1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Photography
›
3. Paraleptophlebia helena

Just thought I'd throw a strange one in here.These nymphs were collected in Mill Creek (tributary to Dry Creek which empties into the Russian River) near Healdsburg, CA. As far as I can tell they're Paraleptophlebia helena. I used Day's description of them for a final identification. The paper that includes their description can be seen here http://www.ephemeroptera-galactica.com/pubs/pub_d/pubdayw1952p17.pdf.

According to Day's account the original specimens he described were taken from Mill Creek.

They're most commonly found from late summer through early winter among gravel and cobble that have leaf litter (primarily white alder) under them.

All pictures are of one specimen collected on September 1, 2012. Specimen is in alcohol but pictures were taken shortly after collection and color is representative of live specimens. The nymph is 7 mm (excluding cerci).

Very cool, Mark. Due to location I think you are correct but the more common bicornuta also matches Day's data. The dark V and adjacent pale rectangle on the head is common to both. He was reporting these characters as the way to differentiate from zayante. Unfortunately, his work is far from comprehensive.

Yeah, I'd have to say that information on the nymphs of the tusked species of Paraleptophlebia is sketchy at best in California. Probably should just be classified in the P. bicornuta group (includes packii, bicornuta, zayante and helena) for the time being.

Personally, I'd still lean towards P. helena because of location and description, but I've been wrong before.

And you're right about Day's work on the nymph not being comprehensive enough to separate it from some of the other Paraleptophlebia nymphs. I think he got stretched a little thin considering all the work he was doing on Ephemeroptera. Gotta admire him though, he did a lot of pioneering work on the California fauna.

Absolutely! Dated as it is its still the benchmark for us.

Mark-

Well done.

Kurt-



It is a bit dated, 1952, the year I was born.:)

Roger-



Thanks

Mark, thanks for posting this one!

Yeah, you guys don't see these tuskers back East...;)

Eric-



You're welcome. Had to put it up there, it's one of those you need to see it to believe it ones.

Mark - Specimens from the type locality are taxonomically important and you should label that specimen as a possible topotype. If you can get a good series of fresh material of any species from its type locality you should try and submit some for DNA analysis to add to the world DNA library.

Dave - Good idea about labelling it as topotype. I'm not too likely to get new specimens right now. Our area is having a drought period and Mill Creek is extremely low and dry over large portions. I've got specimens from 2012 as well as ones taken earlier. All are stored in alcohol and I'm not sure how that would affect DNA sampling. I would assume that the best way of preserving specimens for DNA analysis would be to freeze or dry them.

What is the world DNA library? Are you referring to BOLD?

The good news about alcohol preservation is that it won't impede DNA testing. So I've been told anyway. The guy to send your samples to is Luke. Hopefully he'll see this thread and comment.

High percent (95%+) ETOH is best if you use alcohol. Denatured, methyl, isopropyl, etc. do not work well, if at all. Frozen or dry are probably better. But remember your freezer is not really frozen - most freezers now-a-days have a defrost cycle that partially thaws stuff. The best thing I have found for successful barcoding DNA is to get it done as quickly as possible after collection, however you store it.

Luke Jacobus would be a good one to check with for deposition. I like to put topotype material wherever the type collection is housed. That way future researchers have material at one locality if they have to visit for examination. But if you can get a long series of topotype material then it is good to spread it around to the various collections that specialize in whatever group you have.

I like BOLD because that is the only one I know how to sorta use, and it has alot of caddis info - but there are others. BOLD allows you to "include public records" in your analysis, but I don't really understand where these come from. There should be others reading this forum that understand the data analysis procedures for DNA work.

Found this by Luke on another thread.

.

Looks like you guys were right.