Which USA State has the most the most recorded Mayflies (162 species)

[SearchingSolitude 0]

"subspecies" .... :hyst: :boxing:

Please permit me to explain. Mayfly Central, which is the recognized authority on mayfly taxonomy in N. America, maintains the list of current N. American species. However, in cases where there is a recognized subspecies, it is listed at that level, rather than at the species level. For example, it lists both Callibaetis ferrugineus ferrugineus (a northeastern subspecies) and Callibaetis ferrugineus hageni (a western subspecies), but does not list Callibaetis ferrugineus. As a result, when one wants to count only valid species, it becomes necessary to eliminate both of the above subspecies, and add only a single species. The N. American Species List can be accessed by clicking here.

 

I know. Being a long-time lepidoptera guy (and also "serious amateur" herpetology guy), I have come to find the concept of subspecies to be, well, maybe not exactly a load of crap, but quite often simply a means for professional biologists to justify their jobs.

 

My overwhelming case-in-point, Homo sapiens. If we apply the SCIENCE of cladistics and systematics to our own species the way we do to everything else, we'd have at least 5 subspecies. But NOOOOOO!!!! that would be politically incorrect. Meanwhile, every time someone at a university swings a net at a Tiger Swallowtail in someone else's back yard, they describe it as a subspecies. If we can't apply the theory across the biological realm, what good is it? I have been ANGRILY rebuked in public by Piled-higher and Deeper brainiacs for bringing up this very topic. Good fun, every time~!

 

 

I like this! What are the five "sub species"...political correctness be damned? Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, ????????? I am at a loss. Or am I off base with my delineations? What is the rebuke by the phD's? What do they say to dispute it?

 

 

-Searching!

[TitanFlies 0]

Hey... Taxon, saying that it cant be applied to a science doesn't mean it doesn't deserve attention.

[JSzymczyk 0]

"subspecies" .... :hyst: :boxing:

Please permit me to explain. Mayfly Central, which is the recognized authority on mayfly taxonomy in N. America, maintains the list of current N. American species. However, in cases where there is a recognized subspecies, it is listed at that level, rather than at the species level. For example, it lists both Callibaetis ferrugineus ferrugineus (a northeastern subspecies) and Callibaetis ferrugineus hageni (a western subspecies), but does not list Callibaetis ferrugineus. As a result, when one wants to count only valid species, it becomes necessary to eliminate both of the above subspecies, and add only a single species. The N. American Species List can be accessed by clicking here.

 

I know. Being a long-time lepidoptera guy (and also "serious amateur" herpetology guy), I have come to find the concept of subspecies to be, well, maybe not exactly a load of crap, but quite often simply a means for professional biologists to justify their jobs.

 

My overwhelming case-in-point, Homo sapiens. If we apply the SCIENCE of cladistics and systematics to our own species the way we do to everything else, we'd have at least 5 subspecies. But NOOOOOO!!!! that would be politically incorrect. Meanwhile, every time someone at a university swings a net at a Tiger Swallowtail in someone else's back yard, they describe it as a subspecies. If we can't apply the theory across the biological realm, what good is it? I have been ANGRILY rebuked in public by Piled-higher and Deeper brainiacs for bringing up this very topic. Good fun, every time~!

 

 

I like this! What are the five "sub species"...political correctness be damned? Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, ????????? I am at a loss. Or am I off base with my delineations? What is the rebuke by the phD's? What do they say to dispute it?

 

 

-Searching!

 

Without dragging it out too far, there isn't really any universally accepted definition of what a "subspecies" actually IS- for every egghead who religiously (yes, religiously) holds to a set of rules including the subspecific ideas, there is another boffin who disputes it, countering with the concepts of races, forms, populations, etc.

 

In the vast world of entomology, there are people who are just giddy with excitement to be able to publish a paper describing a subspecies of a known species. Mostly people working in Academia- you've heard it before of these types, "Publish or Perish"... In the high-dollar butterfly collecting world, especially of the Ornithoptera- the huge beautiful Birdwing Butterflies from the tropical Western Pacific, subpsecific identities have been assigned to flies from different valleys and mountains within a few miles of each other!! The subspecies concept used to be applied with the considerations of morphology and geography... Some barrier would exist between populations so they couldn't easily mix genetically, yet they are for all intents and purposes the same genetically- the same species. They may have somewhat different coloration or other minor physical characteristics, supposedly caused by isolation and evolution, but if they were able to make contact their offspring would be viable and able to produce more offspring. So you can go backwards and see that at some time in the distant past a group of the same species became separated geographically and it may even be a gradual thing where the alleged barriers are very porous.

