Blue-winged Olives
Baetis
Tiny Baetis mayflies are perhaps the most commonly encountered and imitated by anglers on all American trout streams due to their great abundance, widespread distribution, and trout-friendly emergence habits.
Featured on the forum
This is an interesting one. Following the keys in Merritt R.W., Cummins, K.W., and Berg, M.B. (2019) and Jacobus et al. (2014), it keys clearly to Ephemerella. Jacobus et al provide a key to species, but some of the characteristics are tricky to interpret without illustrations. If I didn't make any mistakes, this one keys to Ephemerella mucronata, which has not previously been reported any closer to here than Montana and Alberta. The main character seems to fit well: "Abdominal terga with prominent, paired, subparallel, spiculate ridges." Several illustrations or descriptions of this holarctic species from the US and Europe seem to match, including the body length, tarsal claws and denticles, labial palp, and gill shapes. These sources include including Richard Allen's original description of this species in North America under the now-defunct name E. moffatae in Allen RK (1977) and the figures in this description of the species in Italy.
Troutnut is a project started in 2003 by salmonid ecologist Jason "Troutnut" Neuswanger to help anglers and
fly tyers unabashedly embrace the entomological side of the sport. Learn more about Troutnut or
support the project for an enhanced experience here.
This topic is about the Mayfly Genus Caudatella
This Western genus is unimportant, but Caudatella heterocaudata and Caudatella hystrix are said to sometimes produce fishable hatches.Example specimens
Konchu on Oct 29, 2010October 29th, 2010, 1:36 pm EDT
The paper is in press now, so I can share an updated taxonomic synopsis of the "unimportant" genus Caudatella. Have fun.
Caudatella edmundsi (Allen, 1959)
Caudatella columbiella (McDunnough, 1935), comb. n.
= Ephemerella californica Allen and Edmunds, 1961, stat. n., syn. n.
Caudatella heterocaudata (McDunnough, 1929)
= Ephemerella circia Allen and Edmunds, 1961, stat. n., syn. n.
Caudatella hystrix (Traver, 1934)
= Ephemerella spinosa Mayo, 1952
= Ephemerella cascadia Allen and Edmunds, 1961
Caudatella jacobi (McDunnough, 1939)
= Ephemerella orestes Allen and Edmunds, 1961
Caudatella edmundsi (Allen, 1959)
Caudatella columbiella (McDunnough, 1935), comb. n.
= Ephemerella californica Allen and Edmunds, 1961, stat. n., syn. n.
Caudatella heterocaudata (McDunnough, 1929)
= Ephemerella circia Allen and Edmunds, 1961, stat. n., syn. n.
Caudatella hystrix (Traver, 1934)
= Ephemerella spinosa Mayo, 1952
= Ephemerella cascadia Allen and Edmunds, 1961
Caudatella jacobi (McDunnough, 1939)
= Ephemerella orestes Allen and Edmunds, 1961
Taxon on Oct 29, 2010October 29th, 2010, 3:18 pm EDT
Luke-
From your posting, it appears that what was previously Caudatella heterocaudata and its (3) subspecies are now Caudatella heterocaudata (with no subspecies), and (new species), Caudatella columbiella. Is that correct?
From your posting, it appears that what was previously Caudatella heterocaudata and its (3) subspecies are now Caudatella heterocaudata (with no subspecies), and (new species), Caudatella columbiella. Is that correct?
Konchu on Oct 30, 2010October 30th, 2010, 2:48 am EDT
columbiella was an old species that was synonymized with heterocaudata; i think it is a separate species
circia, californica and heterocaudata were all subspecies of heterocaudata
it turns out that californica is the same thing as columbiella
circia does not hold up as a nominal entity under most current philosophies. at the time it was described, the authors acknowledged that it probably interbred with other variants of heterocaudata, and the defining characters varied even in the population at the type locale. so, it should be considered the same species as heterocaudata
circia, californica and heterocaudata were all subspecies of heterocaudata
it turns out that californica is the same thing as columbiella
circia does not hold up as a nominal entity under most current philosophies. at the time it was described, the authors acknowledged that it probably interbred with other variants of heterocaudata, and the defining characters varied even in the population at the type locale. so, it should be considered the same species as heterocaudata
Taxon on Oct 30, 2010October 30th, 2010, 10:42 am EDT
Thanks, Luke.
Quick Reply
Related Discussions
Topic
Replies
Last Reply
8
Sep 21, 2009
by GONZO
by GONZO
2
Aug 2, 2019
by Crepuscular
by Crepuscular
2
Dec 26, 2019
by Millcreek
by Millcreek
25
Jan 8, 2016
by Wbranch
by Wbranch
9
Apr 14, 2015
by MiltRPowell
by MiltRPowell