1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Photography
›
3. Ameletus and Paraleptophlebia

Found these today while looking at a small first order stream that feeds into the Russian River. The stream is quite small (you can step over it without a problem) and very cold. It feeds through some redwoods and originates underground.

The first is the Ameletus. I think it's Ameletus celer. At least that's what it keys out to in "Larvae and adults of Ameletus mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Ameletidae) from Alberta" by Zloty and Pritchard. It's 11 mm in length excluding the cerci.

The second is a Paraleptophlebia. After that it's anybody's guess as to what species it is since there's no key to western species for nymphs. It's 6 mm in length excluding the cerci.

I haven't found either of these species in the Russian River yet.

Sounds like Ameletus water to me!

Paul - More like Paraleptophlebia water. They outnumber the Ameletus about ten to one. It's an interesting piece of water. Haven't been able to access the water on the bottom third but the center third where the water goes through the redwoods has mostly Paraleptophlebia with an occasional Chloroperlid and Ameletid. The top third has mostly Ameletus with very young Paraleptophlebia.

Moderate current? (I knew the eastern P. adoptiva, and that is all.)

Ameletus are up in the headwaters where they seem especially to like to cling under overhangs. Further down they seem relegated to cascades.

Hey, an image of the habitats of your collections would be neat,

The Paraleptophlebia were taken in areas of nearly no current, the bottoms of small pools and the edges of the pools.

The Ameletus were in areas of faster current, though not very fast. They tended to be on the edges of riffles.

So far I've only got pictures of the Russian River. I'll try and add a few others. The one of the Russian River is here. http://www.troutnut.com/topic/8675/Epeorus-sp-longimanus#toppost

You'll have to scroll to the top to find it.

I'd like to start photographing macroinvertebrates. I have a very basic microscope with a small field of vision. Can anyone recommend a good scope? I have a camera that can be inserted into a triocular port or into one of the eyepieces already.

Lynn-

I'd forget about the scope and invest in a good SLR and lens. I use a Canon Rebel and either a 50 or 100 mm macro lens. It'll cost you some money but it'll be worth it if you're serious about photographing macros.

Scopes are good for IDs on macroinvertebrates. Hell, they're damn near indispensable for that. But unless you need pictures of small parts of the anatomy I can't really see it.

EDIT- You'll also need a small tripod.

I would agree with Millcreek. Get a good DSLR and macro. And the Canon rebel is a good choice as it comes with great software to connect to the PC if ya want. I have two of them connected to microscopes for details. But, as you can see from Millcreeks pics, the Rebel and macro is wonderful for larger specimens.

EDIT - I should have started with - there are no wide fields with a microscope. The goal of the microscope is to get close to small parts. While the microscope is good at seeing small parts, the tradeoff is depth of field (DOF) and width of field (WOF). The more magnification the less DOF and WOF.

I used to fish the paraleps hatches in CT in early spring. Total black nymphs. Skinny, ruffled, beautiful. I would say the water temp was 35 degrees. No more than 40. Ice-on-the-water type fishing.

Does anyone have pictures of the adult versions of all these nymphs? Thanks.