Troutnut.com Fly Fishing for Trout Home
User Password
or register.
Scientific name search:

> > Maccaffertium vicarium

Brookyman has attached these 4 pictures to aid in identification. The message is below.
View Full SizeView Full Size (3.2X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (4.9X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (3.2X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (4.9X larger)
BrookymanDecember 15th, 2012, 2:51 am
Banned
Posts: 797
(: Light Cahill :)

I can't find the sample, It was in the 12mm ranger. I also caught this one at the reconstructed site. I listed the file of pictures for this one as
nepotellum which is now under mediopunctatum only because
the wing vein pattern in the bulla are matches Lewis's wing of nepotellumin taxonomy 74. Other than that I have no idea. As well I have photos of another one very similar to this one. After we go through this guy I will load that one, that will save on confusion.

So whats your take on this guy.

Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
Jmw975December 15th, 2012, 10:23 am
Guelph, Ontario

Posts: 20
Hi Mack,
I would lean towards M. vicarium on this one. The large eyes and color pattern fit that species pretty well.

Jeff
EntomanDecember 15th, 2012, 4:34 pm
Site Editor
Northern CA & ID

Posts: 2604
I agree with Jeff, Mack. Notice the distance between the eyes? The narrowness of the space between them is a vicarium trait and precludes all the Cahill species known for your locale save M. ithaca. The pictures don't show but perhaps the easiest way to tell the two species apart in locales where their forms may look similar is by looking at the abdominal sterna. M. ithaca may look ringed, whereas the March Brown will look more plain or with feint brownish patches. What's interesting about this photo is that the spiracular marks aren't obscured by pigment as is usual with these two species. As an aside, the terminal segs would be pretty dark for ithaca.
"It's not that I find fishing so important, it's just that I find all other endeavors of Man equally unimportant... And not nearly as much fun!" Robert Traver, Anatomy of a Fisherman
EntomanDecember 15th, 2012, 6:14 pm
Site Editor
Northern CA & ID

Posts: 2604
BTW - Size, date, and location are always helpful to include. In the future, you might consider ventrals and wing spread photos? The former will show characters often used for determination in this genus and the latter are much easier to see venation without confusion from the other wing bleeding through.
"It's not that I find fishing so important, it's just that I find all other endeavors of Man equally unimportant... And not nearly as much fun!" Robert Traver, Anatomy of a Fisherman
BrookymanDecember 15th, 2012, 9:30 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
WOW

I didn't think that vicarium could be that light near whitish as a ground color. I have collected many vicaium samples that are much darker from the same area. Because I was time date incoding the pictures
I will include them in the future.

Funny you mention M.ithica I was tracking a large group of nymphs by the hundreds in the stream I sampled from. Every other day sampling watching what was looking to be ithica samples. After dissecting and comparing 20+ larva I became convinced that they are rubromaculatium. They matched constantly with Lewis 74 & biosystematics for rubromaculatum.

I did by chance rear one of them and I will post her as female Maccaffertium robromaculatum + nymphs. She died in the test tub on the way back home from the river so association to larva shuck is available.

There was variability in the nymphs but I only have the one adult and I am uncertain that she is rubromaculatum.

The reason for that imformation on rubromaculatum is do you or anybody have any information of any geographical distribution changes to ithica the furthers north I know of is in Covey Hill Que in the 30's.


Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
EntomanDecember 15th, 2012, 11:50 pm
Site Editor
Northern CA & ID

Posts: 2604
After dissecting and comparing 20+ larva I became convinced that they are rubromaculatium.

Perhaps this explains your modestum imago specimen anomaly. You mentioned not finding any nymphs but it looks like perhaps you did.:) S. rubromaculatum was synonymized with S. modestum by B & M '79 and is no longer a valid species name. If you are correct in your determination, those are probably modestum nymphs you are talking about.
"It's not that I find fishing so important, it's just that I find all other endeavors of Man equally unimportant... And not nearly as much fun!" Robert Traver, Anatomy of a Fisherman
BrookymanDecember 16th, 2012, 12:20 am
Banned
Posts: 797
Good point-out Kurt

Instead of browsing it I need to spend more time reading it. I read it, but only as I need it...Wrong approach. I read through Taxonomy and ecology front to back, back to front, to see who was mine, and who wasn't mine geographically and to get a good fondation in Maccaffertium/ Stenonema & Stenacron. And ya I guess they are modestum !!! :)

The reason I left them as robromaculatum is in regards to bio monitoring in pollution tolerance as suggested by Jeff until modestum gets a truer tolerance level set.

Now back to super cross racing the main event is coming..LOL :)

Mack.


Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
EntomanDecember 16th, 2012, 5:10 am
Site Editor
Northern CA & ID

Posts: 2604
I have collected many vicaium samples that are much darker from the same area.

Good point. There are several forms of M. vicarium including the old paler S. fuscum (Gray Fox) and the intergrade form previously known as S. rivulicolum in between them.

