The giant Salmonflies of the Western mountains are legendary for their proclivity to elicit consistent dry-fly action and ferocious strikes.
Different species groups have been treated by different people in different times. Thus, there have been different approaches to the concepts of species and subspecies.
This trend was driven by the observation of individuals morphologically intermediate between named species, or by observations suggesting that members of one species fell within ‘the expected range of variation’ of another.
Nearly all of these decisions of synonymy were based only on limited morphological studies, without consideration of biogeographic, ecological, behavioral or molecular data. While this fusion of species has simplified morphology-based identifications, it now seems likely that this trend often ignored biological reality.
DNA barcoding results cannot only serve as a guide of where to focus these efforts, but also be used as part of an iterative revisionary process  together with morphological, ecological, and behavioral characteristics to achieve stable, robust species hypotheses.
Is barcoding in essence, simply a more precise study of morphologial detail? It seems to me that comparing DNA strings and leg structures are essentially engaging in the same activity, it's just that the former is taking a closer look...
Is it possible (hopeful) that the gathering and interpreting of genetic sequencing data will eventually be refined to the point that most of the subjectivity regarding species concepts will be removed?
But all who left came back.
The idea of "multi-broods" basically maturing around the same time and some lavae basically over-wintering etc...
I think it is a way of seeing species in the throes of evolution. Time can be an effective reproductive barrier for obligate sexual organisms.