I get the impression from reading a couple books (always dangerous!) that one could substitute a comparadun for an adams, or vice-versa, because there is not 2 cents worth of difference in their trout-catching ability. May I have opinions on this from the wisdom of users of this web site–you’ve been fishing for trout much longer than i have. A related question: If you think the choice between the two does not matter, or you prefer the comparadun, do you like best the sparkle compradun style or the usual minimal microfibet or etc. tail?
Many thanks,
GGH
I prefer a parachute adams to the standard adams. I prefer a sparkle dun to the comparadun.
I have been in situations where a grey sparkle dun out fishes a parachute adams and in other situations where a parachute adams out fishes the grey sparkle dun.
A parachute adams has the hackle fibers ABOVE the body, and therefore, the body of the parachute adams is in the film. The body of the standard adams is ABOVE or on the film. The parachute fly, therefore, imitates an earlier phase of emergence than the standard adams. The parachute adams is an emerger adn NOT a dry fly and represents a more vulnerable phase of emergence.
Similarly, the sparkle dun tail represents the shuck of an emerger and is more vulnerable than the fully emerged comparadun.
“Most fly fishers think of the Parachute Adams as an adult dun imitation, but in reality it is an emerger. In stage 3 the nymphal or pupal body is just under the film and the legs are spread out on the surface to support the body. The body sticks almost straight up, with the wings plastered tightly along the top of the thorax as they continue pulling up and out of the wing pads.Light reflecting off the upright body with the wings plastered tight along the top, gives the emerging insect a shining, light-colored look.
Still not convinced? Toss a Parachute Adams in a glass of water and view its position.”
I prefer a parachute adams to the standard adams. I prefer a sparkle dun to the comparadun.
I have been in situations where a grey sparkle dun out fishes a parachute adams and in other situations where a parachute adams out fishes the grey sparkle dun.
A parachute adams has the hackle fibers ABOVE the body, and therefore, the body of the parachute adams is in the film. The body of the standard adams is ABOVE or on the film. The parachute fly, therefore, imitates an earlier phase of emergence than the standard adams. The parachute adams is an emerger and NOT a dry fly and represents a more vulnerable phase of emergence.
Similarly, the sparkle dun tail represents the shuck of an emerger and is more vulnerable than the fully emerged comparadun.
[FONT=arial][i]"Most fly fishers think of the Parachute Adams as an adult dun imitation, but in reality it is an emerger. In stage 3 the nymphal or pupal body is just under the film and the legs are spread out on the surface to support the body. The body sticks almost straight up, with the wings plastered tightly along the top of the thorax as they continue pulling up and out of the wing pads.Light reflecting off the upright body with the wings plastered tight along the top, gives the emerging insect a shining, light-colored look.
Still not convinced? Toss a Parachute Adams in a glass of water and view its position."[/i]
http://archives.flyfisherman.com/content/film-flies/2[/FONT]
I vacillate on this. I believe your best bet, generally, is to fish a cripple or stillborn which would be well imitated with a sparkle dun. It represents the stage of the insect on the surface which is most vulnerable to the trout, and, therefore, they go after them.
On the other hand, as they say, if you read the several books which research flies from below the surface and what the trout sees with his problem of living below a mirror, you will find that the most prominent thing a trout sees when a fly or insect is floating toward it are the wing points.
Having said that, I use sparkle duns probably 90 percent of the time vs. divided wings. It is only when the sparkle dun does not work that I turn to divided upright wing patterns.
FWIW - Depends on type of water. Fast choppy water favors hackled fly, ala Catskill style. Smoother water then comparadun type. Hey, that’s what Al Caucci said and wrote.
I believe that the sparkle dun, as compared to the original comparadun, does much better in faster water.
Additionally, the sparkle dun, with a trailing shuck as opposed to tails is tied to represent a struggling emergent insect which is a favorite of the trout as it is an easier prey to the trout than a standard dun.
I most often tie and fish a Haystack style over both the Comparadun and Sparkle Dun perosnally. But all 3 catch fish just fine. I go by the fish, all styles have their day on the water and more often than not one will outfish the other on a given day.
Ralph
Generally I do not fish either, but when I do, I prefer the classic Adams because it is a more aesthetically pleasing fly than the Comparadun. More fun to tie as well, in-my-not-so-humble-opinion.
