Head: Black silk.

Body: Green silk and gold [tinsel?].

Wings: Yellow feathers.

Head: Blue silk.

AUGUST

Body: ‘Feathers of a crane’s wing’ [herl?].

Wings: Partridge.

Head: Green silk.

Body: Peacock herl, ‘bound with a golden feather’ [was the golden feather palmered as a body hackle?].

Wings: Back feathers of hazel hen.

Head: Yellow silk.

SEPTEMBER

Body: Blue silk.

Wings: Feathers from back of hooded crow.

Head: Red silk.

Body: Yellow and red silk [twisted, as for the first fly for May?].

Wings: Ptarmigan.

Head: ‘Dark’.

When Gesner wrote his fly patterns, the Treatyse flies were in their pomp in England. It is clear that Gesner was unaware of the Treatyse flies, and that authors in England, up to and beyond Izaak Walton, were oblivious of Gesner’s work.

ITALY’S VALSESIAN FLIES

The Sesia River flows from the Piedmont Alps of Italy. It has long been a great trout and grayling stream. So it is not surprising that it is one of the earliest centres of world fly-fishing and fly-tying, with its own special style of fly named after the valley, Valsesia, also published as Valasesiana. These flies have been traced back to 1570, 74 years after the Treatyse was published and only twelve years after Gesner’s great book. Dr Nicola di Biase considered that they were fished much earlier (Grayling Journal, Summer 2007). The flies provided by Dr di Biase to illustrate her article show the flies to have a wound hackle, making them similar to the softhackles North Country style (see here), but (assuming that they were really tied that way in the sixteenth century) predating them by over a century. The hackling is, however, much heavier, and the hackle is forced forwards by several turns of thread immediately behind it. This method of hackling gives the fly more ‘kick’ than the conventional spider as the fly passes through turbulent mountain streams.

Different tyings of Valsesian flies were not, it seems, given different names. This was probably because tyers used what feathers were ready to hand, and what matched the real flies that the trout and grayling were taking. The following are three examples.

Body: Purple thread.

Hackle: Snipe upper wing covert.

Body: Orange thread.

Hackle: Brown speckled partridge.

Body: Olive thread.

Hackle: Starling neck.

SOME EARLY FLIES FROM NORTHERN SPAIN

The Danish fly-dresser Preben Torp Jacobsen was invited by Spain’s president General Franco to dinner. After dinner Franco, who was a great fly-fisher and angling bibliophile, showed Preben his vast library. Among the collection was a hand-written manuscript, dated 1624, by Juan de Bergera, and called El Manuscrito de Astorga. Preben had photographs of the manuscript made and then, with a team from the Spanish Association for the Fly and Salmonids, produced a limited edition consisting of a facsimile of the original and translations into modern Spanish, French and English. Unfortunately a fire subsequently destroyed part of Franco’s library, including the original manuscript.

Astorga is a small town not far from Leon in the Cantabrian Mountains. The rivers there have some very good fishing for brown trout, and it was to catch them that the flies in El Manuscrito were designed. The flies include in their dressings some of the most interesting wild birds to be found in Spain (such as pin-tailed sandgrouse and little bustard) and some very special hackles from cocks bred only in this region. These ‘Coqs de Leon’ are still available and, though expensive, are amongst the best material to use for tying upwinged fly (ephemerid) dun and spinner tails. There are two main types of Coq de Leon. ‘Indios’ are plain hackles, varying from the near white palometa to the blackish negrisco. ‘Pardos’ have a blackish centre (list) and coloured edges which vary from the creamy transparent crudo to a very dark grey corzuno, sometimes with black speckles.

El Manuscrito contains 49 different dressings, four of which are given here. Three are confusingly called Negriscos (they imitate a dark midge called enaguados), the fourth is one called Bermejo Crudo. Note that we do not know how these flies were tied. Hackles were then solely feathers and may not have been wound round the hook as we today wind hackles. However the last fly has one feather used as ‘a wrapping’, which presumably means that it was wrapped (i.e. wound) as we would wind a hackle, in which case, it seems likely that the others were not wound, but simply tied in. This is also suggested by the last of the four flies, where one feather was tied ‘on top’ of another. Whatever. The following tyings are one person’s interpretation.

