Introduction
Charles Darwin posited that the characteristics of a living thing are inspired by its former generations. ‘Evolution’ results from this generational descent via ‘natural selection’ – a process where over time, desirable characteristics in the living thing are retained and less desirable ones are not. Evolution is also a convenient way to observe long-term development of non-biological entities. In this article, I offer some personal perspectives on the evolution of flydressing and for its possible future.
A brief look at the literature
Precisely when the first artificial fishing fly was dressed, is unclear. I read somewhere about ancient Chinese who fixed a kingfisher feather to a hook for hand-line fishing c.3000 BC, while others suggest that it all began c.1500 years BC in Macedonia. Most commentators accredit Claudius Ælianus with first writing about fly fishing, during the Roman Empire in the book De Natura Animalium although, this has been challenged [ref1]. Ælianus described an artificial fly dressed with a "...red wool body" and "...wax coloured feathers", used by Macedonian anglers to catch fish with "...speckled skins" from the Astræus River.
The first book to be printed in English that referred to flydressing, was The Treatyse of Fysshynge Wyth an Angle, published in 1496 by Juliana Barnes (some argue that the family name was Berners; others that neither name is real). The History of Fly Fishing (Medlar Press, 2011) states that Juliana’s record is one of the earliest listings of trout fly patterns among the fishing literature (and in common with the Ælianus fly, all 12 of these patterns used coloured wool for their bodies).
Another key record exists within the fifth Edition of Izaak Walton’s treatise The Compleat Angler (1676). Part 2 of that book is titled, Part II, Being Instructions how to Angle for a Trout or Grayling in a Clear Stream and was authored by Charles Cotton.
Many regard Cotton as the founder of British (fly fishing and) flydressing. His chapters gave recipes and instruction on tying 65 trout and grayling flies, listed under each month of the year. It is said that these flies were all of his own design, based on observation of insects. Cotton is additionally considered the originator of wet fly fishing – for two reasons. First, because his dry fly patterns would fish “…below the top” once they became waterlogged. Second, because some of his patterns intentionally represented sub-surface aquatic insects.
‘Wet fly’ fishing evolved into ‘nymph fishing’ and was helped in no small way by George Skues, who in his book The Way of a Trout with a Fly (1921), recognised that a nymph often out-fished a dry fly. For this, he gained the admiration of many; but the scorn of chalk stream ‘dry fly aficionados’ who viewed ‘nymphing’ as sacrilege.
Since these early publications, fly fishing and dressing literature has expanded exponentially. Often, to document evolution of these subjects from a technical standpoint and particularly, concerning the advancement of modern materials (fishing rods are a classic case in point).
Some evolutionary aspects of fly dressing
In the beginning, flies were dressed ‘in hand’. A flydresser held the hook with one hand and the tying thread in the other. By alternating this arrangement and dexterously positioning materials with the fingers; holding them in place; and whipping them to the hook with the thread; a fly was crafted.
It was later realised that if the hook were gripped between two metal jaws at the end of a stem and held fast by a sliding collet or threaded wingnut, then one hand was effectively ‘freed up’. This is a perfect example of incremental innovation, which is the act of improving an existing process in contrast to inventing an entirely new one.
Subsequent incremental innovation of the vice included:
adding a wooden handle to the stem, for improved comfort and ease of holding;
attaching a clamp, to secure the vertical stem to a work surface;
improving accessibility to the fly by adding angled jaws to the stem;
increasing the hook-hold by way of various cam or other lever mechanisms; and
adjustable/ rotatable jaws; hardened steel jaws; pedestal bases; material springs; bobbin rests; parachute attachments; and so on.
Collectively, incremental innovations like these represent evolution: natural selection meant that desirable qualities of the vice (e.g. the jaws) survived while less desirable ones (e.g. the stem handle) disappeared. So each ‘generational descendant’ of vice retained the best characteristics of its ancestors.
Some flydressing tools have been used since the craft began and are fundamentally the same now as they were then. For example, scissors, forceps and hackle pliers as shown in the photo opposite, of a Farlows riverside tying kit from about the turn of the 19th century. Other flydressing tools were invented along the way, of which those that evolved (i.e. 'survived' under the evolutionary metaphor), remain in contemporary use. Whip finishers and bobbin holders are two good examples of this.