 

Take an insect such as a Tiger Swallowtail butterfly and look at it throughout the eastern half of North America. There is quite a physical difference between average individuals from northern Florida compared to central Ontario. They're the same animal, but several subspecies are assigned based on where they live and "normal" size, coloration, and maculation. Under "natural" conditions, it would be nearly impossible for an Ontario one to meet and mate with a Florida one, but if it happened they would produce viable offspring. It's been done over and over in research. (Don't shoot holes in my example, it's only an example, and the P. glaucus canadensis "subspecies" has been elevated to specific status then demoted back to subspecific status more than once.)

 

Someone who really knows a lot about Gray Banded Kingsnakes can look at one in a terrarium in Baltimore for example, and tell you with pretty good certainty whether it came from Alpine Texas or Carlsbad New Mexico based on how it LOOKS.

 

So the main question really is, what the hell is a "subspecies"??? More or less just something to write on a tag so individuals can be GROUPED in a box, DISCRIMINATED between one another, and categorized based on APPEARANCE and ORIGIN. Nothing wrong with that at all, as long as we apply it only to bugs and reptiles and crawly or swimmy things or even White-Tailed Deer... but it forces us to put segments of a species into their own boxes. That is where the meltdown occurs when we get to the species named Homo sapiens. The concept of subspecies REQUIRES prejudice. The brainiacs friggin' HATE that!! How can we apply it within the confines of biology? OH My Gosh... we absolutely CANNOT put any member of Homo sapiens in their own box, even if the vast majority of them WANT to be left in their own boxes!!! Five is a drastically low number of how many subspecies of humans there would be if the concept of subspecies was applied across the biological realm. I said five, it was a number I had heard tossed about before, but it's way low.

 

In the NATURAL world, could an Unangan ever contact and reproduce with a Kung San Bushman in the Kalahari? Realistically, no, but one could get on a plane in Adak and fly to Namibia and get to work. Is that natural genetic mixing? Is technology a natural part of the Homo sapiens species? Is the average Scandinavian Caucasoid different in appearance from the average Equatorial African Negroid?

 

My OPINION is that things are either separate species, or they are the same species. Subspecies don't really exist. To other, much more qualified people than I, subspecies are totally valid. If it helps them compartmentalize things, good for them, but I do wish it would either be applied across the board or dropped completely.

 

[BigDaddyHub 0]

my hillbilly head hurts

[JSzymczyk 0]

Sometimes I think that these kinds of worries are why I have high blood pressure... :hyst:

[Mr. Vegas 0]

OK, here's the answer ..........

 

New York State with a total of 171 Mayfly with ME coming in second with 164!

 

 

Death, Taxes, and Leaky Waders by John Gierach

One of my all time favorites

 

 

I love the tye but even more I love your photography skills. :yahoo:

 

 

 

ok someone needs to check idaho again

[zug buggin 0]

I think I missed this one pretty bad

[H.Champagne 0]

I went to culinary school in the Hudson Valley a few years back and some of my buddies and I would take weekend trips to the Catskill area and fish the Beaverkill and some of the other random streams around the Delaware river system and it was eye opening. We saw so many different types of bugs, I believe NY is up there if not the top for Mayfly diversity. Some of the streams in Upstate NY also, the Oatka and such are pretty intense too.

[EricF 0]

Agreed with JSzymczyk on the subspecies debate. I also miss-spent much of my youth studying this stuff, and my experience suggests that the state with the most mayfly species is the state with the most recent entomologist studying mayflies at the local university. I'm not surprised that NY is high with Cornell Univ - one of the best entomology schools in the country. Maine has me scratching my head (being a Mainer it often has me scratching my head) and I wonder if there is a prof at one of the universities who is interested in Mayflies. Well, that's my two cents.

[Goldenflies 0]

Man, I thought I was doing good to be able to name three or four species of butterflies and a few other insects as well as a couple dozen snakes and wild animals. After reading JSzymczyk's dissertation, I am pretty sure I am at a preschool level and am basically calling everything a bug. My head hurts now and all I wanted was a nice picture of a sulfur (somethingius buggius).

[ColindaFlyguy 0]

i can say the sate IL ( the state i live in) has very little mayfly hatches. i saw a yellow sally or big yellow mayfly. i am not sure on how many mayflies are native to IL but if looking at vote..and knowing what i know i would pick: Michigan, Colorado, New york,and California as the states with the most mayflies. if i had to pic on how many mayflies there are in USA but..don't forget canada. and alaska. North america mayflies should include canada and alaska. just as a side note

[phg 0]

Actually, a state like NC or VA should rank at the top. We have a much more varied climate ranging from tropical in the southeast to alpine in the west. There are lots of warm water and still water mayflies as well as the more storied cold water species.

 

Maybe we can encourage NC State U to do a new survey so we can have the top spot, temporarily....