NEGRISCOS (FOR JANUARY AND FEBRUARY)

Thread: Grey.

Body: Dark silvery grey silk.

Rib: White silk.

Hackles: Two very dark blue dun.

NEGRISCOS (FOR FEBRUARY AND MARCH)

Thread: Black.

Body: Black (linen) thread.

Hackles: Two extremely dark (almost black) blue dun.

Head: Fawn and white thread.

NEGRISCOS (FOR SUNNY DAYS IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH)

Thread: Black.

Body: Black (linen) thread.

Rib: White thread.

Hackles: Two short barbed negrisco hackles.

Head: Black.

BERMEJO CRUDO (FOR THE SECOND HALF OF MARCH AND APRIL)

Thread: Purple-red.

Body: Tying thread.

Rib: Blue and white thread.

Hackles: ‘It has a light blue dun negrisco [hackle]. Then a very fine textured pardo [hackle] that is not golden yellow; on top of the latter a kingfisher’s [feather]. Then another negrisco [hackle] identical to the first one. As a wrapping [wound hackle?] two turns of a bright vermilion [hackle] from a muladar cock.’

NOTE: Preben gave a footnote to the effect that ‘muladar’ meant dung, and that it was believed that the dung from mule stables gave cocks a very particular shade.

HOW TO TIE A FLY

In a small volume called The Secrets of Angling, by J. D. Esquire (1620), its author John D. Lawson gave us a fly that is of interest.

The head is of black silk or haire, the wings of a feather of a mallart, teele, or pickled hen wing. The body of Crewel according to the moneth for colour, and run about with a black haire: all fastened at the taile, with the thread that fastned the hooke …

This indicates that the first part of the fly to be tied in after the hook had been lashed to the horsehair tippet is the wing. The next contributors would tell us more.

WALTON, BARKER AND COTTON

Izaak Walton (1593–1683) has been called ‘the Father of Angling’, but as a fly-fisher he is disappointing as his classic The Compleat Angler (1653) added little new to what was already on record with regard to fly-tying and fly-fishing. Two Englishmen who did make a major contribution were Thomas Barker, who published Barker’s Delight or the Art of Angling (1651), and Charles Cotton, whose Instructions How to Angle for a Trout or Grayling in a Clear Stream appeared as a supplement to Walton’s fifth edition of 1676. Cotton knew Walton well enough to have built an elaborate stone fishing ‘temple’ (hardly a hut!), called ‘Piscatoribus Sacrum’, in Walton’s honour by the banks of his River Dove. Barker also knew Walton, so it likely that Cotton and Barker also knew each other and discussed their books during the writing.

Barker pointed out that there were two categories of flies when it came to trout fishing.

The first were what he called ‘palmers’; they had a cock hackle wound or palmered down the hook shank. These have almost disappeared save for a group of flies known as Bumbles. They are still tied and used to catch, mainly grayling, in the rivers of that part of England fished by Cotton (Staffordshire and Derbyshire). Two examples are the GRAYLING STEEL BLUE BUMBLE, see here, and GRAYLING WITCH, see here. They have also survived as trout flies in the loughs of Ireland and lochs of Scotland: examples include the GOLDEN-OLIVE BUMBLE and ZULU, see here & also here.

Charles Cotton, in a portrait from the frontis of The Compleat Angler.

The fishing hut, called Piscatoribus Sacrum, was built by Cotton in 1674 for a visit by Izaak Walton. It is on the bank of the River Dove, in England’s Peak District.

The second class of trout fly were winged flies and are still major trout flies today.

