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

> > Maccaffertium pulchellum nymph + adult

Brookyman has attached these 11 pictures to aid in identification. The message is below.
View Full SizeView Full Size (3.3X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (2.1X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (1.8X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (3.3X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (2.3X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (1.8X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (3.7X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (1.9X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (1.2X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (2.1X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (1.6X larger)
BrookymanDecember 16th, 2012, 8:41 pm
Posts: 797

I had the privilege to "key" out this nymph here by email with Jeff as being pulchellum. Here are some photos and I think that pulchellum's are cool as heck looking.

I am including what I am hoping is a pulchellum male adult. I can't find the sample to the best of my knowledge, and I still have 200+ from spring to go through.

So tell me is the adult pulchellum ??? (: light Cahill :)

Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
BrookymanDecember 19th, 2012, 11:50 pm
Posts: 797
You guy's missed one..:)
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
EntomanDecember 20th, 2012, 6:03 am
Northern CA & ID

Posts: 2604
Sorry about that. I misunderstood and thought Jeff did this one for you. Didn't scroll down far enough to even see the adult photos. My bad.

So tell me is the adult pulchellum ?

I don't think so. Looks like a small M. ithaca to me (a different Cahill) or possibly even a small vicarium (Gray Fox) form. What size is it? Though pulchellum and mexicanum integrum are the small ones of the genus, this specimen looks to have tergal and sternal markings more in line with the "close eye" species. In any event, it is a different one from the nymphs you've attached.


On a different but related topic, close-up photos of various morphological features not part of the latest keys or descriptions, while interesting, are of little use for ID's. The characters currently most helpful for identifying adult species in this genus (at least for me) are:

Eye space & shape
Tergal and mesonotal markings
Crossvein counts in the bulla interspaces
Fore tarsal ratios

There are others as well on occasion (ventral markings, hind wing margins, tail length, stigmatic pigmentation, etc.) but the main point I want to make is the series of photos that best captures all of them are good quality ones using a mounted digital camera on macro setting, preferably of the whole undamaged critter. They can be zoomed in on with our computer screens to still show plenty of detail without losing perspective or resolution. There is no need to crop them (except for minor positioning) as no increase in resolution is obtained. In fact, cropping them to show isolated features only destroys the ability to zoom out for better perspective of the whole critter.

The microscope setups (at least the affordable ones) don't seem to be capable of taking shots that aren't a little blurred and lacking in depth of field. Glare is often an issue with them as well and they are usually too narrow in scope, if you pardon the pun. Where they come into their own is for photos of individual setae, slide mounted mouth parts and genitalia, etc.

Since you are really into the whole Stenonema group, I suggest the following adult photos whenever possible:

Dorsal (entire insect with flat wings showing thorax)
Lateral (entire insect)
Ventral (entire insect)
Frontal (this one, it pays to zoom in close)
Single wing (orientated horizontally, apex to the right, leading edge up)

The first three shots are all that's usually needed in most cases, though the latter two are nice extras. To get the whole critter and yet be close enough to get the detail, you can chop off the tails a little in the frame when you're shooting as tail length isn't much help with this genus (unless they look to be 4 to 5 times body length as in one species), but the forelegs are important, at least to get in the first two segments of the tarsi. My camera will focus as close as 1mm but a little further back allows more depth of field and much better (and all important) lighting (my biggest difficulty). If the settings, lighting and focus are right, modern digital cameras with macro capability have amazing resolution and depth of field. Most of Jason's (Troutnut) photos can be enlarged to show incredible detail.
"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 27th, 2012, 3:12 am
Posts: 797
Hi Kurt Merry Christmas

I don't think so. Looks like a small M. ithaca

I wish I could say maccaffertium ithaca cause that one does not reach my area to the best of my knowledge. If it does I would like to know.

On April 12th of this year was my very first dissection and attempt at a identification of any species. I was a total newbie this past spring and now look where I am thanks to my interest & good friends. I have slide mounted 1,247 parts of many species since April 12th and still have about 200 more samples to dissect. I have been averaging 4 to 5 boxes of slides & covers a month.