[bellevue.chartreuse.trout 0]

They have a pill for that JSzy (hehe.. God I hope you take this humorously.. lol)

BCT

[Taxon 0]

As this thread is over six years old, please allow me to provide an update concerning the number of mayfly species by state, which is based on my digest of the following pertinent scientific papers:

 

*01: Distribution of mayfly species of North America, by R. P. Randolph, supplemented by the following:
*02: Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of the far western United States: Part I: Washington) by M. D. Meyer & W. P. McCafferty
*03: Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of the far western United States: Part II: Oregon) by M. D. Meyer & W. P. McCafferty
*04: Additions and Emendations to The Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) Fauna Of Saskatchewan, Canada by J. M. Webb, et. al.
*05: The Ephemeroptera Of North Carolina by S. R. Beaty
*06: Pennsylvania Mayflies by G. A. Hoover
*07: Insecta, Ephemeroptera: New Alabama state records by W. P. McCafferty & J. M. Webb
*08: Insecta, Ephemeroptera: Range extensions and new records for Ontario and Canada by McCafferty, Jacobus, Webb, Meyer
*09: Mayflies (Insect: Ephemeroptera) of Nevada, Unites States of America by W. P. McCafferty, R. P. Randolph
*10: USGS NPWRC - Mayflies of the United States - coordinated by B. C. Kondratieff
*11: A New Species of Mayfly from WV by B. C. Kondratieff and M. D. Meyer
*12: The Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) Of Alaska by R. P. Randolph and W. P. McCafferty
*13: Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of the far western United States: Part III: California by M. D. Meyer & W. P. McCafferty
*14: Insecta, Ephemeroptera: New and additional records for New York by Meyers, Jacobus, Kondratieff
*15: New Records Of Mayflies (Ephemeroptera From Alberta, Can. by J. P. Webb and W. P. McCafferty
*16: Insecta, Ephemeroptera: range extensions and new Iowa state records by McCafferty, Hubbard, and Webb
*17: Nunavut Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) A Supplement For Far Northern North America by R. P. Randolph & W. P. McCafferty
*18: A New Species of Caenis (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) from Florida, USA by M. L. Pescador & B. A. Richard
*19: Cercobrachys fox: Guenther & McCafferty, 2005; Sun & McCafferty, 2008; Guenther & McCafferty, 2008
*20: Cladistics, classification, and identification of the brachycercine mayflies (Caenidae) by Lu Sun & W. P. McCafferty
*21: A new species and new synonym in Heptagenia ... by J.B. Webb, W.P McCafferty, and V. R. Ferris
*22: A New Genus and Species of Small Minnow Mayfly from Far Northern North America by W. P. McCafferty
*23: A New Species of Maccaffertium Bednarik (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae) by W. P. McCafferty
*24: A New Species of (Baetidae); First Representative of Genus North of Mexico by W. P. McCafferty
*25: Contributions to the larvae of N. American Nixe (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae) ... by W. P. McCafferty & M. D. Meyer
*26: Insecta, Ephemeroptera: Transcontinental range extensions in western North America by F. M. Webb & W. P. McCafferty
*27: A New Species of Acentrella from New York and New England by S. K. Burian & L. W. Myers
*28: A New Species of Mayfly from West Virginia by B. C. Kondratieff & M. D. Meyer
*29: BoldSystems - Public Data Portal - Specimen Record - Nixe joernensis by L. M. Jacobus
*30: A New Genus And New Species of Baetidae from lakes and reservoirs in eastern North America by Hill, Pfeiffer, & Jacobus
*31: Contributions to the Systematics of Leucrocuta, Nixe, and Related Genera (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidaeby W. P. McCafferty
*32: Phylogenetic Systematics of the Potamanthidae (Ephemeropters) by Y. J. Bae and W. P. McCafferty
*33: A Revision of Subgenus Drunella by R. K. Allen and G. F. Edmunds, Jr.
*34: Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of the Great Plains. I: Nebraska by McCafferty, Kluggertanz, Randolph, Provonsha, Lawson, Kondratieff
*35: Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of the Great Plains. II: Iowa by McCafferty, Hubbard, Klubertanz, Randolph, Birmingham
*36: Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of the Great Plains. III: North Dakota by J. L. Guenther and W. P. McCafferty
*37: Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of the Great Plains. IV: South Dakota by J. L. Guenther and W. P. McCafferty
*38: South Carolina Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) by W. P. McCafferty and M. D. Meyer
*39: A new species of Labiobaetis Novikova & Kluge, 1987 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) from Washington, USA by J. M. Webb
*40: Revisionary contributions to North American Ephemerella and Serratella (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae) by L. M. Jacobus & W. P. McCafferty
*41: Preliminary survey of the mayflies (Ephemeroptera) ... of Big Bend Ranch State Park & Big Bend Natl. Pk. by D. E. Baumgardner & D. E. Bowles
*42: A revision of the genus Leptohyphes Eaton (Ephmeroptera: Leptohyphidae) in North and Central America by D. E. Baumgardner & W. P. McCafferty
*43: New Species Synonyms and Records on North American Centroptilum and Procloeon (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) by N. A. Wiersema & W. P. McCafferty
*44: New and Additional Records of Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) from the Southwestern Unuted States by D. E. Baumgardner
*45: The mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of New Hanpshire: Seasonality and Diversity of the Stream Fauna by Chandler, Whitmore, Burian, Burger
*46: Insecta, Ephemeroptera, Baetidae: Range extensions and new state records from Kansas, U.S.A by W. P. Mccafferty & L. M. Jacobus
*47: Insecta, Ephemeroptera: Range extensions and new state records from far western Montana by W. P. McCafferty & R. L. Newell
*48: New records (of Plauditus cestus) from Virginia and the Northwest Territories, with notes on color variation by Gorski, Fox, McQueen, and Jacobus
*49: Geographic range extention to Wyoming, USA for Paraleptophlebia praepedita by Ashley Garlick, B. C. Kondratieff, and L. M. Jacobus
*99: A DNA Barcode Library for North American Ephemeroptera: etc. by Webb, Jacobus, Funk, et. al.