Now let us consult Cotton as to how to tie these flies and for some specific examples. It is important to understand that Cotton, like Walton, wrote in a theatrical, lyrical style. He had two actors, one playing the part of the expert fly-fisher (Piscator), the other the novice who has come for instruction (Viator). First of all, Piscator must show Viator what materials can be used to tie flies, and in those days the fly-fisher took a huge bag of silks, fur and feather, some exotic and expensive, to the waterside so that the real fly being eaten by the trout could be imitated.

PISCATOR. And now let me look out my things to make this fly. Boy! Come, give me my dubbing-bag here presently; and now, Sir, since I find you so honest a man, I will make no scruple to lay open my treasure before you.

VIATOR. Did ever any one see the like! What a heap of trumpery is here! Certainly never an angler in Europe has his shop half so well furnished as you have.

Piscator then gives Viator a verbal slap and points out that every item in his bag is indispensable. What would Viator think about our own twenty-first-century collections of ‘essential’ tying materials.

But then Cotton takes us through the tying of a fly. No vice …

PISCATOR. You see, first, how I hold my hook; and thus I begin. Look you, here are my first two or three whips around the bare hook; thus I join hook and line; thus I put on my wings; thus I twirl and lap on my dubbing; thus I work it up towards the head; thus I part my wings; thus I nip my superfluous dubbing from my silk; thus fasten; thus trim and adjust my fly. And there’s a fly made; and now how do you like it?

VIATOR. In earnest, admirably well; and it perfectly resembles a fly.

And what modern category of fly has a body, upright wings and no hackle? Why, the most effective category of dry fly, the hackleless dry fly (see here, and here)!

Four of Cotton’s flies have been selected to show the two styles, palmers and winged flies.

GREAT-HACKLE [a palmer], the body black, and wrapped with a red feather of a capon untrimmed; that is, the whole length of the hackle staring out …

WHITE HACKLE, the body of white mohair, and warped about with a white hackle-feather …

The artificial GREEN-DRAKE then is made upon a large hook, the dubbing of camel’s hair, bright bear’s hair, the soft down that is combed from a hog’s bristles, and yellow camlet, well mixt together; the body long, and ribbed about with green silk, or rather yellow, waxed with green wax, the whisks of the tail of the long hairs of sable, or fitchet [polecat], and the wings of the white-grey feather of a mallard, dyed yellow …

Cotton then tells how to dye the mallard feather yellow. That fly would catch any trout eating large duns anywhere today.

WHIRLING-DUN … is commonly made of the down of a fox-cub, which is of ash colour at the roots next to the skin, and ribbed about with yellow silk; the wings of the pale grey feather of a mallard.

CHETHAM’S STRANGE CONTRIBUTION

James Chetham published his Angler’s Vade Mecum in 1681, five years after Cotton’s contribution to The Compleat Angler. His flies are very similar to Cotton’s, but he insisted that, in addition to what the trout sees – what it smells or tastes like is also important.

Next folow Ointments and Receipts which I have read and been informed of, by several knowing Anglers … they’ll not only allure, but even compel Fish to bite … Take Man’s Fat and Cat’s Fat, of each half an Ounce, Mummy finely powdred three drams, Cummin-seed finely powdred one Dram, distill’d Oyl of Annise and Camphor four Grains, make an Ointment according to Art; and when you Angle anoint 8 inches of Line next to the Hook therewith …

FRENCH CONNECTION

By the beginning of the eighteenth century French fly-tyers were producing flies with a similar structure to those made in Britain, though often the body was of plain silk whereas the British school mostly used dubbed fur for their bodies. These French artificial flies matched closely real flies. Louis Liger gave several examples in his book Amusemens de Champagne (1709), reprinted in 1714 as Traite de toute sorte de Chasse et de Peche. The following is typical entry:

Dans le mois de May ils en fonte une, couverte aussi de soye, maise elle est de couleur rouge, et avec de filets tirans sur l’or: la tete en est noire, et on y joint les plumes rouge d’un capon.

This fly is an excellent imitation of the many species of upwinged fly spinner that have red or red-brown bodies.

