With mayflies having smooth, segmented abdomens why are so many flies tied with fuzzy dubbing?
And, if a rough textured body is desired, why aren’t different types of yard used? With yarn textures ranging from coarse mohair to angora to finely separated punch embroidery yarn you have quite a choice.
Ray, “fuzzy” dubbing is often used for 2 reasons.
1: dubbing materials such as beaver, muskrat & most poly’s have naturally bouyant properties, by both their natural makeup and by the more loose fibers trapping air.
2: Many prefer the “impressionistic” footprint in the surface film over the more defined bodies of a smooth or replicated body.
Most any yarn or fiber can be used for mayfly bodies. some absorb water and sink more readily than others however. Most antrons and wools are much heavier and absorb water for a faster sink rate than poly’s and some fur dubbing, making them better suited for nymph or wetfly applications.
That’s why I’ve switched to biots for just about all of my mayfly dries; i’ll use dubbing for the thorax sometimes, but I prefer the effect the biot provides (and they float just fine), and the fishies seem to like them as well.
Regards,
Scott
It depends on whether you are talking about nymphs or duns (the adults). Mayfly nymphs usually have tiny gills which give them a fuzzy look.
Dry flies with dubbing materials:
- Are water resistant which helps them keep from sinking
- When wet are not very fuzzy.
Those are my thoughts, anyway,
Byron
"the more loose fibers trapping air"
IMO, trout don’t tend to eat mature duns as readily as they eat emergers. Often I have seen adults float serenely downstream and fly off while there are dimples all around where fish have taken flies as they try to get out of the shuck - half in and half out of the water. IMO trout are attracted by the emerger’s wink and bubble on/near the surface, but the adult doesn’t create such an impression because only its legs are touching the surface. Dry flies whose dubbed (and air trapping) bodies settle in the surface film look more like emergers or cripples and are better targets for efficient trout.
Hi Ray,
You are anthropomorphizing the trout, that is, you are assuming what would be important to you is actually important to them.
Trout have lousy eyesight, about 1/14 of human’s ability to see fine detail. Trout retina do not have a macula for fine vision so they can’t see whether the actual body is fuzzy or not. Secondly, if trout can’t see the fuzzy body OR if the fuzzy body is so faintly seen, then it really can’t be something prominent that the fish looks for to distinguish real from fake.
Can you tell if the body is fuzzy or smooth from the photo above? The trout can’t either.
However trout see motion very well. So they can detect drag.
In regards to nymphs (which have gills protruding from the abdomen), I disagree to some extent. They have a better and closer look at the imitation. Their vision is better underwater than it is trying to see outside the medium they live in. IMHO
Greg - I’m buying what your selling - good observation!
Ray - Don’t confuse me with the facts! LOL!!
Best regards, Dave S.
Dubbed or other fuzzy bodies (peacock, turkey rounds, even pheasant tail fibers) also suggest fine movement and with differences in how the light plays off of it can make monochrome materials look multihued --nothing in nature is monochrome, and mayflies and caddis have a lot of fine movement, mayflies when getting out of their shucks and caddis pretty much all the time.
I think you are correct to an extent on both points.
Underwater, the rounder shape of the lens in the fish compared to the more disk shaped lens in the human eye allows the fish to nearly have an infinite depth of field. So virtually everything is in focus. But they still have the problem of visual acuity. They also have the same problem under water as on top with respect to flow rates. Faster flows means a shorter period of observation and the need for a faster decision whether to take or refuse.
I think fuzz on a nymph serves two purpose. One is the part you are also referring to, and that is that the real nymphs are fuzzy so appearance and gill motion is a factor.
But I think what we often forget is the other part that fuzz plays. What is forgotten is that if the real nymph is fuzzy, that fuzz affects how the water currents catch the fuzzy body and will affect the drift of the nymph. A smooth bodied nymphs drift more slowly than the real thing and will react less to conflicting currents. So a fuzzy nymph not only looks more real but it acts also acts more real.
I think we are in agreement Silver. I meant to mention the notion of movement. We all fight the terrible devil of “drag” when fly fishing. While drag will kill the presentation of a fly, insects do have movement - they are alive. Something that adds a hint of “life” to it.
I like the translucence effect with fuzzy nymphs like scuds and sow bugs. Leeches and buggers too I s’pose…
Trout don’t care about what’s wrong - a realy mayfly or nymph doesn’t have a hook sticking out of it’s patootie.
They care about what’s right.
Yes, and I think we ARE talking about what is right about the fly. capturing air bubbles, slight movement of the “gills”, etc.
When Schwiebert mentioned the “halo effect” in his book Nymphs I grabbed hold of that idea and looked for every opportunity to use it when constructing any flies I tied. Putting light materials over a dark base seems to me to add some life, wet or dry. Contrast between fly parts has always worked in the flies I use. I like fuzzy!
- Because that’s the way it’s done----tradition! 2. It works 8T
