I didn’t have appropriate winging material, but wanted to tie one of these anyway.
To me, the beauty of this style of fly is that it lands correctly, and, I do not like clipping hackle to get a proper float.
Anyway, my feeble attempt at one of Vince’s patterns. I know he did not believe in dubbing the body, but I thought I would.
Vince clipped the bottom of his hackles; it’s part of what defines a thorax-style tie: wing large and set back further than usual, hackle wound in an X-pattern, and clipped on bottom.
I must beg to differ. Here is a photo of one tied by Marinaro, and you can see the hackle tips.
The current common approach by many tiers is to clip the hackle underneath the fly.
In Mike Valla’s book, he recounts an exchange between Eric pepper (who suggested tying the hackle in the normal way (not an X fashion) and clipping the hackle).
Here is how Valla described Marinaro’s method: “Additional stability could be obtained by using short-barbed hackles wound on each side of the wing in an X fashion. The shorter barbs, Marinaro believed…”
In regard to Pepper’s suggestion of clipping the hackle, Pepper has writen that Marinaro “…still thought it ought to use his hackling method”.
If you read the instructions from Marinaro’s book, you will note he says to use short barbed hackle…not to clip.
I agree that he doesn’t mention it in Ring of the Rise (as you illustrate) except to say that wrapping in the conventional style and then clipping is insufficient – it’s the X-wrapping that’s critical (two pages after the one you illustrate.) In A Modern Dry Fly Code he does recommend clipping: “In fact, it is good plan to clip them a little in the fore part if short fibered hackles are not available.” Previously in the paragraph he mentions that you would be very fortunate to find hackles with short enough fibers to tie this style. I suppose between the two books better hackle may have become available. I’ve seen flies (supposedly) tied by Marinaro where the hackles were clipped, and the Code was where I first encountered back in the 60’s of clipping a hackle at all.
Anyway, your fly certainly captures the hackling technique nicely.
According to my readings AND the information provided by Mr. Castwell, who learned at the hip, so to speak, of Mr. Marinaro, the hackles were not clipped. Now there may have been some flies that Mr. Marinaro clipped because they didn’t come out to his satisfaction . That sometimes happens to us all. However, his design and the vast majority of his flies, and indeed the style, was meant to be tied with the hackle whole.
Allan
Either way, the shorter hackle x-wound, or a normal length hackle clipped…was to get the entended profile, where the hackle really doesn’t extend down past the point of the hook allowing the front of the fly to ride lower in the film.
I have always clipped my bottoms on thorax patterns even with the point of the hook. Not the entire bottom flush, but v-notch the center.
The assumption here is that the fly actually rides on its tips, which I don’t think is any more likely in the Marinaro Thorax style than in the Catskill style. But assuming it does, I’ve never understood the nose down aspect. What’s the point of this exactly? I’ve never seen a picture of a mayfly nose down.
Red,
I think your quote says “…if short hackled fibers are not available”. Not the intended situation at all.
This is exactly what I find so interesting about tying. AK Best advocates an “x-wound” hackle style to more accurately simulate legs extending behind and in front of the thorax and to prevent the fly from falling on its nose. I guess what it shows is that we humans really have no idea what makes a fish strike a particular fly and the “experts” adopt a style that they have found successful in their own experience. Fascinating and lots of fun, I think.
Joe
Joe,
I certainly agree it is fun! I really appreciate the contributions of the “Old Masters” like Marinaro. They introduced a bit of science into the “art” of fly tying by observing what the trout sees as an insect/fly comes into their window of vision.
His original thorax style was quite unique and addressed his observation that high wings were important as they were one of the first aspects to enter the trout’s window and announce an insect was coming. This required the wings be placed further back on the shank for balance.
He also achieved the “footprint” of the fly he had observed by looking at insects from the trout’s position…thus the “legs” coming out at angles from the centerline of the insect/fly.
I think you have to take each pattern in their entirety as well as the type of water each was designed for.
It is what keeps me interested in tying and fishing. Always trying different patterns and trying to improve success on the stream…
Quite early on, Marinaro used angora yarn for the bodies. Much later, he felt that, since his flies stayed above the surface (his opinion), he dispensed with bodies completely.
