Here’s the key phrase in that: “might be interpreted.”

I am no fish, and neither is anyone else. If the fish interprets my size 12 GG as midge clump (well, as its current food source, fish not caring a whole lot about terms like midge, or buzzer or chironomid), then great. If a fish interprets my size 22 GG as a single midge, then great (especially if I that’s the interpretation that I thought was correct). If the fish interprets them both as emerging midges, rather than adults, and gives either one a chomp, then great. Now, I know and you know that we can get pretty good at seeing what’s going on and tie on a fly that can help us best solve the interpretation riddle. In some cases, a clump-style fly may be a solid bet (for various reasons), in other cases, a fly that looks (and/or is sized) more like a single insect, or perhaps a couple of insects, may be the better choice. We can take that a step further and do something like clip a GG flush on the bottom to change the appearance in the film, or even fish it “damp,” with no floatant, to get it to ride just under the surface, perhaps lending a slightly different “interpretation.”

In the case of the Cross-Dresser, I want the fly to look enough like a lot of “buggy” things (especially mayflies and midges) to convince the fish to take it. In other words, an interpretation that could say “mayfly,” “midge clump,” or in smaller sizes “small mayfly” or “single midge (or perhaps a couple).” If I need to, I may just get out my handy folding scissors that I keep in my vest or pack and cut the trailing shuck off the fly. Or I may cut the excess hackle off, leaving just the shuck, the wings, and the thorax hackle. As long as I get the right interpretation from the fish, I’m happy.

So, that may or may not have answered your question. Actually, I think I dodged it somewhat by using the “weasel-word” approach. But, in fishing, sometimes it’s the weasel word interpretation that gives us the best success… ;-)

Thanks,
Bill