Mayfly Species Baetis bicaudatus (BWOs)

I collected this one along with a male that was quite a bit smaller but equally ready to emerge in mid April.

I spent quite a while on the identifications, because they really don't look very much like the Baetis bicaudatus nymph I caught last year in Idaho. However, the presence of hind wing pads rules out Acentrella turbida and Iswaeon anoka, the lack of a fringe of long setae on the tibiae rules out Acentrella insignificans, range rules out Heterocloeon, and the thumb-like projection on the labial palp points to Baetis. Thus, Baetis bicaudatus is a fairly confident ID, and it's not too surprising that it looked different from my previous specimen because bicaudatus is thought to be a species complex with multiple types that haven't been fully sorted out yet.

The microscope pictures for this specimen aren't from the same exact nymph, but a mixture of a few others of the same kind that I didn't mind dissecting.

Under the microscope, this one clearly has hind wingpads.

Here I'm just copying and pasting, without cleaning up, my notes from spending a long time with this one under the microscope (and keying with Merritt & Cummins 5th Ed) only to end up confirming the most likely guess.

7. Baetis bicaudatus nymph
1. Hind wingpad present but small and hidden beneath forewing pad
2. Segment 2 of labial palp with well-developed medially projecting corner --> Baetis (couple 44). BUT no sign of scale-like setae on abdominal terga. Conflicts at this couplet.
3. Gills on segments I-VII
4. Tarsal claws with denticles, seemingly 2 rows but very hard to tell… and the key options with 2 rows don’t make sense
5. Assuming no villipore, we land confidently at couplet 48
6. Leads to Fallceon, except antennal scape doesn't have robust setae
7. Treated as Baetis, leads to brunneicolor, but McDunnough et al 1932 (Can Ent 64) suggests middle tail should be 5/6 as long as outer ones
8. Keys VERY confidently to couplet 36 in M&C (villipore)
9. If assuming villipore present:
1. 37 --> Scape of antennae has no distal lobe --> rules out Labiobaetis (100 % certain)
2. 38 --> Terminal filament much shorter than cerci --> not Barbaetis benfieldi (100 % certain)
3. 39 --> Terminal filament reduced (100 % certain)
4. 40 --> Tarsal claw denticle count couplet. If two rows of denticles: Either Iswaeon or Heterocloeon. Can't be Iswaeon because cerci lack dark median band. Can't be heterocloeon because it's not in the Platte drainage or in Texas. Thus, it must be one row of denticles. Moving on to 42.
5. 42 --> Hind wing pads present (100 % certain)
6. 44 --> Segment 2 of labial palpi with well-developed medially projecting corner (80 % certain), scale-like setae not evident on terga but maybe limitation of my scope --> Baetis (alternative would be Acentrella, but pronotum shape is all wrong for those, although not an official characteristic)
7. CONFIDENT in Baetis bicaudatus after distinctive leg markings (J-shaped light mark on first femur, L-shaped on second and third) matches original species description to a tee.