1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Specimen Discussion
›
3. Not Stenacron

Hi Jason-

While scanning the Stenacron specimens in response to Jeff's question, I came across this one. It does not appear to be Stenacron. It lacks the dark pigmentation (spot) between R1 and R2 that is distinctive of this genus. Clearly, it is a member of the Heptageniidae, but I haven't found a definitive clue to indicate which one it might be. Perhaps someone else will detect something more conclusive.

Somehow this one fell through the cracks. I agree with Gonzo this isn't Stenacron, and for the same reasons. It's also not Stenonema due to the lack of median posterior dark spots on the terga. The excellent ventral detail of the photo showing ridges on the prosturnum and the orientation of the furcasturnum clearly show it to be a member of the subfamily Heptageniinae. Due to eye separation and tarsi segment comparisons (among other characters) Maccaffertium male subimago from one of the spread eyed species is the likely choice.

This looks like Maccaffertium modestum, one of the Summer Cahills. Size isn't mentioned, but based on its proportions this specimen looks to be on the small side of the range scale for this species and fits well with the descriptions of the Midwestern rubrum form. Other species possibilities in this genus with which it could be confused are much larger. Tergal markings (spiracular dots, full length posterior dark lines), lack of crossvein crowding below the bullae, and the dark tail articulations are further positive characters. Together with matching color descriptions, relative abundance, and reported distribution in the specimen's locale, I think modestum is a reasonable opinion. ... The good news is this adds a more complete picture to the hatch page that was lacking a dun until now.