Fly nameing

[JayWirth 0]

Noticing a featured article (top of forum page) for the CDC Adams a question came to mind. is there a proper way to name a pattern OR if there is a tying standard for identifying patterns? I am not criticizing in any way the CDC Adams but am using it in my example - is this fly an Adams? The pattern uses hooks sizes and 2/3 materials used for a traditional Adams dry fly. What do members think? Im not so sure. Then again - I also think its weird when people change the direction of their thread wrap, give the fly a name like 'Hot Tuna" and say they invented a fly.

 

Im grabbing a coffee ... discuss.

[mikechell 0]

This is a hot topic for some ... a lot of heat generated "under the collar".

 

I tied flies for several years before I even knew to look for patterns online. So, I named them. When I found out there were sites for fly tying and fishing ... I posted my patterns with my names. Didn't even think (Still) to look for patterns like mine.

 

Then people started comparing mine to other, already existing patterns. But, what the heck. I don't sell mine, so I am not infringing on anyone else's income ... just some people's feelings. I'm keeping my names.

 

On the other hand, if you're copying a pattern, and using different materials ... that's a variation, not a new pattern.

[redietz 0]

There's no standard at all. There are lumpers and splitters.

 

An example of the latter would be something like a Dark Hendrickson. It's exactly the same fly as a Dark Cahill except for the color the hackle, yet it's recognized as a different fly, and Roy Steenrod is remembered as its inventor.

 

OTOH, there are flies like Woolly Bugger, where all colors are lumped together as the same fly, only distinguished by their color.

 

Are the Snipe & Purple and Partridge & Orange different flies (I would say yes)? But a common question on a lot of fly fishing forums (yeah, I know, it's "fora") is what are your favorite three flies, and an amazing number of people will answer "soft hackle" for one of the flies.

 

Many flies today that get labeled an Adams have almost nothing in common with the original, which was tied with golden pheasant tippets for a tail, with a wool body (not dubbed) and grizzly hackle tip wings splayed. Yet you'll see things like "Hi-viz parachute Adams" in almost any fly shop, where the tail is hackle fiber, the body dubbed, the wing a hi-viz parachute post, and cree or barred ginger hackle instead of mixed grizzly and brown. The ingredients in common with the original are the hook and the thread.

[ben bell 0]

Aren,t just about all flys a variation of some former fly?

[flytire 0]

[tjm 0]

I think the only reason to name them is sales. My personal fishing stuff is all generic and unnamed. One I invented and tied for years, then one day saw almost the exact same in a fly shop with a name. You may have one like it in your box, It doesn't matter what it's called if fish eat it.

 

Flytire, that needs to be printed and framed and sold/given away at all fly shops.

 

Some enterprising youngster has the opportunity right now to create a comprehensive convention for fly naming, something like the Binomial nomenclature used in Taxonomy or maybe a system like the naming of Tropical Storms.

Set it up internationally and maintain a computerized Register.

[Philly 0]

I've come up with a couple of original patterns, over the years, which I named. So far they haven't showed up for sale in any fly shop, catalog or on the web. Doubt they ever will. If I'm tying a variation of a pattern, less generic than an "Adams", and posting it. I'll reference the original pattern and the originator. Give credit where credit is due.

[Jaydub 0]

In the example the only variation from a typical Adams is the CDC wing. CDC Adams seems like an appropriate name.

 

People sometimes use the original name for a fly that they have modified almost every aspect of. Others rename a pattern if there is any variation at all.

[redietz 0]

I think the only reason to name them is sales.

 

I can think of several other reasons, like you want to tell somebody else what was working. Or you want to write something in your fishing log so that you can remember a year later. "That thingie I tied" just doesn't cut it for either purpose.

[tjm 0]

 

I think the only reason to name them is sales.

 

I can think of several other reasons, like you want to tell somebody else what was working. Or you want to write something in your fishing log so that you can remember a year later. "That thingie I tied" just doesn't cut it for either purpose.

 

Yeah I considered that, so, if I tell you the "pea head split wing" was really killing fish in size 16; what will you know other than the size? Until it's sold enough to be a recognizable name, the name doesn't pass on any information. If I want to include it in a log it would behoove me to include a detailed description and maybe a drawing. Chances are slim and none that a random? name used once on a new invention will be recalled a year or two down the road.

[afraid not 0]

I think a lot of the "frivolous" naming of flies has a lot more to do with the size of one's ego rather than a real difference in the fly and its effectiveness.

[ben bell 0]

so what, i tyed the darn thing..it,s my fly, and i can call it what i want.. that,s part of the fun..it may be the only fun i get considering how poor a ty it is..lol.

[flytire 0]

https://midcurrent.com/flies/companies-give-in-to-international-fly-pattern-authority/

 

seems to be a recurring subject on this forum siite

 

http://www.flytyingforum.com/index.php?showtopic=70168&hl=%2Bnaming+%2Bflies

 

http://www.flytyingforum.com/index.php?showtopic=53952&hl=%2Bnaming+%2Bflies&do=findComment&comment=428761

 

http://www.flytyingforum.com/index.php?showtopic=36872&hl=%2Bnaming+%2Bflies&do=findComment&comment=314561

 

http://www.flytyingforum.com/index.php?showtopic=7847&hl=%2Bnaming+%2Bflies&do=findComment&comment=71808

[Peterjay 0]

Some people crave attention, and some like a quick buck to go along with it. There's not much money in "inventing" a fly, so I'd have to go with the "attention" factor in most cases. Even a fly that gets into a catalog isn't going to bring much. (a friend of mine whose fly Orvis picked up got a new fly rod - nice, but he certainly couldn't retire on it) Probably the most egregious example that I've seen of pirating is Page's Big Eye Baitfish, which is a Lefty's Big Eye Deceiver with Page Rogers' name on it. That fly got into catalogs and gave her a rep she sure as hell didn't deserve. (Lefty was not amused by a long shot) There's not a lot anybody can do about it, so it'll go on and on. I don't care how good a tyer is, somebody, somewhere, is tying the same flies. There's nothing wrong with naming our creations - the people who take it seriously and look for undue credit are the ones who yank my chain. Unfortunately, there are lots of them. The late Jack Gartside, who was one of the most creative tyers who ever lived once said "there are only so many ways you can re-invent the jig."

[Bimini15 0]

This kind of goes back to the hero shot thread.

In this age of social media and fishing bros, it is not about inventing (not so easy), but about selling your name, get endorsements and becoming a brand.

Every bro wants to be the next Lefty or Gartside by copying, I mean, reinventing, Lefty or Gartside on their YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, etc..

I have nothing against people trying, but it annoys the heck out of me the amount of crap I have to get through to find a new YouTube video that is worth it.