Louis,
We often assume too much about color based on individual photographs and the name "sulphur." Although the term suggests a general coloration, it doesn't reflect color variation within a species, sexually dimorphic color differences, or the darkening that takes place after emergence. All of these factors probably have some bearing on the color of this specimen. We expect sulphurs to be yellow, but
invaria males are typically darker than the females--often some shade of brown (as are many female
invaria spinners). Some fly-fishing books tend to perpetuate the notion that all sulphurs are yellow by picturing only the yellowish female duns. In addition, photos often show duns in various stages of darkening after emergence.
I agree with John that the collection date seems too late for
subvaria, but it would be nearly impossible to prove a species ID from the photographs alone. However, I also can't see a way to rule out the possibility that this might be
E. excrucians. That species is probably more common in the Midwest than it is in the East.
If that were the case, it might also explain this:
http://www.troutnut.com/specimen/745
Jason was confused by the color of the eggs in the picture, but most PA fly fishers will attest that
invaria eggs are typically yellow to orange. Personally, I have never seen a green egg sack on
invaria in my part of the East. This spinner and her eggs are fairly typical of the female
invaria spinners that I see. Although it is just speculation on my part, perhaps some of the Midwestern "sulphurs" (especially the "olive" ones known as "Kinni sulphurs") are
excrucians rather than
invaria. And maybe, just maybe, the male dun in question is
excrucians.