even more confused!
Let me get this straight. As I see it, Pryce-Tannatt states decidedly ("...after due consideration of the fly-dresser and angler alike.") that horns are indeed an important anatomical and functional element of a fly - for the reasons I indicated in my last post. Kelson and Sir Herbert Maxwell dressed their Kates with horns as well. Yet, you (a 'purist') consider them to be a non-essential part of the dressing.
Am I to understand that the 'rules' in tying, classical or otherwise, are indeed subject to personal interpretation?
FT, I am by no means the tyer or historian you are, so I hope you'll shed some light on some confusing and contradictory points of view.
BTW - I may have missed something, but what WAS the purpose for posting the additional Kate?