Ethan Bright

Any vial is better than no vial, although letting go alive is always better than keeping a specimen only to see it damaged. If you don't have access to glass or plastic vials with screw-on tops, I find what works in a pinch several options: 1) Tight-sealing medicine containers from the pharmacy; 2) Double bagged zip-lock bags (i.e., a sealed bag inside another sealed bag; 3) Plastic film canisters Any one with other tricks? In terms of preserving, you can use denatured EtOH (rubbing alcohol using ethyl alcohol). You can also use isopropyl alcohol, although this tends to dehydrate specimens more and make them stiffer. If you have the patience, I find it a good idea to add a bit of glyceryn to a vial; in case the vial leaks, the glyceryn will retard dehydration for some period of time. Lastly, keep in mind there have been some changes with the USPS - they are less keen on shipping biological specimens contained in a flammable medium. Of late, they are even giving research institutions and museum problems. It might be better to ship with UPS or FedEx. If shipping dry specimens, you might just pluck the specimen in the vial. Stuff some paper, foam, or even sphagnum moss in the bottom, and this will prevent some damage due to shaking.

Just saw these photos and couldn't resist a couple of comments. The first two photos are of nymphs of Agnetina (Plecoptera: Perlidae). If you look closely at the back of the head, you'll see a closely-set row of coarse setae along a ridge. The bottom photo is Allocapnia (Plecoptera: Capniidae), which I always see crawling in February and March in Michigan. All of these are common here in Michigan.

Looks like Isogenoides sp. Did you save the specimen? If so, I can get it down to species, made easier by a recent publication by Sandberg and Stewart on the genus. If you wish to download the PDF, go to: http://www.ias.unt.edu/~StoneflyHome/Home/ On the left frame, click on "Publications," and you can download various PDFs of John Sandberg's work, much of it done with Ken Stewart participation. Cheers, Ethan

Just went over some of the changes in taxonomy that should be reflected in the 4th Edition of Merritt and Cummins: Order Family New Genus Old Genus Notes Region Reference Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Suwallia Suwallia Revision NAm Alexander & Stewart 1999 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sasquaperla n/a n. gen NW Stark & Baumann 2001 Plecoptera Perlodidae Remenus Remenus rev. E Kondratieff & Nelson 1995 Plecoptera Leuctridae Pomoleuctra Paraleuctra remove sp W Stark & Kyzaar 2001 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Nanonemoura Zapada n. gen. W Baumann & Fiala 2001 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Suwallia Neaviperla syn. w Suwallia Alexander & Stewart 1999 Plecoptera Perlodidae Hydroperla restricted E Nelson 1996 Ephem Baetidae Baetopus n. gen. Waltz 2000 Ephem Baetidae Plauditus Baetis n. gen. McCafferty & Waltz, 1998 Ephem Baetidae Varipes n. gen. Lugo-Ortiz & McCafferty, 1998 Ephem Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Stenonema debateable E Ephem Leptohyphidae Vacupernius n. gen.

Well, it's really been over 10-12 years since the information has been updated. M&C 3rd Edition came out in 1996, but the information contained therein is really only to some period of 1995. Remember, the book really serves two major purposes for aquatic entomologists: 1) a generic-level text suitable for all regions of Canada and the USA; 2) a rich resource of taxonomic and ecological literature citations; and 3) a valuable and concise tabulation of ecological functions based on taxa. By and large, the taxonomy will stay reasonably stable, but not for all groups. For example, Baetidae has seen marked changes in systematics - a number of Baetis species are now grouped in Pladitus. There are numerous examples for many other groups. (As a chironomidist, the 3rd Edition is replete with problems, and Ferrington and Coffman will be integrating a lot of taxonomic revisions into the new text). Some groups probably won't see much change because taxonomic problems remain unresolved, e.g., larval keys are still on the tentative side, e.g., Ceratopogonidae (no-see-ums), because of the paucity of larval-pupal-adult associations for groups that are species-rich. There will be more changes for certain areas of the country, e.g., the West Coast and the Appalachians. For example, there have been several new genera for stoneflies found only in these regions (these are reflected in Stewart and Stark's recent 2nd Edition of the Plecoptera Nymph book). I've reserved with Kendall/Hunt a couple of copies, and I'll try to report to the group what are the changes we should see in the text. (Actually, there is seminar at the NABS conference in Anchorage on this topic, but I can't make that). But don't get me wrong - that 3rd Edition is still a very useful text. Don't throw it away. Cheers, Ethan

If the stonefly was 3 inches long on the AuSable, Michigan, then there's no doubt it's Pteronarcys (Plecoptera: Pteronarcyidae), most likely Pteronarcys dorsata, the most common of the two species in Michigan.

BTW, Jason's insect pictures are always outstanding!

