Now, you've got me wondering about my "Caddi-Humpus". I invented this fly last spring because I just got plain tired of tying Humpies for a Swap. It is a cross between an Elk Hair Caddis and a Humpy, and favors both, but it's not a variant, and boy is it easier to tie. I've looked in every fly book I have, and believe me, that's a BUNCH, and I haven't seen anything like it anywhere. Until I do, The "Caddi-Humpus" is mine - period! And, by the way it catches more trout for me than either of the two flies that make up its name. I couldn't tie these things fast enough last September when my three sons and two son-in-laws and I were on a week-long trout trip in Northern New Mexico. If you want to see my creation, go to Matt's VFB Photo site:
http://vfbphotos.tripod.com/ and look it up in the archives. Photo and tying instructions are included. JIMMY ******************************************************* Dan Crowe wrote: > That's a great question. I've "invented" a handful of flies that are really > variations on successful patterns. I've felt too guilty about plagiarizing > to name most of them, so I just call them by there appearance - "the black > one with the thingy" the "itty bitty one that caught that fish last year", > etc. > > I don't really know where you draw the line. Does every minor wooly bugger > variation deserve a name? There's millions of them. On the other hand, most > dry flies fall basically into three or four patterns in different colors, > and you certainly wouldn't call an Adams a BWO. > > I think if you invent a fly and it works well when the one you cribbed it > off of doesn't, then it deserves it's own name. > > I have no authority to cite to on that, it's just an idea. > > Dan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:49 AM > Subject: [VFB] Names of various flies... > > > Sorry for the cross-post, but I want to get all the opinions on this that > I > > can. I hope the following makes sense. > > > > It seems to me that throughout FFing history, the slightest variation in a > > particular pattern resulted in a "new" pattern with a different name. Now > > these aren't necessarily real patterns, but for example, a bucktail > > streamer tied with black thread, silver tinsel around the hook shank, a > > yellow bucktail wing over white bucktail, with peacock herl over that, on > a > > #8 4x streamer hook was called by a particular name. Change the tinsel to > > gold, the bucktail wing to red over yellow, and omit the herl and you have > > a different (although extremely similar) pattern with a different name. > > > > These days, it seems that most patterns that stray from the originators > > exact pattern aren't renamed with a new moniker, but instead are referred > > to as "a variation of...". Although as I think about it, there's not alot > > of difference in a Crazy Charlie and Lefty Kreh's, "all the bucktail on > > top", version of the Clouser Minnow. Nor is there a thimble full of > > difference between the afore mentioned "Charlie" and the "Gotcha", or the > > myriad of other bonefish flies available today. > > > > A personal example of fly similarity/variation is, I tie a "variation" of > > Tom Nixon's, "Pigboat". I use various types of chenille for the body. I > > use silicone spinnerbait/jig skirts instead of the "rubber thread" that > Mr. > > Nixon specifies in his ties. Mr. Nixon palmers hackle around the chenille > > body to help hold the rubber thread skirt out away from the body. I do > not > > apply palmered hackle to mine because the silicone skirts that I use stand > > out quite nicely without any assistance, even during retrieve. > > > > My question is, how far removed from the original pattern should a fly be > > before it is a different pattern? > > > > I would appreciate your feedback/opinions/expertise on this topic. > >
