1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Get Bugs Identified
›
3. October Ephemerellid

Because Spence told me to post these pics. they are not very good but still I guess it should be noted that these ladies were about laying eggs in October. All photos are of the same specimen under different lighting.

8mm
Missing one tail

No comments yet from Roger or Kurt?! There must be something weird going on over on the Letort, because these bugs look like they should be around in May and not October! Especially the second pic...Looks like it was lifted right from Hatches under E invaria or some such...

That Cumberland Valley is warmer than the rest of the state, but this would be ridiculous!

Eric...You said Ephemerellid after my quess the other day...So what is it? :)

Spence the Befuddled (no wise cracks from the peanut gallery...Bruce!)

My best guess would be E. invaria. I did not see a male on Friday evening when I collected this one. There weren't many but there were more than I could count. I don't recall seeing them before in October but that doesn't really mean anything. Usually I'll start seeing them in January. (but then I'm looking for them.) I wouldn't be surprised if they are present in small numbers virtually all year long.

Wow! Could there be something about that slow monster of a stream that would/could lend itself, along with the moderate temps, for a multi-brooded E invaria? We might have to alert/wake up the boys from Purdue...Luke you out there somewhere? :)

Eric...Since you were kind enough to grant my request by posting this...A nod to an old drinking buddy...Will we get a snipit of your encounter on that storied stream with one of its ledgends? Marinaro and Mr Fox both considered him the guy when it came to catching the Big Boys of the Letort...That was before you came along of course. ;)

Spence the Supplier of the Molsons. :)

Yikes! Who knows what's going on over there with the invarias! Eric's observations certainly have my brain swimming in regard to what he's seen. I'll bet there's something publishable happening if he has the time and inclination. Or perhaps it should stay more on the QT.

Louis,

Grab your May sulpher box and meet me in Carlisle! ;) I'll be the guy in the over-loaded vest standing by the plaques for Fox and Marinaro...

Spence

Hi Spence-



I would lean toward Ephemerella excrucians.

Could be, Roger. Seems on the small side for invaria. Jeez, Eric! I'm still amazed at your Winter sulfurs. Now your pulling Fall ones out of your waters?:)

Interesting. Why? Hoover in his Biodiversity of Ephemeroptera of PA (2000) only found 3 larvae and that was from the western part of the state. I would love to hear why you are leaning toward E. excrucians. I just asssumed it was E. invaria. Allen and Edmunds 1965 only have lengths for males and if we are ok with saying that the females are generally the same size or larger than the males this specimen would fit in E. excrucians and E. invaria.

Hi Eric-



Everything else being pretty much equal, I leaned toward E. excrucians based on the emergence date. I have the end of emergence for E. invaria listed as mid-June, and E. excrucians as mid-September.

OK, what about the ones that are emerging in January? These were collected Jan. 9, 2013

OK...Charlie & Vinny must of been up to some very odd experiments over there on their "crick"! They are laughing at us from their graves. :)

You and your son aren't raising these critters in the basement are you? Ala Brookyman...Hmmm...

Spence

Eric-



Possibly Attenella?

Notice the mesonotal conical projections on the Winter specimens? The Fall one lacks this character. Also, the dorsal maculation is quite different. The fact that they are different stages could account for the latter, though.

Aren't they a bit large for Attenella? My gut tells me they are both probably different species of Ephemerella. A good look at the male nasties (even a dun's) and an associated nymph will sort this out. On Attenella, the clasper's terminal seg will be very long (6 x width). On Ephemerella, they are very short (less than 1.5 times). After that, it gets a little trickier to tell with photos. Penes, fore tarsi and feet are hard to get in focus.:)

Well I guess the plot has thickened somewhat. In this speciemn of E. invaria http://www.troutnut.com/specimen/734 those dorsal mesonotal conical projections seem to be visible. And they are also visible in the photo of the Attenella specimen that Roger posted. But are absent in other specimens of E. invaria here. So what does that mean? Does that character stay with the imago? I would tend to think so. I also tend to think, like you said Kurt, that these are possibly two different species but I'm not sure about that. Another character that I noticed when comparing the two is the acute angle of the costal projection on the hindwing of the specimen collected last Friday. Maybe it's just the angle of the photograph. Any thoughts on that? I guess I need to get out and do some collecting.

Yeah, that's why those projections aren't used in ephemerellid keys. Assuming they're both Ephemerella, a bit of luck is that the penes of the two species mentioned are quite different. You have that male specimen handy? Even in the dun stage the differences should be readily apparent.

As for the hind wing, I agree that's another un-keyed difference that points to a difference. Perhaps you found something cryptic?