It appears these elmids are a species of Optioservus, based on general gestalt, and the loosely associated picture of the adult beetle (from the same site, different time of year?). There are two species in Michigan and Wisconsin - O. fastiditus and O. trivittatus.

I think the "orange sedge" is Ptilostomis sp. Can be found in still or slow-moving warmer waters, so it may have emerged from a nearby lake or pond, or a stream/river portion with aquatic vegetation backwater area. Also, caddis can fly quite some distance, and weather patterns can disperse them even farther. So it is probably no surprise one was attracted to a light.

Have you tried contacting aquatic entomologists or fisheries people at universities in Alabama, or in neighboring states? A start would be checking through this taxonomic expert list at the NABS website: http://www.benthos.org/Education/ListbyGroup.cfm. Emails to likely sources of information might yield the necessary information, or at least other leads to other unlisted people working with insect hatches and fisheries. Cheers, Ethan

Definitely Isonychia (many fine setae on the fore-femora), and probably bicolor. However, definite species identification of nymphs requires careful examination of gill structure, which necessitates a microscope. However, this isn't a problem where there's no overlap (spatially or chronologically) of other species. I have an on-line key at: http://insects.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/~ethanbr...onychiidae.html Cheers, Ethan

Just to give you a heads up, there will be a 4th edition coming out this year of Merritt and Cummins; taxonomy and nomenclature will be up-to-date. Kendall/Hunt tells me it will be out this summer. Although it probably will be in the $70-80 range, it's still worth it to those who are serious about their insect identification. Cheers, Ethan

The larger nymph appears to be an Aeshna sp., but there's much to little resolution to even guess on a species. The slender damselfly nymphs are in the family Coenagrionidae, probably Ischnura or Enallagma, but again much too little detail to tell precisely. Cheers, Ethan

Hi Roger: Please, please, don't waste your money on this one. If you're going to plop down money on a microscope, spend what you can afford and buy the best quality. Microscopes are like audio equipment - the best stereo amplifier and disk player won't sound good if you have bad speakers. Several problems with that scope. First, it only has 2 powers of magnification. If you're going to do any serious identification, you need at least 4 or more different levels of magnification. If using a fixed magnification magnifcation scope, I recommend at least something like 6x, 10x, 25x, 40-50x. I use zoom scopes. (I own a Wild M8 zoom from 6x-50x). You can then add 15x or 20x objectives to get more magnification. The second piece of equipment you need is good lighting. Low power lighting makes for poor performance, since the light needs to pass through a host of lens elements. Invest in halogen lights, with at least 100 watts or more, and if you can afford it, with a flexible metal goose neck so you can reposition lighting to best see an insect character. For people who are serious about insect identification, I recommend buying a used microscope from manufacturers like Wild, Leica, Zeiss, and Meiji. They are much better made, and will last a long time. Also, older Bosche and Lombe American zoom scopes are good. (Meiji might be the best bang for your buck. These Japanese-made scopes have good optics, and are constructed of sturdy metal bodies, and are very reasonably priced - recommend the EMZ-5 and EMZ-5TR). There are lots of good scopes being sold on eBay, for very reasonable prices. You should also contact some regional microscope dealers to get further information and recommendations for names and models. You might also want to contact some regional aquatic insect researchers for their opinions, and if possible, try out their equipment. THEN get your digital camera setup going. You can really get good pics for web-site posting (remember, computer displays only project a reduced dpi resolution) from inexpensive digital cameras, and there now abound inexpensive 3-5 MP cameras. On the introductory page of Aquatic Insects of Michigan, I got the picture of the Chimarra larva 5 years ago with an old Nikon Coolpix put up to one of the ocular tubes that had the eyepiece removed. A final point. Like a car, always try to "test-drive" a microscope with the samples your interested in examining, in this aquatic insects. Being a snob about microscopes, I am not a big fan of the really inexpensive "introductory" scopes for the level of use I think you're interested in. Don't hesitate to ask further questions!!! Cheers, Ethan

The first and third nymphs look like Ephemerella and Serratella (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae), respectively. Differentiating them, among other characters, is easily made by the fine setae on the cerci (Ephemerella) or just with coarse setae (Seratella). In an entomology class, we used to call a lot of the ephemerellids the "ella sisters," as many of names of commonly collected genera end in "ella." The nymph in the middle (second) picture seems like Stenonema (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae). Stenacron/Stenonema nymphs can be recognized by the 7th abdominal segment gill being reduced to a narrow filament, different in shape than the preceeding gills. Stenacron nymphs have the gills with an apical point, whereas Stenonema nymphs are either rounded or truncate.

