THE ENTOMOLOGY OF THE SALMON-FLY.
AGOOD deal of discussion, conducted now and then at rather a high temperature, has been engendered recently by the use in a Scottish river of a kind of cross-bred lure
for salmon, which appears to be something between what is commonly known as a " salmon fly " and an imitation of some species of crustacean. That, at least, is how it strikes us as most reasonable to describe it. The discussion has arisen on the question whether this is a fair " fly," in the sense in which that word is employed when speaking of a lure for salmon; whether, ae such, it may be used on a river or beat where "fly only" is permissible, or whether, in such circum- stances, it is not, rather, a lightly veiled imitation of the minnow, and, so far, a poaching instrument. The composite creature is singular in appearance, menacing, and deadly. It has the wings and hackles of the ordinary salmon-fly, resembling those of a " Wilkinson." Then it has a stoutish, solid body, certainly more weighty and substantial than those of the fly as known by salmon. This body is divided into two parts—perhaps intended by their maker to represent thorax and abdomen respectively—united by a waspish waist. The anatomy, however, is a little obscure. What is not obscure, but very salient, is the fact that at the extremity of each segment of this divided body is a triple hook. This duplicate arrangement of the hooks, one in advance of the other, tandem fashion, we have seen, of course, before, designed for that special variety of the salmon known as saw) irritans, variety which appears in the true salmon, but yet more frequently, it may be, among the sea-trout,—the fish which rises short time after time, and is thus the cause of unutterable anguish to the angler, who, for the sake of his soul's greater peace, has this supplementary advanced hook attached, so that even if the fish do rise short to the actual fly it may yet come within danger of this "angle" which is the leader of the tandem, and may thus assuage the fisherman's griefs by affixing itself. Nor, again, is it at all a new thing to see this arrangement of more than one hook, back to back, used either for salmon or sea-trout. On some rivers such hooks are quite the vogue, the contention in their favour being not only that two or three hooks are more likely than one to take the fish securely, but also that it is a plan which causes the fly to swim in a more steady, natural way. On other rivers such hooks are never seen attached to a salmon-fly, and the gillie, if you show him one, will shake his head with a sad wisdom, and say that they are very bad devices, for the fish will rub the hook which is outside his mouth against a rock, or otherwise use it as a lever for prising out the hook which is within his mouth. The gillie tells you this with so much con- viction that it is hard to believe he has not seen it happen. Such, then, is fashion, and such is the nature of this fearful bait which has caused discussion.
Fearful, however, as its aspect is, it does not at all follow that it will of necessity be very fatal as a lure for the attraction of salmon. But that is obviously quite another question from the question whether it can be correctly described as a salmon-fly. Those who take a strong line in opposition to this strange invention say, with most perfect truth, that it has nc resemblance to any known natural fly. But neither, for the matter of that, has any of the recognised " salmon-flies," so-called. It might appear, at the outset of such a discussion as this, that the first requisite was a definition of "salmon- fly"; but it is rather doubtful whether to ask for this would not be to ask for too much. However we may define or describe a salmon-fly, it is certain that the ordinary specimens falling within that category do not bear the most distant likeness to any flying insect known to science. If a Jock Scott, let us say, is like anything at all in Nature, it is perhaps more like a peacock butterfly than any other kind, but a salmon would have every right to be very much alarmed indeed, instead of at all attracted, if he were to see a peacock butterfly swimming towards him down the current of the Tay or Tweed. The truth is that in speaking of these concoctions of feathers which we use in salmon-angling as " flies " we am using a name which is not only a misnomer, but a misleading one. The manner in which the name came to be used as it is is clear enough,—by analogy with the feather concoctions used to allure trout, which are rightly enough called " flies," because they are strict imitations, often wonderfully exact, of natural flies. We fish them in such a way as to imitate most closely the action of the living' insect, letting them come floating down over the fish, either on the surface or just below it, precisely as a natural fly floats on the surface with cocked wings, or is curried along below it when drowned. The very different manner in which we fish the 'salmon-fly" is evidence in itself that it is not a "fly" in imitation of any winged, insect, as is the trout-fly. We do not let it float down the current, but, rather, bring it across the current, arresting it at the end of the line, sometimes giving it a series of little jerks, to com- municate to it an alternation of quick movement and sudden arrest,—in every way, in fact, causing it to imitate, so far as it may, the movements of a crustacean, or some larva of the crustaceans. When once this is said, it appears so obvious as not to be worth the saying; but it is very evident that it is not recognised, or is forgotten, in many of the discussions about the nature of this composite lure masquerading under the name of fly. The truth is that though it is a mere mas- querading, its fancy dress is not much more pronounced than that of a good many of the other salmon-flies. It has the merit, probably, or the poaching defect, of being a more close imitation of the crustacean creature; but whether this is really so must be left a good deal to the arbitrament of the salmon. They must be far better judges on this point than the angler, and until the " fly," or whatever it be right to call it, has been fished much more than we believe it to have been fished as yet, it is not possible to judge of this. After all, this is the point on which the verdict for or against this par- ticular lure will turn If it be found much more deadly than "fly," commonly so named, then it will have to be ruled out of place on a river or on a beat where fly only is allowed. On the other hand, it is not to be supposed that anybody will object to a lure as fantastic as the angler pleases to make it, provided he does not catch fish with it.
The objects at which salmon will rise, when they are in a complacent mood, are many and various. The writer was informed by a boatman on the Tay, not more imaginative than most of his class, that he had seen a salmon rise at an apple floating on the surface of the stream. Thus emboldened, the writer related the story told by the fishers of the Bidassoa, in Spain, that on that frontier river the approved bait for the salmon was a mouse, and on the following morning his dour Tay boatman appeared with a mysterious small parcel wrapped in paper. The wrapper being unfolded, revealed a mouse, which the boatman had trapped in his house on the previous evening, and had conveyed to the river with the object of putting to the proof the question whether the salmon of the Tay were similar in their tastes to their brethren of the Bidassoa. It has to be admitted that the test was far from conclusive, even in its negative results, for though the mouse, being attached to the hook, floated down the current with its tail and little lege moving in quite an attractive way under the influence of the stream, the fish for the time being were in that unresponsive state of mind or appetite iu which they declined to look at any lure. As a test case, therefore, this failed in decisive issue; but certainly the bait looked quite as alluring as those of more recognised kinds, and there is no particular reason to doubt the statement of the Pyrenean fishermen that they were in the habit of using a mouse as a lure, nor the implied inference that it was sometimes found successful. The salmon's appetite in fresh water seems to be poor, unless it be a kelt; but it is not at all exclusive, and there is no cause for thinking that a mouse would come amiss to it, even if it was not deceived as to the nature of the bait which was being offered to it. To return to the subject of the mixture of feather and body which has caused so much acrimonious discussion, it is to be supposed that some decision will be reached before long as to whether or no it conforms to the legal definition, which still remains to be framed, of a salmon-fly. In the mean- time, our own opinion is that it would be difficult to rule it out of court on the ground that it has much less resemblance to any true kind of fly than most of the salmon "flies" which are in common use; but for all that, we cannot think that it is a lure which a man of any nice sentiment or delicate con- science would be willing to employ on a beat where his per- mission to fish was restricted to the use of " fly only."
Previous page