The reason I left them as robromaculatum is in regards to bio monitoring in pollution tolerance as suggested by Jeff until modestum gets a truer tolerance level set.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I wouldn't think that is something to worry about as they're (modestum forms) all 1's anyway according to the Chutter index which is the only one with data that covers some of the old species concepts anyway. The Hilsenhoff index was introduced after the revisions and also lacks published data on several species to boot. I think it reasonable to assume that moving forward its use will only involve the latest nomenclature so it would be impossible to extrapolate back, at least for laymen (if not the pros as well). How would one go about sorting out newly reported data using older nomenclatures? Or for that matter reinterpreting older sample data that was sorted and determined according to different species concepts? I agree it would be cool to monitor the population health of the various forms in relation to their tolerances, but I'm not sure it's possible, let alone practical on a large scale for the reasons outlined. Add to all this the reality that some of the B & M species concepts are highly unlikely to stand over time...

The good news is the bugs don't go away because their names change. A rose by any other name, right? For your purposes, I would think you could just total the historical samples from the synonymized species using the historical data gathered that utilized the Chutter scale? I assume that's what those in charge will eventually do, anyway (or something similar). That way moving forward you'll be operating with a baseline supported by data that establishes a substantially greater timeline. Sure sounds a lot easier than struggling with all the antiquated names and wrestling with contradictory or confusing data. Just my 2 cents, FWIW. :)
"It's not that I find fishing so important, it's just that I find all other endeavors of Man equally unimportant... And not nearly as much fun!" Robert Traver, Anatomy of a Fisherman
BrookymanDecember 16th, 2012, 8:06 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
HI Kurt

On a tread back I believe I listed it as " need input from the top experts" and I include you in that pile Kurt. I was asking about EBI/HBI information and I got a update there by link and listing from Luke maybe that showed modestum as being at a level 3, I could be wrong but I think that was what I saw. That is where I also talked to Jeff about the current modestum level.

Because I collected & dissected luteum , finding WAS fuscum with rubromaculatum there, they where helping me confirm the presence of the luteum by stating that the water must be fairly clean or luteum likely could not exist if it was polluted..I included was fuscum because historically fuscum has been a level 1 as well as rubro.

According to Lewis 74 and biosystematics luteum requires very clean water. That is another reason why I am looking for adult luteum's to help confirm the nymphs. I will be rearing tons of this guys this spring.

If I am wrong straighten me up. The primary reason I stand relatively frim on the levels is this. Lewis & Chutters have the true vicarium as a level 4 and was fuscum as a level 1.

Now I can totally see that other than maculation which counts for almost noting, fuscum and vicaium are identical other than setae counts being different in the mouth parts.

So how is it when they where put together that vicarium just became a level 1. What vicarium just became more tolerant in 10 years to take on fuscum's status. I am very sure that it is because more collection data has come in and generated new levels. I would have figured that over the years vicarium being basically the most common, that in the 70's the data would have been there to refect vicaium as a level 1 and not a 4.

But then again as you said they might as well all be level one..If so what is the point on doing DNA work on them if it has no real end result. All of this work to my small understanding is to put them into their concepts and utilize Ephemeroptera as water quality indicators.

OK I am now ready for my beating :) I just expanded my learning curve right Kurt :).


Mack
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
EntomanDecember 17th, 2012, 11:27 pm
Site Editor
Northern CA & ID

Posts: 2604
Well, there's a lot in your last post to address, Mack. I'll get back with you on it when time allows. No beatings, I promise.:)
"It's not that I find fishing so important, it's just that I find all other endeavors of Man equally unimportant... And not nearly as much fun!" Robert Traver, Anatomy of a Fisherman
BrookymanDecember 17th, 2012, 11:34 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
Thank you my personal mentor.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts

Quick Reply

You have to be logged in to post on the forum. It's this easy:
Username:          Email:

Password:    Confirm Password:

I am at least 13 years old and agree to the rules.

Related Discussions

TitleRepliesLast Reply
Re: Maccaffertium modestum
In the Identify This! Board by Brookyman
13Dec 15, 2012
by Brookyman
Re: Need input from the top experts please ???
In the Identify This! Board by Brookyman
13Jun 25, 2012
by Brookyman
Re: maccafertium?
In the Identify This! Board by Dryfly
17Jun 2, 2007
by Dryfly
Re: just wondering
In Maccaffertium modestum Mayfly Nymph by Brookyman
5Mar 2, 2013
by Brookyman
Re: Taxonomic ( synonym ) question.
In General Discussion by Brookyman
13Jun 6, 2013
by Brookyman
Re: Need ID help please
In the Identify This! Board by Gastriper
20Jan 13, 2015
by Taxon
Re: I think it in the Mac group ???
In the Identify This! Board by Brookyman
14Jun 21, 2012
by Brookyman
Re: Allright guys...what is it?
In the Identify This! Board by Catskilljon
19May 27, 2009
by GONZO
Re: Insect photos on CatskillFlies website
In the Mayfly Genus Ephemerella by Jpsully
4May 24, 2008
by Softhackle
Re: Size Variation in March Browns
In the Identify This! Board by Fishskicano
5May 20, 2009
by GONZO
Most Recent Posts
Re: Homage to Louis: the Davy Knot revisited
In Gear Talk by Entoman (Martinlf replied)
Re: Nymphing set up.
In Fly Tying by FC54 (Martinlf replied)
Re: Quick customer service compliment to Korkers
In Site Updates by Troutnut (Partsman replied)
Re: Stonefly?
In the Identify This! Board by Pdcox
Re: Steelhead Alley - OH & PA
In Fishing Reports by Wbranch
Re: Changing fly line
In Gear Talk by Red_green_h (RleeP replied)
Re: 1wt gear
In Gear Talk by Red_green_h