Correction: Sialidae - Alderflies; Chauloides and Nigronia - Fishflies; Corydalus - Dobsonflies Thanks Roger for the heads up. I almost always focus on scientific names, and I'll often make these common name association mix-ups. (I've given up with dragon- and damselfly common names). Cheers, Ethan

Hi: A number of you have either photographed or collected Corydalus cornutus from various streams. (Two other species - C. luteus and C. texanus - occur in southwestern Texas and the southwestern USA). As you know, the males in particular have impressive mandibles. I often help teach an aquatic entomology course at the University of Michigan, and I was wondering if some of your could collect a number of specimens (males and females) and send them to me. I also would use these to show to children when I visit my son's elementary school. Often adult dobsonflies are attracted to lights near streams and rivers. (Corydalidae adults have ocelli, whereas Sialidae (fishflies) do not, and aren't attracted to lights). To collect, simply put specimens in an paper envelope (of course protected from crushing) and allowed to dry. They can later be rehydrated for pinning and wing spreading. I would reimburse you for materials and shipping. Cheers, Ethan

It's definitely a "Baetis." The middle cercus is reduced, which is common among some of Baetis species. Others have the middle cercus greatly reduced, or absent, but these may be other genera. McCafferty, Lugo-Ortiz, and Waltz have been revising the systematics of this family, and Baetis has been split into several genera, e.g. Acentrella, Plauditus. For nymphs, it helps to have a good stereo microscope, bifurcated light souce, and dissecting tools in which to examine physical characters, especially mouthparts. Cheers, Ethan

Looks like a rubyspot damselfly, Hetaerina americana sp. (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Cheers, Ethan

Hi: Richard Baumann's information is wrong. Pteronarcys is distributed throughout most of Michigan. P. dorsata is quite common and widely distributed, whereas P. pictetii appears only from a few records. I've published with Scott Grubbs an annotated checklist of the stoneflies of Michigan in Great Lakes Entomologist. Here's a way to identify adult salmonflies: 1. a. Tip of male sternum of Ab9 in lateral view curved ventrad; b. S8 hind margin slightly bowed rearward, female subgential plate with square mesal notch - Pteronarcys pictetti Hagen 1'. a. Tip of male sternum of Ab9 in lateral view not curved ventrad; b. S8 hind margin not produced with female subgenital plate unnotched, with or without 2 small projections - Pteronarcys dorsata (Say) As you probably surmise, a stereo microscope is best to accurately identify these if you're unfamilar with local species composition. Cheers, Ethan

Hi: Actually, they're both dragonfly nymphs. The one on the left appears to be Ophiogomphus sp. (spatulate 3rd antennal segment, and divergent windpads); the one on the right is an aeshnid, with its abdomen missing. The head and wingpads are also distinctive - perhaps it's Boyeria vinosa, or Aeshna umbrosa, but I'd need to see more details of its head and mouthparts. Cheers, Ethan

Hi: Here's some identifying characters of Chauliodes adults: 1. a. Male antennae pectinate, female antennae serrate; b. Vertex of head with two large, rectangular, dark brown spots posterior to the ocelli; c. In lateral view, male anal plate triangular - Chauliodes rastricornis Rambur 1'. a. Antennae in both sexes pectinate; b. Vertex of head with large, rectangular, yellow spots; c. In lateral view, male anal plate cylindrical - Chauliodes pectinicornis (Linneaus) Use a magnifying glass (about 10x) to check these characters. Cheers, Ethan

Hi: It's a damselfly nymph, probably Calopteryx sp. (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Mouthpart (prementum of the labium) characters are used to differentiate Calopteryx from Hetaerina spp. (rubyspots). The later are found in warmer streams and rivers, whereas Calopteryx are more tolerant of a broader range of temperatures. They are all clingers, usually submerged woody vegetation and undercut banks. Cheers, Ethan

Hi: One should probably also consider hydrological characteristics as well. Water chemistry can be important, but salmonflies (Pteronarcys spp.) are principally shredders and grazers of organic matter (and facultative predators). Being large clingers, they're susceptible to being blown out by storm flows. If their habitat gets blown out (e.g., woody debris dams, undercut banks with large substrates, etc., then one won't find many unless there is ample time for habitat resetting and individual recolonization. Cheers, Ethan

Hi Roger and all: Roger is right is his caution that its identification cannot be made based on the photograph. Further, unless one is really familar with local species composition and phenology, species-level identification really should be made on the basis of gill and mouthpart structure. One can also use abdominal markings, but this has often been shown to be variable. I'm not convinced of the raising of Maccaffertium to generic level. McCafferty's paper from which this is taken is vague on evidence and lacking in systematic and cladistic treatment justifying this move. (Although his Ph.D. student Luke Jacobus, whom I respect, says it's probably valid). At this point I'm a skeptic, and until a more detailed analysis on this issue is published, I will follow the conservative view of maintaining Stenonema as genus, and Maccaffertium as subgenus. Cheers, Ethan