TROUT FLY EVOLUTION INTO THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

During the 200 years following the publications of Barker and Cotton, three different styles of trout fly became established. The first was a winged fly that was an attempt to imitate real flies. This and the second style, the ‘buzz’ fly can best be seen in Alfred Ronalds’ The Fly-Fisher’s Entomology, which was first published in 1836 and was still in print in a new edition as late as 1921. His book was also the first to have fairly good illustrations of both the natural fly and corresponding imitative fly. The following are typical examples.

Plate 1

Plate 2

Plates from The Fly-Fisher’s Entomology, showing some of the earliest coloured illustrations of real and artificial trout flies.

STYLE ONE – THE WINGED IMITATIVE TROUT FLY (SEE PLATE 1, LOWER-LEFT FLY)

Example: Little Yellow May Dun

Hook: Size 15.

Thread: Not given; presumed yellow.

Tails: Two whisks from a dun hackle.

Body: Pale ginger fur from the back of a hare’s ear.

Rib: Yellow silk.

Hackle (Ronalds called this ‘Legs’): A light dun hackle lightly dyed yellow-green.

Wings: Drake mallard lightly dyed yellow-green.

STYLE TWO – THE BUZZ TROUT FLY (SEE PLATE 2, SECOND FLY FROM BOTTOM)

This was a fly with a palmered body hackle, like the Palmer flies of Cotton (see here). The term ‘made buzz’ indicated the palmered hackle.

Example: Marlow Buzz

Hook: Not given; size 12 suggested.

Thread: Red.

Body: Black ostrich herl and peacock herl twisted and wound together.

Wings and legs: ‘Are made buzz with a dark furnace hackle.’

STYLE THREE – THE NORTH COUNTRY SPIDER (ALSO CALLED THE SOFT-HACKLED WET FLY)

Two Yorkshire men were instrumental in establishing this style, Michael Theakston, author of British Angling Flies (1853), and Francis M. Walbran, who edited a later edition of Theakston. This style of fly was later catalogued by T. E. Pritt in Yorkshire Wet Flies (1885), reprinted the following year as North-Country Wet Flies. These are still often fished today, on both sides of the Atlantic and in the Antipodes – they are therefore described more fully here.

Spider wet flies have the simplest of bodies, often just of tying thread (silk), perhaps with a wisp of dubbing, and they have only two or two and a half turns of a soft hackle; a few also have very slender wings . They therefore suggest a fragile nymph or a waterlogged adult fly close to the surface.

Plate 8 of Pritt’s book includes six that are not included in the later section on North Country Spiders, and they have been included here to illustrate this style of trout fly.

OLD MASTER

Hook: Size 14.

Thread: Ash coloured.

Body: Tying thread, wrapped over with heron’s herl.

Hackle (called ‘Wings’ by Pritt): Woodcock underwing covert.

STONE MIDGE

Hook: Size 15.

Thread: Ash coloured.

Body: Tying thread, dubbed sparely with heron’s herl.

Hackle (called ‘Wings’ by Pritt): Pewit’s [lapwing] neck, breast or rump.

Head: Magpie herl.

GREY MIDGE

Hook: Size 15.

Thread: Yellow.

Body: Tying thread.

Hackle (called ‘Wings’ by Pritt): Woodcock breast.

Head: Peacock herl.

KNOTTED MIDGE

Hook: Size 15.

Thread: Ash coloured.

Body: Tying thread, dubbed heron herl.

Hackle (called ‘Wings’ by Pritt): Back of a swift or a martin, or pewit shoulder.

Head: Magpie herl.

SANDY MOORGAME

Hook: Size 15.

Thread: Dark brown.

Body: Tying thread.

Hackle (called ‘wings’ by Pritt): Reddish feather from the back of a grouse.

Plate 8 from T. E. Pritt’s Yorkshire Wet Flies – note that in the 1880s, fly hooks were eyeless.

BLUE PARTRIDGE

Hook: Size 14.

Thread: Blue.

Body: Tying thread, dubbed with a little blue lamb’s wool.