A US patent application by Melvin Whitlinger in 1957 for a ‘Whip Finisher’ comprised a pen like stem housing a complex spring arrangement. Evolution simplified this tool and two later patents of note are those of Robert Lint (1959) which employed an externally sprung hook similar to the current Griffin model; and Frank Materelli’s (1975) one piece bent wire design that so many present day whipping tools resemble.
Tying thread management has equally advanced over time. From originally being undertaken 'between finger and thumb', to numerous kinds of thread bobbin holders including:
early models formed from wood with various (e.g. mini or in-line) spool holders and a metal stem;
the Franrad (brass with stem);
the S&M (pressed metal with stem); and
the Thomson Apex (pressed metal, integrated perpendicular spool holder).
Contemporary bobbin holders now offer ceramic inserts, ceramic stems, auto and adjustable thread tension mechanisms and easy thread tips (most with a price to match!)
On the contrary, other inventions such as Frederick Boehm’s combined pivoting magnifier and tweezers shown opposite, have not fared so well. This is a perfect example of 'extinction' caused by 'natural selection' – Frederick would not have anticipated competition from modern day magnifier spectacles, convenient flip down magnifiers, and vice mounted combined lighting and viewing lenses!
Advancements in materials technology have given rise to an abundance of synthetic flydressing ingredients. Items such as plastic wings, silicon body segments, mylar dubbing, polypropylene yarn, tungsten, lightweight foams and UV resin now frequent (some but not all!) flydressers’ desks. (See my earlier blogs on this subject). Additionally – as the adjacent photo of a George Kelson tying box from the 19th century shows – the manner in which materials are packed, sold and stored for use have transformed too. Wooden spools, cardboard boxes and greaseproof paper have almost exclusively given way to plastic.
To conclude, since the inception of fly fishing and flydressing, some aspects have become almost extinct – tying flies in the hand for example. Others have changed, but very little (such as the basic shape of a hook). But many more have been invented or evolved considerably since their inception.
Much evolution has come about through subtle and incremental change. To continue the hook theme, issues of high carbon steel, torsional and tensile strength, bespoke profiles, chemical sharpening, spade ends, mini-barbs, and stainless steel, all spring to mind. While considerable change ('disruptive' evolution or innovation) can be demonstrated for instance, by the advent of fishing hook eyes. No longer is a flydresser expected to secure a gut eye or leader to a (‘blind’) hook shank as an essential part of their craft. The gut eye has thus become extinct beyond the realm of those flydressers striving to maintain such heritage (for example, by dressing classic salmon flies).
So what of the future? Given advances in automation and artificial intelligence, maybe fly dressing machines will attempt mass production? This seems impractical in economic terms given the capital investment it would require (in contrast to small margins); and a mass market presently fed with cheap flies from developing countries. It is also difficult to perceive how mechanisation might replicate the eye and dexterity of a skilled flydresser. Nonetheless, increased production of flydressing components (to greater tolerances and near-life copies of the natural), along with part finished flies incorporating these, sadly seem inevitable.
In the present age of desire for instant gratification, does the ‘traditional’ hands-on, experiential and iterative journey of learning to dress flies deter some from entering the craft? In my view, despite inevitable continuing evolution of the information age and of flydressing itself: tradition that embraces inquiry, practice, failure, more practice, more failure, and ultimately skill and success, will remain the essential prerequisite to real flydressing enjoyment.
Tight lines and threads,
Gary Holt
MyFliesWetsAndDries.co.uk
[1] See: pp152—158 of The Project Gutenberg eBook, Fishing from the Earliest Times, by William Radcliffe at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/57845/57845-h/57845-h.htm (viewed Oct., 2022).
[2] Attributions. UK: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Compleat_Angler,_by_Izaak_Walton_(1653)_(title_page).jpg US: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-expired
[3] This is one of Kelson’s original tying boxes that he described in his book The Salmon Fly on pages 457-8 (published c/o Wyman and Sons Ltd, London, 1895).
This blog is based on a shorter article first published in Flydresser, the journal of the Flydressers' Guild, Autumn 2020, by Gary Holt.
Kommentare