FLYMPH FORUM

How do you see see these?

Connect/Disconnect the dots.

Wingless wet
Spider
Soft hackle
Flymph
Emerger

Feel free to add more dots if you deem appropriate.

I have a picture in my mind that I will detain for a while, just want to see how others perceive this.

I'll take a brief shot.

Wingless Wets: the most generic term, but conjures up a classic wet fly...minus the wings. fished swung.
Spiders: slim, sparse, sexy, minimal. two ingredients - silk and game hackle.
Soft-Hackles: nearly as generic as wingless wets, but at least connotes an attitude in the fishing method and a more complex pattern/use of materials.
Flymphs: associated with Liesenring and Hidy, but defined by the dubbed fur body and attention to overall liveliness of the entire fly.
Emergers: conjures up a method or expectation rather than a fly type. Linked more directly with the entomology and stage of developement which includes opens up an endless types of patterns.

w

Howdy All;

I like this kind of thread, gets folks thinking about what it is they are playing with, how they play, and what they might expect from it.

For me, it's a way to see into (don't know if that the correct term), ya'll's thinking as to how you put these togather. Which in turn leads to how ya'll intend to use'em.

Gonna keep an eye on this ........

hank

Old Hat wrote:How do you see see these?

Connect/Disconnect the dots.

Wingless wet
Spider
Soft hackle
Flymph
Emerger

Here's my take:

"Wingless wet" is the most all encompassing; it includes spiders, soft hackles and flymphs.

"Spider" of course depends on context; in the Catskills it meant a style of wingless dry; it can mean rubber hackled bluegill flies, but in the context of wingless wets, to me it implies "North Country" style flies, typically thread bodied or very lightly dubbed (often short in either case), hackled with feathers from birds other than domestic poultry. (Note "typically", others are grandfathered in.)

"Flymph" implies to me a fly with a fully dubbed body; which is typically a bit longer than a spider, and is more likely to have tail.

"Emerger" is more how a fly is fished than the description of a type of fly; a Klinkhammer style dry can be an emerger, so can a winged wet, or a lightly dressed nymph, and so can just about any wingless wet.

I suspect there's not going to be a consensus on this. That's glory for you.

The Catskill style of wingless dry flies, were/are, "Skaters" more than "Spiders." For me, the "Spider" is more of a North Country English type-a-pattern. Skaters were/are tyed on short shanked hooks with immensly over-sized hackle, "sometimes" with, but very often without tails.
The original English soft hackle was designed to represent an emerging Caddis fly, tyed very sparsely with the hackle (tyed in by the butt, longest fibers wound first), fibers stripped off one side of the feather.
American emergers very often have tuffs (or loops), of CDC or other feathers built in to the design to represent an "about to open" wing case. Nymphs representing the larva stage and Emergers representing the pupa stage.

Wingless wet - don't really use this, except I'm trying to avoid someone bugs me about terminology...

Spider - sparse wet fly; embodiment of movement, 4th dimension of fly (shape, size, color)

Soft hackle - that's THE term I'm using; refers to all flies tied with soft hackle, including S&H nymphs, my favorites

Flymph - wet emerger; buggier than spider, fished with movement on mind (Fran Sawyer's induced take upstream or Leinsering lift downstream and across)

Emerger - barely protruding from the water... or is under surface but very close to it.

I look at spiders as a link to a early fly tying history. Simple, practical materials (silk & feathers) that form an effective imitation of small insects. The effectiveness of these flies is what has kept them in our fly boxes all this time. I generally think of these as European flies, but I am sure their origins are more geographically widespread than that.

I look at flymph's as the burly American's of wingless wet flies, thicker in the body and fuller hackle than their European cousins. Even the name "Flymph" seems especially American to me.

Emergers somehow strike me as the youngest of the bunch, sort of the 30-somethings/new kids on the block.

Overall, I tend to use the term soft hackle fly most frequently, but consider wingless wet to be a more accurate description of the broad class of flies we have seen on this forum.

This probably wasn't the links you were asking for, but I am enjoying the responses to this thread.

Easier if you asked which is the odd one out

Wingless wet = any wet fly that does not have a solid wing. Problem with this classifcation is that it would suggest that imitative patterns tied without solid wings do not suggest the presence of wings.

Spider = cannot be defined in any words that i can put to-gether.

Soft hackle - fly tied with game or hen hackle , could be a spider, flymph,wingless wet, an emerger, a dun , a bait fish imitation, could be anything.

Flymph = furry nymph , hackled with fur or feather.

Emerger = Emerger

Most anglers I know for the most part used Wets, Dries,Nymphs,Lures as the main classifications. In recent times for some this has expanded to include Emergers. When asked what they are using that is likely to be the response, if you are on really friendly terms they may be more specific

Do we really know what our imitations are taken for, For example the good old hares fur nymph, tie it with very tight dubbing and its predominantly a nymph, incorporate some hackle or a lot of loose dubbing and it could be a nymph, an emerger, a drowned, a still born etc.... How its tied and how and where and when it is fished are inexorably linked.

So is your flymph a nymph, is your wingless wet a lure , a nymph, an emerger , a spinner, a cripple ?
Is your spider a lure, a dun, a spent, a nymph, an emerger ?
Is your spider a flymph, is your flymph a lure, is your wingless wet a spider, is your spider a Wingless Wet, is your lure a soft hackle.

Me thinks these classifications are an incestuous lot

Williams answer is interesting, and is as close as you probably get to what we think these things to mean.

Wingless Wets: the most generic term, but conjures up a classic wet fly...minus the wings. fished swung.

Spiders: slim, sparse, sexy, minimal. two ingredients - silk and game hackle. On face value , yes, but many spiders incorporate fur, peacock thoraxes or touch dubbed bodies
Soft-Hackles: nearly as generic as wingless wets, but at least connotes an attitude in the fishing method and a more complex pattern/use of materials.

Flymphs: associated with Liesenring and Hidy, but defined by the dubbed fur body and attention to overall liveliness of the entire fly.

Emergers: conjures up a method or expectation rather than a fly type. Linked more directly with the entomology and stage of developement which includes opens up an endless types of patterns.

Thank you everyone for taking the time to respond. I am really enjoying the discussion. I see a lot of similarities and differences in thought. Not unexpected. There is quite a bit of insight here and it is all thought provoking. This post is going just the direction I was after...not a debate, but just a look at the different perspectives. I will say that I do think there is a connection to the style type how it is meant to be fished as well a generational and continental line of connection.

Keep it up.

Carl

Carl, are we to take the naming of the North Country (England) Spiders completely litterally or not. Don't those flies represent more than just spiders litterally? i've been wondering if there's any connection between the natives of Britain and Native North Americans..........the Indians here, used to predict the weather by the study of Spider webs............for agricultural purposes when they still lived sedintary lifestyles.....before they got the horse. After they became nomadic horse warriors, it was more for the timming of raiding and attack purposes, and so they could know when to pull up stakes and move. Wonder if there's any record of them ever having fly fished..............