one moment please

[William Anderson]

Ariel, I believe you've been given great responses and especially re-reading that thread linked by Roadkill which includes a very nice discussion of definitions regarding flymphs in particular.

Nothing about a thorax at all (although nothing to preclude it, either), nothing about palmering, and many of the examples in the book use other than hen hackle. So, I would think that a better definition to distinguish flymphs from other soft hackles would simply be the presence of a "soft, translucent body of fur or wool which blends with the undercolor of the tying thread when wet."

Bob, this is the definition, if I dared to adhere to one, I would follow as my guide as well. You've stated what would have taken me much longer to articulate.

It's really kind of pragmatic, and contradictory, which I'm comfortable with.

Scott Fitzgerald would call you a genius, then. ("The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.")

Let me throw this out there, then: rather than focusing on body construction (since spiders, "soft-hackles," and flymphs can all have varying degrees of silk+dubbing) why not reserve the term "flymph" to only those flies that have hen hackle palmered through the thorax? That criterion would let you emphasize both form (i.e. flymph's got "shoulders"
) and function (the flymph as emerger/spent adult that rides relatively higher in the water column.)

CB, first of all, I love the reference by Fitzgerald. However, genius is not at all how my psychiatrist would describe my mental gymnastics. Secondly, what you're proposing is a very sound idea, but it would completely redefine something that is referenced in many sources, has a significant historic attatchment and would only confuse me further, which my mother would say is quite likely.


Ariel, I couldn't offer anything more than what you've been offered in these responses, but I can share with you my thinking in devising the categories as I show on my site, which may have caused confusion for some. I'm genuinely hoping to provide a resource is clarifies the nature of these flies, as experienced on my own journey. When I needed to consider the menu and the galleries I wanted some criteria to separate those galleries and make subsequent discussions more manageable. So I chose:

Flymphs - dubbed, wingless-wet soft-hackle flies which may or may not have an affiliation with JL or PH, constructed by either a dropped loop, touch dubbing or pre-spun bodies. I'd include split thread bodies inhere too if I could manage the technique. Don't look for those any time soon. These may or may not include tales, or palmered thoraxes. And you might note the occasional misplaced image which only makes things more confusing.

Spiders - Which may or may not have an affiliation with the North Country Flies, certainly do not conform to any historic precedent, but generally involve a wingless-wet fly tied with a silk body (ribbed or not, thorax or not) and soft-hackle of either game or hen. These flies are magnificently effective and I do have a strong interest in the history of North Country Spiders, but I think inclusion of traditional patterns will have a significant place on the site...I just haven't gotten to that point yet.

Which leaves me with...what do you do when you twist golden pheasant herls with silk and horse mane? or wire bodies? or herl bodied flies that are used as flymphs (behaviorally), but do not fit the definition above?

Soft-Hackles - It has served as a catch-all for wingless-wet flies which do not fit either of the above categories, (or maybe they do and didn't seem quite right included in those galleries.) As I mention somewhere on one of the main menu pages, these are loose definitions and are subject to evolution or changes as I learn more about what I'm trying to achieve.

I am wide open to recommendations to redefining how these flies are presented or defined, as well as any other aspect of that site. It's all up for discussion. At present, I'm holding the site, reluctantly, as a one-sided conversation, but that is only until I have a better idea of what the site can provide, until my thinking and writing improve, and I make the final decisions about how to make it an inclusive, interview/dialogue based site. I believe Donald has spent 10-12 years (correct me if I'm mistaken) developing one of the most useful and enjoyable resources on the web. I have big plans, but what Donald has achieved... I don't pretend that Iwill be able to do the same, even given another decade. I will do my best, as time and health permit.

Thanks for the plug (genuinely), especially the link to the page with the most titles and promises, but lacking in content. (sarcasm) I'll keep working. I appreciate any feedback. Anytime.

w

[William Anderson]

I would point out, though, that the Leisenring/Hidy definition would also require us to consider, say, flies like the Dark Watchet, Hare's Lug and Plover, etc. to be "flymphs."

I do and many other classics as well like the Iron Blue Wingless (my first Hidy flymph)... when fished as emergers!

I have no problem with the ambiguity of including dubbed spiders in the flymph camp, or to say flymphs are an american adaptation of the UK patterns. We can just say the Hare's Lug and Plover is a wonderful, historic North Country fly and one of my favorite flymphs.

w

[Roadkill]

CB

Only a few of us feather and fur fanatics split our Hares into Lug, Poll and finer hairs.

[CreationBear]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

[fflutterffly]

Thank you all. I have looked at my reference, L/H, re-read and have a better understanding. Thank you all.

