Male Ephemerella needhami (Little Dark Hendrickson) Mayfly Dun Pictures

Please forgive the trite and dated "To Tell the Truth" title, but recent conversation and speculation about E. needhami subs is scattered through another thread ("Taxonomy and DNA"), so I thought I'd start this thread in an attempt to consolidate some of that conversation. The "E. needhami/Chocolate Dun" of angling lit. and popular hatch charts can be very different from the E. needhami described in the scientific literature. I'm convinced that it is often confused with Eurylophella spp. or Teloganopsis deficiens (formerly Serratella deficiens) partly because of questionable descriptions of the "blackish" wings of the duns and partly because the other genus and species are not well known to most anglers (even though they are commonly encountered on many eastern trout streams).


Just as a point of clarification, Jason and I have had recent discussions about this species, and I did (recently) post about the misidentification of several subs and adults (Eurylophella spp.) that were previously included on the needhami pages. However, it was Dr. David Funk's confident identification of the above specimen that seemed to seal its placement. I believe he is correct.


That's a pretty common (mis?)conception, Paul, and I believe it can probably be traced to Caucci and Nastasi's Hatches (1975). Although McDunnough's 1931 (re)description of this species described the needhami subs as having "very pale smoky unicolorous wings," C&N's Hatches described them as "dark grey almost black." I'm convinced that the latter description is based on a misidentification because C&N's color photo, captioned "Ephemerella needhami, male dun," appears to be a Eurylophella dun. (It has the telltale long 9th abdominal segment.)


Just to be clear, Kurt, I did participate, to the point of initiating a previous thread about this specimen, but my participation was limited to expressing my doubts about its original placement in Serratella.


Thanks, Spence. That explains the mystery of the disappearing posts. :)

I'm not making an argument that Paul's mystery "Ephemerella X" dun is E. needhami. I just wanted to point out that the species is often subject to misidentification based on (some angling) descriptions that are probably attributable to other species. Only a few years after his original 1925 description, McDunnough (1931) said this:

And so it goes....

Jason,

Somehow, I don't think this is Serratella--it seems too large (especially for a male), and the "S" with which I'm familiar have very dark wings. I thought I'd call attention to it in the hope that someone might be able to offer some insight and, perhaps, clear up the mystery.