Chuck
[SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana]Marinaro used a ball of dubbing where the wing is attached. The hackle could be wound around the ball. I believe he suggested wrapping the hackle with the short fibers behind the wing on the top of the hook, but in front of the wing/ball when under the hook. The hackle with the longer fibers was wrapped in front of the wing on top of the hook, but behind the wing/ball under the hook.
I don’t see this clearly in Byron’s example, even though it is a beautiful fly.
The reason for this hackling method was to tip the head down and the butt up. Real mayflies don’t drag their tails in the water - often their abdomens don’t even get immersed. This is the profile Marinaro tried to present. See ‘A Modern Dry Fly Code’, pg 77.
And Byron, on page 251 and 252 he does use fur. 
[/SIZE][/FONT]
I have always felt the thorax tie represents a bug in the film, either at the end of emergence or slightly struggling. Yet it crosses over as a perfectly fine dun as well. I think the adjusted profile at times triggers a rise. Especially in lesser flows. Other times…it doesn’t. 
Greg,
I did tie the hackle in the X fashion against the thorax. If you look at the pic I posted of his instructions from “In the Ring of the Rise”, under #4, he says “…no body - just a thorax”. That is what Valla also says in his book about Marinaro in “Founding Flies”.
Quite interesting the differing quotes of his.
I would also say that the only thorax patterns I have seen in use today are the Eric Pepper inspired variations which just have standard hacking in vertical position behind and in front of the wing and then clipped underneath.
Has anyone seen Marinaro’s X-hackled, no bodied flies in a shop??
I think we need to keep in focus the fact that all tyers are similar in many ways. Even Vince Marinaro. He fished, and wanted to catch fish. He adjusted his patterns in order to catch fish. Patterns change. They adjust out of requirements of the water, observations by the fisherman, and at times simply out of boredom or curiosity of the tyer. Patterns are generally very fluid in nature.
Did Peper’s version come before the Lawson Thorax Dun?
Did it come before Datus Proper’s Perfect Dun?
That’s an an interesting question.
Not sure when Lawson came up with his, but I think Pepper was tying it in the mid to late 80 's.
I did find a statement by noted tier Don Bastain that Lawson visited Cathy and Barry Beck in 1989 or 1990 and adapted their style pattern of the thorax fly for use in his catalog.
I also found a great little write-up by LadyFisher on this site about Vince Marinaro. : “The hackles do not puncture the surface film, but because of the angle at which they are tied, the fly rides on the bent edges of the hackle. Cutting a “V” in the underside of the hackle on a traditionally tied fly does not work the same as tying the fly per Vince’s method.”
Very true. The thorax fly as described in the A Modern Dry Fly Code is quite different than the one described in Ring of The Rise. Bryon already posted the description from Ring. Here’s a summary of the tying sequence from Code (it’s almost 4 pages long in the book) Direct quotes are in italics:
Start the thread in the center of shank. There’s a really emphasis in center: If there is any doubt about the location of the center of the shank, start the silk a a little closer to the bend than the eye. This is important. (The latter sentence was in italics in the book.)
Tie in the tails, using 4 fibers (no mention of using different numbers for different size hooks.) Separate the same way as in Ring.
Tie in a piece of spun fur 6 or 7 inches long using only one ply; it is usually 2- or 3- ply, but the plies can be easily separated. Apparently he used pre-spun dubbing and bought it that way. He needed to use pre-spun to complete the next few steps
Wrap the pre-spun fur up to the wings – unlike in Ring, the whole body is dubbed. Take several extra turns behind and in front of the wings. Tie off in front of the wings, but don’t trim the extra.
Tie in two hackles in front of the wing, tips pointing rearward One hackle should have slightly longer fibers than the other. Wrap that one with top part of the wrap in front of the wing and bottom behind the wing. Tie off, wrap the shorter-fibered one with top part behind the wing and bottom in front. This is hackle he recommends clipping if too long.
Advance the thread to near eye. Wind the remaining spun fur to the thread, wind back to the wing, and back to the eye a second time. Tie off and finish the fly.
Smaller flies called for a different technique, essentially palmering a single hackle as a rib.
This is the type of fly I consider the “modern” thorax dun.
Not knowing Peper’s influence, I’ve always referred to this as the Lawson Thorax Dun to distinguish it from Marinaro’s.