They represent nothing really.

[Traditionalist]

In my experience suggestive patterns catch more fish than imitative ones, or as close as we can get with fur and feather, or I wouldn't be catching any fish. Fish are opportunistic feeders and will take anything they think is food into their mouths, if it tastes or feels wrong then they will eject it just as quickly, they don't have hands as we have to take it and have a look at it first. If the imitation is in their mouths, no matter what it is, then the angler has a chance of catching that fish.

But how would you know? You have repeatedly said that you only use four flies in a variety of ways.

I use a fair collection of specific flies a lot and also some generics quite a lot.  I catch far more on the specifics in the right circumstances than I do on the generics.

If you use specifics in the wrong circumstances they can be more or less completely useless. With good generics you always have a good chance of catching fish, but not as many as you will on good specifics in the right circumstances.

[bushy palmer]

Sounds like your backtracking Mike and using my own arguements as your own case??

Fish take things in to their mouths (whether feeding, in an act of aggression or otherwise) because they believe for that one important split second that what they are feeding on/ attacking/ inspecting to be a thing of life.

I "rose" to your statement of fact comment that "Experience proves beyond a doubt that good insect imitations properly presented catch fish better than poor ones. ."  which (with the greatest of respect) I think is bollocks. Flies don't need to look like anything only appear for a split second to look like a thing of life.

Standing side-by-side with you on a river bank, you fishing the greatest imitations you can think of- me with my boxes of suggestive fluff and guess what?....
my money would be on neither of us.
My money would be on my eight year old daughter who's been learning to fish this last couple of years with her 4 foot spinning rod , big box of worms and tub of spinners- neither of which represent or imitate anything- simply look for a brief second to be a thing of life and cause the fish to react.

[Fishtales]

But how would you know? You have repeatedly said that you only use four flies in a variety of ways.

I use a fair collection of specific flies a lot and also some generics quite a lot.  I catch far more on the specifics in the right circumstances than I do on the generics.

If you use specifics in the wrong circumstances they can be more or less completely useless. With good generics you always have a good chance of catching fish, but not as many as you will on good specifics in the right circumstances.

I came to those flies through a process of try and fail and try and succeed like most people. I came through the exact imitation route, USD Paraduns, quill dry flies with split wings and all the rest of the imitation is the only way route. I then found I was catching fish on a set number of flies in any situation and on any water, loch or river. I then tied a few flies that seemed to work all of the time and these are the ones I use now. There is nothing magical about them and they aren't an imitation of any one insect but they work and that is all I need to know. As far as I am concerned they are imitating something and I must be using them at the right time if I keep catching fish

[Malcolm]

I we take the Netopir dry and the jingler for example. I've fished imitative flies in big hatches of March Browns and LDOs. Often the imitative flies work. Sometimes they don't. Now the netopir dry is just 6 CDC plumes hackled down the size 12 or even size 10 hook. It's a bundle of fluff!

Yet it works, not all the time but it's worked enough times for me to regard it a very good second line of attack. More than that this isn't just for individual fish. I have switched to this fly at times - especially in windy conditions on the Clyde and it has taken several fish one after the other when a conventional imitative polywing dry hasn't. Same for the jingler. It's much much more bulky than any natural and again it works very well at times. I've looked at these flies side by side with real flies and they have almost no features in common. So it is with the shadow mayfly an absolutely dealy imitation and it's really just a bi-visible palmer with a couple of wings (Indeed the bi visible is a great mayfly pattern in it's own right). I've just had a thought that in the wind the wind may be fluttering the CDC plumes of the Netopir dry making it much more lifelike than we may think.   

[Traditionalist]

Sounds like your backtracking Mike and using my own arguements as your own case??

Fish take things in to their mouths (whether feeding, in an act of aggression or otherwise) because they believe for that one important split second that what they are feeding on/ attacking/ inspecting to be a thing of life.

I "rose" to your statement of fact comment that "Experience proves beyond a doubt that good insect imitations properly presented catch fish better than poor ones. ."  which (with the greatest of respect) I think is bollocks. Flies don't need to look like anything only appear for a split second to look like a thing of life.