As SilverCreek has observed, however, it never hurts to have multiple patterns in the box because you never know what they might prefer that day.
I would fish the pattern I have most confidence in.
They are both time-tested fish-catchers.
You are correct so far as what is seen in the window. What is seen first through the window is the highest point of the natural.
As you are aware, a fish actually sees the portion of the emerging insect such as the shuck before it can see any of the above film structures of the emerger. Even if the insect is a completely emerged dun on the film, it sees the depression of the film by the legs and abdomen of the adult. These “points of light” due to the depression of the film is visible well before the wings of a mayfly is seen in the window.
Here is an underwater photo of a dry fly and then an illustration. You can see the hackle points that have penetrated the film.
Yes. It is explained well in the book by Goddard and Clarke. They were among early efforts to view what the trout sees with their slant tanks. Can’t locate their book right now, but it is a good one on the subject.
“The Trout and the Fly”
I think Vincent Marinaro beat them all in regards to what a trout sees in its window. If memory serves me right he was using a slant tank when he wrote “A Modern Dry Fly Code” about 50 years ago. I will have to check when I get home but I’m pretty sure thats how he developed his thorax patterns.
Gene
Silver Creek,
I’m sure you are aware, but perhaps not all are. I found my copy of “The Trout and the Fly” by Goddard and Clarke which has greatly influenced my fishing and tying ever since its publication back in 1980.
Interestingly, if you read the caption above the photo, they say that the footprint of the insect/fly is enough to trigger most trout to approach and take the offering.
However, for “experienced” trout, almost invariably await a second signal - the wings.
The other thing they mention, which even highly respected tiers are unaware of (or do not accept) is the “flare” of the wings in the trout’s vision.
The photos in the “The Trout and the Fly” are some what misleading to the extent that the reader assumes that the detail of the wings we see on the page is the detail that the trout sees.
The problem is that the visual acuity of a trout is not equal to that of a human. As computer users, we are familiar with pixel count. The higher the pixel density, the clearer the image. For trout and human vision, rod and cones are the equivalence of pixels. The higher the density of these visual elements, the clearer the image. Humans have a macula, which is an area of high resolution vision and dense concentration of cones. Trout do not.
A trout has the rods and cones relatively evenly distributed over it’s retina. As noted above, humans have a concentration of receptors in the fovea at the center of the macula of the retina so we can see great detail when focused on an object. A trout sees everything at the same detail and it cannot see an object better by centering its vision on it.
We see 14 times better than a trout because we have 14 times the density of rods and cones in our retina. By comparison, an eagle or hawk has 12 times the visual acuity of a human. So our vision is relatively better than a trout than an eagle’s vision compared to us.
Check out Salmonid Vision at sexyloops.
A trout has a round lens when compared with a human lens which is more disk shaped. Because the lens of a trout must focus light that enters the lens from water, it needs to be more spherical than a human lens which bends light entering from air. This allows the trout eye have a wide depth of field - ie, the shape of the lens does not need to change much to focus for a specific distance. So to a trout virtually everything is in focus. Humans can focus on a specific object and this allows humans to more easily concentrate their vision on a specific object.
The seminal article on trout vision was published by an American ophthalmologist, Gordon Byrnes, MD. It was titled, How Trout See: volume 21, issue 5, of Fly Fisherman Magazine, July 1990. pp 56. That article is the work upon which the Sexyloops site and other articles on fish vision have been based.
Goddard and Clarke were unaware of this article when they wrote their excellent book.
This is how we see a standard dry fly. We can see some of the separate “wing” through flat clear water and overlapping hackle.
Now comes a series of photos showing what the trout sees at increasingly closer distances. The trout sees best at three inches and not any closer.
Here is a trout’s view at one foot.
At 6 inches
At three inches. This is as good as it gets for a trout.
Now here is what a real insect looks like to a trout. Compare it to the fly.
Mayfly at 6 inches
Mayfly at 3 inches
The key question is does that fly look like the mayfly?
Thank goodness for the poor vision or we would rarely fool it. If we are honest with ourselves, a well tied fly does not look much like a real mayfly.