 

NC 212
SC 185
NY 181
PA 178
CA 162
ME 162
IN 156
TN 154
VA 148
OR 147
GA 142
AL 140
WI 132
OH 126
TX 126
MI 123
NH 122
KY 121
IL 117
WA 115
IA 112
WV 109
CO 107
CT 107
MO 107
MT 106
ID 100
OK 95
AR 90
ND 85
NE 85
MN 84
FL 81
UT 81
SD 80
NM 79
AZ 72
KS 67
WY 61
MS 50
AK 48
MA 46
MD 44
NV 37
LA 34
VT 28
DE 12
NJ 10
RI 0

[Obie 0]

Thanks for the update. Like phg I was surprised the highest diversity wasn't in the southeast. With its varied climate and topology, its long record of isolation, and its general stability (having not been glaciated or inundated by seas for a couple hundred million years), the southeast USA has the highest levels of aquatic biodiversity of any temperate region on the planet, and has the highest richness of other aquatic taxa such as fish, freshwater mussels, crayfish, aquatic snails, and amphibians. I wasn't all that surprised to read it was NY at one time, maybe an artifact of more mayfly specialists living in the Northeast than other regions of the US.

 

 

 

So the main question really is, what the hell is a "subspecies"??? More or less just something to write on a tag so individuals can be GROUPED in a box, DISCRIMINATED between one another, and categorized based on APPEARANCE and ORIGIN. Nothing wrong with that at all, as long as we apply it only to bugs and reptiles and crawly or swimmy things or even White-Tailed Deer... but it forces us to put segments of a species into their own boxes. That is where the meltdown occurs when we get to the species named Homo sapiens. The concept of subspecies REQUIRES prejudice. The brainiacs friggin' HATE that!! How can we apply it within the confines of biology? OH My Gosh... we absolutely CANNOT put any member of Homo sapiens in their own box, even if the vast majority of them WANT to be left in their own boxes!!! Five is a drastically low number of how many subspecies of humans there would be if the concept of subspecies was applied across the biological realm. I said five, it was a number I had heard tossed about before, but it's way low.

 

To be fair, many of the diagnostics used to separate subspecies are more than skin deep, not just about color and comparative size. But I'd generally agree- designating subspecies and even species is often pretty arbitrary. Cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone group (Bonneville, Colorado, Rio Grande, Snake River Finespot, and Yellowstone proper) all look pretty different, but genetically they're almost indistinguishable. The opposite happens pretty regularly, too- cryptic diversity. A madtom species from Drainage A is by all accounts indistinguishable from the same "species" in Drainage B, then you run the genetics and they're very different critters. It's only been in the last 20-30 years that we've been able to really understand the number of genetically distinct species out there, their relationships with one another and within the tree of life.

 

 

There's no "standard" definition for subspecies, or even really for species- and they've never been applied uniformly. As a field biologist I frequently griped about having to distinguish between two closely related or morphologically similar species, having to preserve hundreds or thousands of specimens and spend hours in a stinky lab going through them. I've also had to talk with a lot of taxonomists and a lot of endangered species guys who brought up a good point: even in science it's tough to ignore our anthropocentric bias, and just because we don't understand the significance of big spots vs. fine spots, or 63 breeding tubercles vs. 77 breeding tubercles, or a dark bar at the caudal peduncle vs. a dark crescent at the caudal peduncle- doesn't mean it's insignificant. It is a little arbitrary, it is a little subjective, but many times assigning subspecies is simply about recognizing the diversity within a "known" species, so that diversity may be better protected.

 

</nerd talk>.