Standing side-by-side with you on a river bank, you fishing the greatest imitations you can think of- me with my boxes of suggestive fluff and guess what?....
my money would be on neither of us.
My money would be on my eight year old daughter who's been learning to fish this last couple of years with her 4 foot spinning rod , big box of worms and tub of spinners- neither of which represent or imitate anything- simply look for a brief second to be a thing of life and cause the fish to react.

Just got back home after an "emergency" gig so I'm a bit knackered.  I will have a read through everything again in the morning ( well, "later" anyway) and try to reply as appropriate.

[Traditionalist]

Well, I stated the things I thought apply. Don't know about arguments as such. Anybody can believe whatever they want to believe.

Fish don't "believe" or disbelieve anything at all. They operate on instinct. As soon as any anthropomorphising is done all sense is lost.

If you think something is bollocks, then that's fine, its up to you. If flies don't need to look like anything then why bother ?  All this discussion is then superfluous.

[Traditionalist]

I came to those flies through a process of try and fail and try and succeed like most people. I came through the exact imitation route, USD Paraduns, quill dry flies with split wings and all the rest of the imitation is the only way route. I then found I was catching fish on a set number of flies in any situation and on any water, loch or river. I then tied a few flies that seemed to work all of the time and these are the ones I use now. There is nothing magical about them and they aren't an imitation of any one insect but they work and that is all I need to know. As far as I am concerned they are imitating something and I must be using them at the right time if I keep catching fish

If they work and you are happy with the results then that's fine.  I was merely trying to explain what I do and why I do it.I don't "need to know" anything much at all to go fishing, but the more I have learned the better my fishing has become.  How other people do it is up to them.

[Fishtales]

If flies don't need to look like anything then why bother ?  All this discussion is then superfluous.

No it isn't. It lets those new to the sport or those having trouble with the imitative side of fly fishing see that there is another side which doesn't require exact imitations but relies more on suggestive patterns fished properly that can and will catch them fish. Both take a lot of time and effort to learn and that is the basics behind any process. You try and keep trying and by a process of elimination come to a better understanding of what you are trying to achieve. That goes for the exact imitation, the generic fly or just the just go and fish approach. If it works consistently then, unless you are the type who has to keep trying for the 'best' method, why change. If it isn't broke don't fix it

[Traditionalist]

That was just a "tongue in cheek" remark, Sandy.  I think the more you learn the better your fishing becomes. But whatever suits you is fine if you are happy with it. The main idea is to enjoy yourself, how one goes about it is up to the individual.

[Traditionalist]

I we take the Netopir dry and the jingler for example. I've fished imitative flies in big hatches of March Browns and LDOs. Often the imitative flies work. Sometimes they don't. Now the netopir dry is just 6 CDC plumes hackled down the size 12 or even size 10 hook. It's a bundle of fluff!

Yet it works, not all the time but it's worked enough times for me to regard it a very good second line of attack. More than that this isn't just for individual fish. I have switched to this fly at times - especially in windy conditions on the Clyde and it has taken several fish one after the other when a conventional imitative polywing dry hasn't. Same for the jingler. It's much much more bulky than any natural and again it works very well at times. I've looked at these flies side by side with real flies and they have almost no features in common. So it is with the shadow mayfly an absolutely dealy imitation and it's really just a bi-visible palmer with a couple of wings (Indeed the bi visible is a great mayfly pattern in it's own right). I've just had a thought that in the wind the wind may be fluttering the CDC plumes of the Netopir dry making it much more lifelike than we may think.

This often works well, there are one or two "classical" examples of flies which consistently work well in certain circumstances when according to standard doctrine they shouldn't.

What the fly looks like to you is largely irrelevant. What the fish perceive is what makes it work. many of the CDC flies work extremely well even though they look nothing like a real fly to humans.  Obviously there is a reason or reasons why they work, but it is not apparent to humans.

Sometimes just offering a "big hairy thing" when the fish are taking tiny midges or similar works very well.  A Dogsbody is often extremely effective in a mayfly hatch, ( E.danica), when the fish wont look at mayfly artificials, and it is a first class generic dry fly anyway.

http://www.fish4flies.com/Dry/Hackled/Dogsbody

You may find this of interest;

http://midcurrent.com/techniques/unmatching-the-hatch/