[redietz]

I would point out, though, that the Leisenring/Hidy definition would also require us to consider, say, flies like the Dark Watchet, Hare's Lug and Plover, etc. to be "flymphs."

I consider both of those to be flymphs.

Personally, I'm in favor of calling them all "wingless wets". It's pretty unambiguous (I think.)

[Stendalen]

Flymphs - dubbed, wingless-wet soft-hackle flies which may or may not have an affiliation with JL or PH, constructed by either a dropped loop, touch dubbing or pre-spun bodies. I'd include split thread bodies inhere too if I could manage the technique. Don't look for those any time soon. These may or may not include tales, or palmered thoraxes. And you might note the occasional misplaced image which only makes things more confusing.

Spiders - Which may or may not have an affiliation with the North Country Flies, certainly do not conform to any historic precedent, but generally involve a wingless-wet fly tied with a silk body (ribbed or not, thorax or not) and soft-hackle of either game or hen. These flies are magnificently effective and I do have a strong interest in the history of North Country Spiders, but I think inclusion of traditional patterns will have a significant place on the site...I just haven't gotten to that point yet.

Which leaves me with...what do you do when you twist golden pheasant herls with silk and horse mane? or wire bodies? or herl bodied flies that are used as flymphs (behaviorally), but do not fit the definition above?

Soft-Hackles - It has served as a catch-all for wingless-wet flies which do not fit either of the above categories, (or maybe they do and didn't seem quite right included in those galleries.) As I mention somewhere on one of the main menu pages, these are loose definitions and are subject to evolution or changes as I learn more about what I'm trying to achieve.

I am wide open to recommendations to redefining how these flies are presented or defined, as well as any other aspect of that site. It's all up for discussion. At present, I'm holding the site, reluctantly, as a one-sided conversation, but that is only until I have a better idea of what the site can provide, until my thinking and writing improve, and I make the final decisions about how to make it an inclusive, interview/dialogue based site. I believe Donald has spent 10-12 years (correct me if I'm mistaken) developing one of the most useful and enjoyable resources on the web. I have big plans, but what Donald has achieved... I don't pretend that Iwill be able to do the same, even given another decade. I will do my best, as time and health permit.

Thanks for the plug (genuinely), especially the link to the page with the most titles and promises, but lacking in content. (sarcasm) I'll keep working. I appreciate any feedback. Anytime.

w

For me, I generally designate any fly with a soft hackle; a soft-hackle fly. The sub-groups would then be Flymph, Spider etc. But hold on, I call my Sea-trout spiders (with STIFF CdL cock front hackle)...Spider. So, I guess I have to rest my case

/Martin

[Stendalen]

In the link to the cabin area post Mark explains

Hi,
Leisenring wrapped the hackle back toward the bend. He left the tying silk at the forward end of the body. Then he'd wrap the hackle backwards to the thread, which was held off to the left (for right handed tiers) over a pin stuck in the tying table. He'd tied the hackle off with the thread, wrapping the thread forward,-two to three time- through the hackle, while holding it with tension in the pliers with the left hand. Once done, the hackle tip was raised, up and away to the left so the stem could be cut close with a fly knife. Scissors don't work as well with this technique. A fine pointed knife-like an Exacto does well.


The illusion, here, is it looks as if the hackle was wrapped through the thorax, when it actually was not. Wrapping through the thorax came later from Hidy.

Mark

Now, I have to admit...we are all friends here...that I do not understand the procedure described by Mark. Help. Please
/Martin

[Hans Weilenmann]

I am with you, Martin. Must be us old worlders not getting it

Cheers,
Hans W

[redietz]

Now, I have to admit...we are all friends here...that I do not understand the procedure described by Mark. Help. Please

If it's the pin in the table part that's confusing, it really has nothing specifically to do with this technique -- bobbins holders weren't in use yet, and the common way to maintain tension on the thread was to use a thumbtack in the edge of the table to hold it taut. Ignoring that this is sequence Mark's describing:

1) The hackle is tied in first thing, hanging out over the eye. (Leisenring suggested tying in by stem because he believed you got the stronger part of the quill that way.)
2) The thread is taken to bend, tail tied in, ribbing and body tied in and wrapped forward.
3) The thread stopped at the end of the body -- it doesn't advance to in front of the hackle.
4) The hackle is wound back, and tied off.
5) The thread is wound forward through the hackle (without letting go of the hackle).
6) The hackle stem is cut. (The original text says that a knife does a "neater job" that a scissors because there's less danger of cutting the hackle.)
7) A whip finish is applied to the head.