FLYMPH FORUM

Thanks Mike for those last pics on the wings. THAT is FASCINATING!!!


Vicki

Very interesting. This might explain why substitutions of materials in "proven patterns" might not work.

dd

daringduffer wrote:Very interesting. This might explain why substitutions of materials in "proven patterns" might not work.

dd

Indeed, it could explain a lot of things if you think about it. Here's another photo showing what happens when the wings are in front of a light or dark background;

http://myrmecos.net/wp-content/uploads/ ... _wings.jpg

Some more images from Diptera;

http://wipbarcode.com/gallerydipt.html

Some general info on iridescence;

http://www.microscopyu.com/articles/pol ... intro.html

TL
MC

Interesting is an understatement - it could . i mean Could with a capital C be a major leap in our understanding of certain things - off course if it is relevant then god help us for the marketeers will bombard the unwary with a host of new materials Good luck with your research Mike, I wish i had the time to partake.

Mike,

If I say Coch-Bondhu and Peacock - what do you say?

dd

It's a fairly reliable terrestrial beetle imitation, especially in some localities at certain times. I find it works better as a dry fly than a wet, and other than that, and the fact that I now mainly use foam for such patterns, and only use them rarely, although I always have a couple at least in my box, there is not really all that much to say about it. The green iridescence may be useful on occasion, there are a few metallic green beetles, and the furnace hackle, ( coch-y-bonndhu, which basically means "Black and red" in Welsh, coch= red du =Black, I am not sure what "bon" means, various spellings are extant), makes a good imitation of many beetles when viewed against the light as many chitin carapaces and bodies look orange with a dark core in such circumstances.

TL
MC

Mike will all respect.
Trout do see ultraviolet in my opinion.
You may think why,well like other fish they use that to find their food like plankton.
Many fish themself have ultraviolet collors,aquatic insects have ultraviolet collors.
Its nature that takes advantage of that,so like with every other living animal thats low in the foodchain nature gives their predators a way to find them.
I know you will not agree i what i think and read,and like with lots of stuff everything has his believers and non believers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_in_fishes

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/14/8308.full

Seems like the use of ultraviolet collors/material in deeper water has no use.
In shallow clear water with less or almost no aquatic insects aduld trout can keep their use of seeing ultra violet to find food.

Klaas

Klaas wrote:Mike will all respect.
Trout do see ultraviolet in my opinion.
You may think why,well like other fish they use that to find their food like plankton.
<SNIP>
Klaas

According to leading researchers trout lose the ability to see in the ultra-violet range in the late fry stages. They no longer have the eye-construction required to do so.

Many people confuse fluorescent materials with ultra-violet colours. This is not the same thing at all. Some materials fluoresce ( Produce light) in the visible spectrum when they are subjected to ultra-violet light.

Of course anybody is entitled to believe whatever they like.

TL
MC