-
Hi RW,
I also have the 1961 wet fly book that Hidy wrote for S.I. it was culled from the 3 part series of articles Hidy wrote fo the S.I. magazine that same year, if memory serves me right. I also have a newer reprint of the same book 1969? I'm not sure. That's where there may be a reference to the word Flymph. As it was the last of that whole reprinted series of articles this could have led to my date error.I extrapolated that he coined the term in the 50's as he was certainly thinking about emergers and a way to find a name that would HELP other anglers to be aware of this stage of insect life.
I do find it puzzling that I seem to have to keep defending Pete Hidy. Without Hidy there would be no Leisenring legacy, as he was the main instigator and CO-AUTHOR of the original 1941 book and Leisenring's protege'. Leisenring told the book to Hidy .Hidy created the book.
Ptet Hidy was a man who gave more to the sport than he ever recieved back , as evedence with your slight of him. He was NOT riding Leisenring's coat tails to fame, merely providing information to enlighten us all by sharing the knowledge that Leisenring gave him and furthering Leisenring's ideas on Fly Fishing, while adding his own KEEN observations.You have done Pete Hidy a disservice that is unwarranted .
Again, the word flymph was coined to name ,mostly, the transformation from Nymph to dun and the flies that that best replicated this , specifically Leisenrings adaptation of the wingless wet to this phenomenon.THe Emerger , as you well know, was little known at the time and most certainly little understood at the time.Hidy was trying to illuminate KNOWLEDGE not himself.
Jim
-
Jim, RW again,
Leisering died in 1951, ten years after the original book came out. If you notice, the flies in that book are all Leisenrings. And the "Leisenring lift" was the name that future writers, maybe even Hidy, gave to Big Jim's method of fishing his wets as emergers.
I know that Hidy instigated, even prodded, Leisenring to write the book, and probably almost ghost wrote it for him, but I also think that Hidy really wanted to give himself a place in history, and parlayed the fact of their friendship and those three last chapters he wrote into something that he could be remembered by. That's not a slight, just actual history the way I see it. Nothing against Hidy here. The flies were Leisenrings, and he certainly isn't the one that called them flymphs. Hidy merely wanted the credit for naming them. Much the same as Swisher & Richards will always be remembered for their no-hackles, which did catch on, Hidy's coinage of the word "flymph" didn't. But in the end they were still Leisenring's flies and the methods he fished them were his, and certainly there were flies like them down through history both here and abroad.
Hidy's attempt at making himself more of Leisenring's legacy than he was by calling Leisenring's flies "flymphs" just didn't work out the way he wanted it too. I could be wrong but it's just the way I see it. You're the one that said all opinions are welcome.
P.S. Dr. Rob, "The republished book by Crown in 1971, "The Art of Tying the Wet Fly", was not a revised version of the original. It was the original. The only difference was the last three chapters added to the 1941 book, that Hidy wrote promoting the Flymph.
Also I might add, Hidy named the first of his three chapters "The Flymph Phenomenon". What phenomenon? I've been fly fishing for 50 years and never heard that terminology used until I became interested in the historical aspect of fly fishing. No fly fisher I ever knew or was aquainted with or any fly shop I ever visited used that terminology.
RW
------------------
"We fish for pleasure; I for mine, you for yours." -James Leisenring on fishing the wet fly-
-
RW,
Heres a quote from T.Donald Overfield"s 1971 book " Famous Flies and Their Originators" :
" Hidy has proved to be a worthy successor to his mentor, the old Pennslyvanian German, James Leisenring, and has done much to instil within the American angler the need for thought and reasoning in fly-dressing that will make him a true fly-fisher rather than just a catcher of fish"
Also : " All of Leisenrings expertise may well have been lost to the angling world if ......a young angler called Vernon S. Hidy had not come across "Big Jim" and quickly realised that the Pennslyvania angler had a fund of knowledge that deserved to be recorded for future generations of fly fishers and fly tyers. The outcome of their meeting was a book published in 1941 the Art of Tying the Wet Fly under joint authorship of Hidy and Leisenring....."
Hidy and Leisenring were forever intertwined in history with the first edition.
My perspective of Hidy is that of a angler wishing to share knowledge with other anglers and furthering Leisenring's example in fly tying and fishing.
The term Flymph was the word he used to describe a emerger, and yes it never really caught on.Was he trying to capitalize on Leisenrings name ? I don't think so.
The 1971 edition is a revised version of the 1941 edition. New pictures and some slight changes to the text.
The Flymph Phenomenon is obviously a reference to the change from a nymph to the dun. You as a writer, should understand that you need a catchy title to capture a readers attention.
Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:b9fa0]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:b9fa0] [url=http://www.flymph.com:b9fa0]www.flymph.com[/url:b9fa0]
[This message has been edited by Jim Slattery (edited 02 October 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Jim Slattery (edited 02 October 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Jim Slattery (edited 02 October 2005).]
-
I personally think that for the Flymph to have any relevance in the tying sense rather than the fishing sense it has to be a completely separate entity to the North Country Patterns or Skues style patterns. The fact that Leisenring dubbed his silk differently to anybody else doesn?t matter as we all have our little foibles when it comes to dressing flies.
With regard to Leisenring?s/Hidy?s proposal that these flies were tied to imitate the ascending bug in that halfway stage between nymph and adult and the method Leisenring use to fish these patterns i.e. The Leisenring Lift I have no problem with as the technique is starkly different to the methods of Skues, Sawyer and Kite here in the UK.
I'm beginning to think i should hve kept my big mouth shut and given this subject a wide berth
-
Jim, RW again
The "flymph" is still just an "emerger", which is the name that stuck, is still used today and is the stage of fly that is recognized by practically every fly fisher that is alive today. Most likely it is because "flymph" is silly sounding and "emerger" is a truer sounding terminology.
Also the word emerger is in Websters with a direct meaning, i.e. emerger: "To rise from or as from an eveloping fluid; to come out into view".
Flymph isn't even in the dictionary.
To put it plainly and in today's vernacular, flymph just didn't cut it with fly fishers. Emerger did, because it is what it is, direct and to the point.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Hidy as a writer or fisherman or friend or anything of the sort, but I think he was being rather gimmicky, if you ask me, in trying to lump a group of wet flies under one silly name like flymph, which quite obviously is just a combination of the words fly and nymph.
And yes, I do think he was trying to capitalize on Leisenring's legacy because he didn't want to be "just" the ghost writer of his book, but wanted to insert a name into the lexicon of American fly fishing that would be used for generations and that he would be remembered by.
I mean, c'mon. He helped Leisenring write the book, and then wrote three more chapters to explain the book? That's like a person telling you something, and then immediately saying "in other words" and telling you the same thing over again another way.
He wrote those last three chapters to promote the word "flymph", pure and simple.
And the fly fishing world didn't buy it.
You can't change my mind, and I probably can't change yours, but why would we want to. This way it makes for interesting conversation and different points of view.
Later, RW
------------------
"We fish for pleasure; I for mine, you for yours." -James Leisenring on fishing the wet fly-
[This message has been edited by Royal Wulff (edited 03 October 2005).]
-
This just seems like old guys trying to show their superior knowledge when they are doing exactly the opposite.
Check that (this is tongue in cheek) fly by night outfit Umpqua Feather Merchants web site. Search on "nemes" and see if anything shows up.
Then write them a long letter explaining their complete ignorance, and your superiority, and how they should classify flies.
------------------
- rriver
-
I'm just glad this subject is restricted to one thread unlike some other forums I could mention.
-
What I meant by my reply really, is a person who is trying to learn the sport and educate themselves would by recent literature be pointed to Nemes, who would then point back back 200 or 300 years.
At this point, you would think everyone would be in a agreement.
This is one of the things wrong with flyfishing- eating their young.
------------------
- rriver
-
rriver.
I would have to agree with you. This IS all getting rather tedious. Not to belabor the point. My initial goal was to find out more about Pete Hidy's work on the subject of Flymphs. During my investigations I found out he formed a club about Flymphs in the 70's. I was posting hoping to find out if someone knew anything about it and if anyone would be interested in resurrecting it if it was defunct. There are now over 100 members to this new club. A total but pleasant surprise.
It seems that the term Flymph has raised more than a few hackles, mostly by misunderstanding what Hidy was attempting to do, perhaps if he used the term emerger instead of merging fly with nymph their might be less confusion. He could have called them "wingless hackled emergers" or perhaps "hackle emergers" he chose flymph.
Nemes is a good starting point for beginning anglers who are interested in this style fly.
Leisenring and in turn Hidy, and I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, offer a more complete system, although in some ways dated.
These flies have never been available through mass catalog /suppliers. The simple reason is that they are time consuming to tie, and lets face it when you look at them they certainly don't look like anything special ,let alone work.
As far as eating the young,I'm not sure how exchanging information and possibly clearing up some misunderstandings fits into this equation.
Send me a email with your address and I'll send you some Flymphs. You can judge their effectiveness for yourself.
Rw,
I can understand where you are coming from about writers wanting to make a name for themselves . It seems inherent to the profession, I just don't think it was Hidy's driving motivation. There is a lot of great ,useful information in what Hidy had written after his work with Leisenring.
Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:ed0d7]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:ed0d7] [url=http://www.flymph.com:ed0d7]www.flymph.com[/url:ed0d7]
-
Jim
Your goal is worthy...and it's fun. :-)