I will be like this on all genus & species. I am one of though's that has a brain that requires mass amounts of information at very high rates of speed. I started with Stenonema cause I am a "small, cold, super-fast running stream" fishermen. So I mostly only get to fish Heptageniidae & Isonychia species. Heck the last baetis hatch I fished was about 10 years ago. I do get to fish E Subvaria for a week, then its game-on. So I started with the most interesting & meaning full to me. Then I really came to know the " Steno-group" and am very intrigued by their life style physical-articulations and environments.

I am implementing a total photographic program. The camera I am using I just got in this past spring. It is a excellent 500 dollar Cannon and I now have a good handle on its capabilities and photography itself.

That is why there are OK shots then excellent photos. I am building a intense photography booth. I found out the hard way about lighting. So my goal is adjustable lighting from 5 different points. You can count on tons of really crisp detailed photos next spring. I will be so busy with these critters next spring I will have to take a leave of absence from Troutnut
from mid April to July cause all my time will be collecting rearing and photographing. I do also hope that the photos I get Jason will approve
them to add to the library here that would be very cool.

Because I took a early retirement I have everyday to devote too this hobby
of Ephemeroptera. Because it is impossible to collect every species in my area before I die, LOL I will make very detailed illustrations of all of them and all of their anatomy that are geographically mine. It was about 3 months ago I read that expert hobby entomologist have made great contributions to the professional and Government entomologist in many ways. So I figure if I am able to aid any professional program with my hobby that would be a excellent goal and a great achievement.

I will then move to caddis, but thats years down the road, for now I call all of them Elk-hairs.

Talk to you soon


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: Macro Insect Photography
In the Photography Board by DOS
2Mar 1, 2009
by Creno
Re: Stenacron Interpunctatum / canadense
In the Photography Board by Brookyman
2Jun 27, 2012
by Brookyman
Re: Gilvipes or atripes?
In Female Dicosmoecus atripes Caddisfly Adult by Entoman
7Dec 19, 2016
by Clark2016
Re: My first midge sequence attempt
(2 more)

In the Photography Board by Falsifly
4Apr 30, 2011
by Jesse
Re: caddis pupa & caddis adult for >>>> ID please <<<
(7 more)

In the Identify This! Board by Brookyman
1Aug 27, 2014
by Creno
Re: Any of you flyfishers hunt upland birds?
In General Discussion by Flyfisher06
1Apr 25, 2009
by Wiflyfisher
Re: Beatis Species Identification
In General Discussion by Stclairj
6Jan 18, 2013
by Oldredbarn
Re: Female Maccaffertium mediopunctatum + nymphs.
(4 more)

In the Identify This! Board by Brookyman
5Dec 16, 2012
by Brookyman
Re: Site updates from May 16, 2012
In Site Updates by Bnewell
3Jun 12, 2012
by Troutnut
Re: yellowish possibly night hatching mayfly
In the Identify This! Board by Aafloyd
20Nov 1, 2011
by Jmd123
Most Recent Posts
Re: Best guess at this bug. Smut (Simuliidae)
In General Discussion by Pdcox (Martinlf replied)
Re: Rio Puerco, Northern New Mexico
In Fishing Reports by Red_green_h (Troutnut replied)
Re: Tiny Black Caddis hatch, late fall - Nov 26 to be exact_ Spring Creek Southern MO
In the Caddisfly Family Hydroptilidae by Dai_sca (Pdcox replied)
Must Read This on my New Reel Purchase
In Gear Talk by 6106b
Re: Stonefly?
In the Identify This! Board by Pdcox (Taxon replied)
Re: Streamer rig set up questions
In Gear Talk by Fliesties22 (Martinlf replied)
Iowa Driftless
In General Discussion by KevinB
Re: fall bluewinged olive coloration.
In Fly Tying by Partsman
Re: Thankful
In General Discussion by Martinlf (Strmanglr replied)
Re: My (new) place and its environs
In the Photography Board by Jmd123 (Martinlf replied)