Hackle (called ‘Wings’ by Pritt): Partridge back.

These styles of flies reached maturity in the Victorian era, at the height of British imperial power. As they travelled the empire, so the British took with them the brown trout that they loved to catch back at home – and to catch those trout they took their flies.

Captain G. D. Hamilton first visited New Zealand in about 1845 and he moved there in about 1860 to farm sheep, turning 40,000 acres of virgin country into ‘English grasses’. In his book Trout-Fishing and Sport in Maoriland (1904), Hamilton relates how he stocked the river that flowed near to where he settled in the early 1870s, with brown trout. Ova were transported by ship on ice halfway round the world – with their journey completed on the backs of pack-mules. Others stocked the watercourses of New Zealand with rainbow trout from North America. Some of these stocked fish became migratory, swimming down to the ocean and returning to spawn as sea trout; others migrated into big lakes. The trout grew much bigger in New Zealand waters than they did back at home: ‘It may be taken as a rule that all streams with sufficient water contain some exceptionally large trout, up to 8lb., 10lb., 11lb., and 12lb. in weight.’

Hooks for tying flies were imported from England, but the hooks sent out to New Zealand were not strong enough to hold these big trout. So Hamilton wrote to manufacturers in the then capital of hook-making, Redditch, requesting they make especially strong hooks for him. These, together with the five fly patterns that Hamilton came up with, were all that anyone needed to catch New Zealand trout.

These flies are commonly known as red hackle, hare’s-ear, black hackle, black spider, hare’s-ear spider.

No. 1, red hackle, light-brown mallard wing, yellow-silk body, is the most easily seen when the water is discoloured, and therefore best for use at that time.

No.2, turn of brown partridge hackle, hare’s-ear body, light woodcock wing, put together with yellow silk: A killing fly when the weather is clear and low.

No. 3, black hackle, grouse wing, brown-silk body, put together with brown silk: Easily seen when the water is clear and low, and kills well then.

No. 4, spider, black hackle, tied with brown silk, brown-silk body: Easily seen when the water is clear and low. A good fly to use as a tail fly when the trout are getting into high condition and shy, and when there is bright sunshine.

No. 5, spider, brown partridge hackle, hare’s-ear body, put together with yellow silk: Very killing, when the water is clear and low, among high-conditioned and shy trout. Used as a tail fly this is perhaps the most reliable of the whole, particularly among large trout of 2lb. and upwards.

Colour plate from Captain Hamilton’s Trout-Fishing and Sport in Maoriland, showing his five fly patterns.

A similar influx of fly-fishers occurred into the United States and Canada, though, because they had their own indigenous rainbow and cutthroat trout in the west, and a char that the colonists thought was a trout and that they called brook trout, the introduction of brown trout was later than many other parts of the English-speaking world. The first arrived in about 1880 – the fly-fishers had arrived much earlier. Paul Schullery provides excellent evidence that Richard Franck, author of Northern Memoirs, lived (and fly-fished?) in the United States between 1660 and 1687. Schullery also showed how many others took fly-fishing to the New World and that, until the second quarter of the nineteenth century, most fly-fishing tackle was imported from Britain. But then, because of the vast array of river, lake and saltwater habitats; the far larger number of fish species that can be caught with artificial flies; and a wealth of natural materials available for tying flies – fly-fishing and fly-tying in North America mushroomed. And because fly-fishers in North America have never been as constrained as fly-fishers in Europe (and especially England) by rules about what flies can or cannot be used, they eventually developed flies and techniques that could hardly have originated elsewhere. Can you imagine fishing a sculpin or minnow imitation on an English chalk stream? Or one of Gary LaFontaine’s DEEP SPARKLE CADDIS PUPAE (see here) on the Derbyshire Wye, where the rule is ‘dry fly only’ and even emergers are banned?

Thus far we have looked mainly at flies that imitate insects; flies that are designed for catching trout. Now we will look to some of the earliest flies for catching other species of fish.