Identification: Key to Families of Mayfly Nymphs, Couplet 16

These nymphs were highly abundant in my early April kick net samples from the Yakima Canyon, and one of them emerged into a dun, which I photographed immediately. Similar-looking nymphs but with distinctly brighter color patterns were also abundant. I just photographed one. After extensive views under the microscope, it's clear the bright ones are males and the dull ones are females of the same species.

The most likely guess at the species is Baetis tricaudatus, which may be a complex of related species that haven't all been sorted out yet. It isn't a perfect fit to every key characteristic (and I never seem to find a Baetis that matches the expected pronotum color patterns, but that seems to be the closest.

The microscope images here were taken with different specimens from the main photos (so I could dissect them while preserving that one intact), but clearly the same species.

A nymph of the same species as this one emerged into a dun in my studio so I got photos of both stages.

NOTE: I missed an important key characteristic the first time I tried to identify this one (robust setae on the abdominal sternites, which were harder to see than I expected but are clearly present), so I went on a bit of a wild goose chase and landed at a dead end. After spotting that characteristic, this one keys more straightforwardly to either Baetis tricaudatus or the Baetis piscatoris complex. It doesn't seem to be a perfect fit for either one in the key, but I'm going with tricaudatus based on range and abundance. It's not certain.

However, I'm leaving the flawed analysis below with this disclaimer, because some aspects of how I approached that dead end might be informative in the future.

----Incorrect analysis below----

After spending a lot of time with this one under my shiny new microscope, I'm still not quite sure what it is. I botched my attempt to expose the mouth parts that might make the ID more definitive. Based on the key in Webb et al 2018's "Baetis Larvae of North America," here's my reasoning at each key couplet.

Couplet 1. The pronotum lacks dark, submedian U-shaped markings. Also, if I were to follow through to couplet 2, there seem to be characteristics that rule out each of the options: the intercalaris complex is ruled out by the abdominal markings, and the caudal filaments have neither a dark median band (ruling out the flavistriga complex) nor uniform pale coloration (ruling out Baetis notos). This sends me with decent confidence to couplet 4.

Couplet 4. I cannot find robust setae in my microscope on the scapes, pedicels, paraprocts, or sterna. I also do not see a pair of dark, bilobed markings on the pronotum. Unless I overlooked these characteristics, proceed to couplet 9.

Couplet 9. Abdominal tergum 5 is a bit paler than adjacent terga, but "distinctly paler"? The figure for Baetis alius in the paper, as well as a very nice picture posted by Millcreek in the forum here, shows that Baetis alius would have darker tergites surrounding #5. So proceed to couplet 11.

Couplet 11. The length of the gills is obviously less than 2X their width. This leads to the Baetis vernus complex, which could include that species or Baetis brunneicolor. This key doesn't say how to tell those species apart.

Switching over to Burien et al 2018 as the source, the characteristics used to distinguish vernus from brunneicolor seem to rule out either one. Brunneicolor should have more uniformly brown abdominal tergites, whereas vernus should have a lack of visible tracheation in most of the gills.

The fore femur length is about 3.8x its width.

Also worth noting: In the genus ID, I thought I could see the villipore in my microscope, but I'm not sure. If I back out of Baetis altogether and assume there's no villipore, I end up at Fallceon, but this specimen doesn't seem to have the frontal keel on the head that's supposed to be present on Fallceon quilleri. So that seems like a dead end as well.

This nymph keys to Baetis assuming the villipore is present (hard to see in my photos or scope), and within that genus it tentatively keys to the flavistriga species complex, of which Baetis flavistriga itself is by far the most common in Washington state, so that's the most likely ID.

A few of these nymphs turned up in my kick net sample, with this being the only one fully mature and ready to emerge. It keys pretty straightforwardly to Ameletus suffusus, particularly because of the triangular dark patch on the labrum. The abdominal markings are close but don't quite match other drawings, likely just individual variation.

Keying this one out using Zloty & Pritchard 1997:
-No ganglionic markings on sternites 2–8
-Posterior margins of sternits 6–8 without numerous spines
-Mesal gill extension well developed (I really don't like the "well developed" language when it's subjective, but in this case the other option doesn't lead anywhere productive)
-Tails pale in basal 1/3
-Larger species (13–16 mm) — this one is just shy of 12 mm, but closer to 13 than to <10
-Spring emergence
This all points to Ameletus vernalis.

I spent ages trying to identify this one but ultimately couldn't narrow it down to species. I'm guessing it's either a species that has not yet been reported from Idaho or a species with some variation in characteristics not accounted for in the current key (Zloty 1997), which is only for Alberta but happens to contain all the species documented in Idaho except for one (which is rare and only in a different part of the state from this one).

Here are my raw notes from the microscope session:

8. Ameletus nymph (genus 100 % based on mouth parts under microscope)
1. This is probably a species with the nymph either not described yet or not reported in Idaho (or Alberta).
2. There is a key to the species of nymphs in Alberta (Zloty 1997) which includes all but one (A. tolae) of the species listed in Idaho by IDFG (https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/8607), and A. tolae is only listed from one drainage in north-central Idaho. So my specimen should be in that key. However, it doesn’t fit any of them.
1. The antennae are pale with brown at the apex. This doesn’t fit any of the species they described.
2. The labrum is almost completely dark brown, maybe a bit paler toward the apex.
3. Following the key in Zloty 1997 basically rules out every species reported in Idaho except for tolae, which would be outside its range:
1. Couplet 1 : There definitely aren’t strong ganglionic markings on sternites 2-8 (100 % rules out similior and celer) —> 3
2. Couplet 3 : Posterior margins of sternites 6-8 lack large spines (80 % sure) but other characteristics rule out the species if there were spines (validus, oregonensis, subnotatus) —> 6
3. Couplet 6 : Mesal gill extension present, but pretty slim… similar to Fig. 23B or 23G —> 7
4. Couplet 7 : Obviouly gos to 8
5. Couplet 8 : Small size and time of year rules out velox, tergite patterna and gill shape rules out pritchardi (which is not reported in Idaho anyway). Additional features (antennae, labrum color) rule out a small velox.
6. Backtrack to call the mesal gill extension “well developed” —> 9
7. Couplet 9 : Tail coloration obviously —> 10
8. Couplet 10 : Supposing it’s a small specimen of a “larger species” leads to 11, in which femora coloration and timing rule out vernalis, and color pattern rules out bellulus. Mesal extension on gills from species description very conclusively rules out bellulus. Therefore, calling it a “smaller species” is the correct path —> 12
9. Couplet 12 : Sternites without well-defined longitudinal stripe —> cooki. However, tergite color patterns don’t even come close to matching ANY of the 3 species from this point on (cooki, sparsatus, suffusus). From the species descriptions:
1. cooki: Antenna and labrum colors don’t fit. Mesal extension should be larger and tracheation lighter, to be this species.
2. sparsatus: Antenna and labrum colors don’t fit. Mesal extension should be larger. Postero-lateral spines should be very prominent, not barely noticeable.
3. suffusus: Also bad fit to antenna and labrum colors, mesal extension, and especially gill tracheation.