What is a "nymph"

[DNicolson]

When the word "Nymph" is mentioned to many anglers, they immediately think of a tied fly
with a wing-case of hackle fibres and added weight such as copper or lead wire, or a bead.
What seems to have been forgotten is the dictionary definition,
"an immature form of a dragonfly or other insect that does not undergo complete metamorphosis."
The word has come to be very narrowly defined.
Skues was refering to the natural insect not a specific pattern of dressed fly.
So, a fly dressed to imitate the insect, whether weighted or not and with or
without a wing-case is a nymphal pattern.
Sorry to sound so pedantic, but the insects have been around a lot longer
than any pattern or fly-dresser.
When looking at Skues patterns or the later Leisenring, Lawrie or
Clyde Style patterns, they do not necessarily have wing-cases or weighting.
If these are desired there is no reason why they cannot be added,
but they do not define the pattern as nymphal.

[DNicolson]

That is not strictly true, as a practising agnostic, I just love the chance to out-pedant John Knox.

[redietz]

What seems to have been forgotten is the dictionary definition,
"an immature form of a dragonfly or other insect that does not undergo complete metamorphosis."
The word has come to be very narrowly defined.

Conversely, as used by anglers, the definition has broadened; it often includes caddis fly larvae (how many Czech/Polish "nymphs" represent these?) which by the dictionary definition, are not nymphs.

[fflutterffly]

Very interesting. In terms of fly tying, the general public considers a Nymph to be anything living on the bottom or in a transition form once it has left the bottom and begins to rise. Once it comes close to the surface, for argument sake lets say 2 hand widths from the surface, it becomes an Emerger. We all know this is not correct, but for the general public it simplifies entomology and fly fishing in general. However, for the consummate tyer or fisher, we tend to want defined perimeters. How about we define a nymph here and now. Let's get a consensus for the poorly mis-understood nymph.

[willowhead]

Quick answer: a hatched aquatic insect egg.
i say the second it leaves the bottom (if "attempting" to hatch), it is an emerger (pupa)........simply because, it is "emerging." DUH! As for nymphs......long as it's not emerging, it's still a nymph (larva). "You knew that."
Now of course, "somebody" is gonna wanna go semantic on us, and head directly for left field. But let's keep it simple. Having to clarify everything according to the bug itself (Mayfly/Caddis/Stonefly/Midge/etc.), is really not much fun.......for me anyway. So if that's where this is headed............have at it guys..............but my name is bennitt, and i aint in it. Keep it simple.
Still on the bottom, nymph (larva).....commin' up/hangin' out on top to dry wings, emerger (pupa).....ssshhh, still can't fly.....not yet a full blown adult (dun). Keep it simple.
Now, is a Stonefly which hasn't gotten outta the water yet (but attempting to), in order to do it's thing, an emerger yet? i say yes.........because it's trying to emerge.....headed in the right direction if you get my drift. Keep it simple.
Hey, btw.....i was just thinkin'.....and i've never heard a Midge referred to as a spinner......Midge Spinner...........is there such a thing?...........i mean, how does a Midge propogate(sp?)? OOooohhhh Mike.....?????

OH, and Ariel, far as the "general public" is concerned..................rotflmutbfao..........that's rollin' on the floor laughin' my used to be fat ass off...............

[IronBlue]

Not that I'm an expert in these things, but I'm with Willowhead on this one. Part of the beauty of flymphing is that these flies are ambiguous anatomically, or generic, but they have enough of the lifelike qualities of fresh, juicy food that the trout aren't going to quibble about anatomy or even species.

You ask me, I think a more pressing problem than consensus on what a nymph is, is to ask why Orvis gets away with telling the world that there are only three categories of flies: Streamers, Nymphs, and Dry Flies. They think that if it's wet, its gotta be a nymph. I bought their iPad app, and the only wet flies they feature on it are nymphs. And if you want to talk semantics, take a look at their "Egg Fly," a little golden yellow fluff ball. Some fly.

[Roadkill]

I agree with Donald and think if you don't know enough about the bugs, their life stages and behavior in those stages it makes it harder to successfully fish those flies tied to imitate them. It can be fun and simple to just know or observe what size, color and note the behavior of a bug fish are eating, but learning about the sport and some of the basics just makes it more rewarding for me.

Conversely, as used by anglers, the definition has broadened; it often includes caddis fly larvae (how many Czech/Polish "nymphs" represent these?) which by the dictionary definition, are not nymphs.

redietz
As I recall it, when Vladi Trzebunia won the World Championship title and started the Polish/Czech "nymph" craze, he fished a Hare's Ear nymph. I think it is the methods more than the flies which are significant. And from the few fishermen I have met that are involved in those fishing contests, they know the difference and also have a trained entomologist(one even from "The Bug Lab") to help coach them.

IMO it is easier to fish the wrong fly the right way and catch fish than to fish the right fly the wrong way and catch fish.

Iron Blue, you are working on a March Brown Dun Flymph so I asume you have studied a little about March Browns and are attempting to match the hatch a little. Part of the success in fishing for selctive trout that Hidy wrote about with mimicry flymphs is that ability to fish a selected dubbing spun for a selected emerging nymph. http://www.flymph.com/html/literature.html

[IronBlue]

I think it is good that Donald takes the word nymph seriously. The words are important, and sometimes we are sloppy with their meanings. But I take science only so far where fishing is concerned. Hidy's flymphs are not very scientific. Schwiebert, for whom science was a big deal, and wrote the intro to Hidy's 1971 edition, later called flymphs "a creative bit of whimsy that never quite was accepted." I think that science has invigorated fly fishing. No question. But it has also spawned a lot of lifeless, realistic flies too. Actual stream-side experience, working all stages of the metamorphosis, gives a practical knowledge involving the interaction of trout and insects that you cannot get from entomology. This is stuff that only anglers know about. Not scientists.

That said, I really love entomology, and have read a lot of books on it, and study the insects and spiders that I find outdoors. And I use Thomas Ames's great photographs for modifying my fly dressings, as you can see from the attached images. I used his 2000 handbook Hatch Guide for New England Streams, from Amato.

[redietz]

I actually seldom use the word "nymph" to refer to an artificial fly. If it doesn't float, and doesn't obviously represent a bait fish, it's a wet fly. (I also seldom fish those things with wing cases, or beadheads.) I also seldom use the word "emerger" to refer to an artificial fly. It's either a low riding dry fly, or it's a wet fly fished in the film.

To me, a nymph is just what Donald's dictionary says it is - an immature insect of a type that has incomplete metamorphosis.

[DUBBN]

Egg..



Nymph..



Emerger..



Dun...



Sorry folks, I could not resist!