Do split wings make a difference? It depends on whether the trout can get 3" from the fly and has the time to see the fly clearly before the it must decide. It depends on whether the trout really can distinguish split wings from not split wings AND if this is a trigger that the trout uses to decide whether the “fly” us a real mayfly or a fake fly. It is all relative to the underlying ability of the trout to see clearly enough and whether the split wing is a trigger.
I agree with that. As I think you point out, when a trout gets very close, they see well.
So much depends upon the water conditions you are fishing. In rough water, the trout has very little time to inspect the fly. On smooth stretches like the RR Ranch, he can see it all. In “nervous” water you can get away with a lot. On glassy surface water, not so much - especially to the “experienced” trout…
Gary LaFontaine, who did probably more underwater observation than anyone else, tells an interesting story about wings in one of his books.
He tells of guys fishing and catching many fish during a hatch of size 18 insects. At some point, the hatch changed to a size 20. The fishers quickly changed to size 20 flies with the resulting shorter wings. They quit catching. When they fished longer winged flies, they began catching again.
He, LaFontaine, believed in prominent wings.
How trout see has been contemplated, discussed, studied and debated for decades or longer. The safest position is that trout don’t see things as we do. Do they have a trigger point? Again, that’s an area open to discussion. There are two things that are indisputeable: 1)their vision is effected by the conditions of the water and the air/sky; and 2)they do not see all that clearly even at close ranges. Otherwise how would you account for them disregarding that curved piece of steel hanging from the end of the fly?
The bottom line is that the more ‘smarts’ we can attribute to the trout, the more we can excuse our getting skunked, etc.
Oh, and Marinaro wrote about the wings being important in 1950. Way before Goddard and Clarke.
I don’t think anyone said Goddard and Clarke were the first?
It is nice that he, as well as Goddard and Clarke (and SO MANY others) believe that wings are important, at least in certain circumstances, even though “…they do not see all that clearly even at close ranges.”.
A slant tank photo of Marinaro’s in my copy of his book “In the Ring of the Rise” 1976. Not that Vincent did not write about the importance of wings prior to that.
I can only speak for myself, but I know some of us greatly enjoy studying trout and their behavior. Fly fishing can be as simple as tying on a store bought fly and terribly casting it once a year or so with no interest in knowing anything more than that. It can also become a very large part of someone’s life. The latter is true in my case.
I definitely think upright wings vs down wings are important because the overall shapes are so different.
I don’t know how often upright split wings vs a single upright wing profile would be important.
I don’t have good data on how often an adult mayfly drifts downstream with it’s wings together vs separated enough to give a double profile.
I do believe that if there are fish that are selective to only a split wing profile, the hatch must be heavy enough so that there are enough mayflies that have spit wing profiles for the fish to feed regularly on that profile. In other words, this type of super selectivity should only occur in extremely fertile habitats. Otherwise this super selectivity would be counter to the fish’s ability to survive.
I think I believe all that you believe, with the exception that I believe the split in the wings of insects are generally visible to the fish. I think we subconsciously attribute things we see to those that the trout see. We, probably more often than not, see the insect floating by in a broadside view. Trout do not. To get to their feeding lane, the insect is generally floating straight toward the trout.
Perhaps Ladyfisher could/should weigh in on this BUT, as I recall, our BELOVED JC once bored us ?/ME :>) at a MIFI with a presentation of photo slides he had taken , YEARS before ( maybe the ORIGINAL), precisely on this subject. He had fashioned an aquarium , mirrors and camera in an effort to duplicate a trout’s view of a fly presentation. He didn’t have the ability to demonstrate any significant depth BUT, he did , pictorially,show that a trout sees VERY little “form” at something less than one foot. I walked from that presentation with a firm belief that I have been “right” all along. I, rather than lose a lot of sleep over “form” and being a NON tyer, , have always opted for “size” in it’s stead. NO, I haven’t always “filled my creel” but this has worked on MY most technical water, Flat Creek, in the National Elk Refuge Wyoming. I do agree that one may emphasize my “…filled my creel” but it HAS worked for the most part. AND/BUT, I do envy y’all who see otherwise and tie to MATCH .
Mark
PS:
I should have added; This, in the type of waters I prefer to fish. My policy is , if the waters don’t move, I do.