Troutnut Forum

>

Fly Fishing

> Maccaffertium name change

Brookyman	January 1st, 2013, 4:28 am
Banned Posts: 797	Happy new year everybody. Lets start the year with a question I have that others likely have too. What year did the Maccaffertium name move up to genus. Or better said for all people, when was the name changed from Stenonema ??? Also where can I find that specific information or paper and who wrote it. Just curious ??? Mack.
	Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
Taxon	January 1st, 2013, 12:25 pm
Site Editor Plano, TX Posts: 1301	Hi Mack- I believe it to be: Bednarik, A.F. and W.P. McCafferty. 1979. Biosystematic revision of the genus Stenonema (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae). Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 201: 1-73 As far as I am able to determine, it is not available on the internet, even in abstract form, so I am unable to verify that belief. However, here is the link to a 1979 paper in which Bednarik proposed subgenera Stenonema and Maccaffertium for genus Stenonema: http://www.ephemeroptera-galactica.com/pubs/pub_b/pubbednarika1979p190.pdf
	Roger Rohrbeck www.FlyfishingEntomology.com
Konchu	January 1st, 2013, 1:14 pm
Site Editor Indiana Posts: 496	See Wang T-Q; McCafferty WP. 2004. Heptageniidae (Ephemeroptera) of the world. Part I: phylogenetic higher classification. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 130:11-45.
Entoman	January 1st, 2013, 6:53 pm
Northern CA & ID Posts: 2604	Brookyman - Historically, I think it went like this: 1933 - Traver establishes the genus Stenonema but notes distinct morphological differences and divides the species into three groups, interpunctatum, tripunctatum, and vicarium. 1974 - Jensen establishes the genus Stenacron and places species from Traver's interpunctaum group in this new genus. 1974 - Lewis organizes the remaining species in Stenonema into the new groups femoratum and pulchellum. 1979 - Bednarik proposes reclassifying the groups of Lewis into two subgenera: the femoratum group would become the subgenus Stenomema and the pulchellum group would become Maccaffertium, named by Bednarik in honor of McCafferty. 2004 - Wang & McCafferty present a phylogenetic classification of the family wherein Maccaffertium is listed with full generic status.
	"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
Brookyman	January 1st, 2013, 7:29 pm
Banned Posts: 797	Hi Kurt So then it is safe to say 2004 was the change to maccaffertium ??? The reason I was wondering is in may newest 2006 copy of Hatch's 2 they are still referring to all the Stenonema's as Stenonema. I would have thought that in that 2 year period that the editors would have requested the name change to Maccaffertium. For anybody not in the know that itself is a confusion for new people that buy the newest copy. That being said I would imagine that they printed it again with the changes made ??? I will thank you. Hello Roger. Actually it is I have a printed copy. I am attaching it so you can get a copy of this historically mega important documents. http://www.ephemeroptera-galactica.com/pubs/pub_b/pubbednarika1979p1.pdf That's the biosystematics 1979 that we were referring to in the other thread. Actually for anybody following this thread that would like to see excellent illustration of these species click the link and scroll to the back portion of this paper. Mack Happy new year !!! Mack.
	Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
Entoman	January 1st, 2013, 7:55 pm
Northern CA & ID Posts: 2604	I think it would be safer to say the process started after '79 and was largely accepted by 2004, at least in North America. Another thing to keep in mind is these concepts aren't rubber stamped like some kind of edict. Konchu could address this much better, but it is my understanding that with any proposed taxonomic change there is usually some debate as taxonomists mull it over. It seems it takes a little while (sometimes years:)) before concepts become generally accepted - just in time to be replaced by something even newer to confuse us poor anglers!:) (Sorry Luke, I couldn't help myself) As for hatches II, you've hit on one of the reasons why relying on angling texts for entomology is not always helpful. Going from concept to manuscript to publication is a time consuming process. They always lag behind, even if the information is correct (which is sadly often not the case). Then you have to ask, proofed by whom? Taxon did the nomenclature proofing for Schwiebert's latest edition of nymphs and it is by far the most dependable IMO, but they all contain errors to greater or lesser degree and become dated after awhile. Then you have angler entomology authors with professional biology backgrounds like Hafele and Borger that stay away from the generic and specific minefields entirely. Hmm... They must know something.:)
	"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
Brookyman	January 1st, 2013, 9:42 pm
Banned Posts: 797	Wow well said Kurt. When you said Taxon, are you meaning our "taxon-Roger" ??? Ahh Jensen 1974 started it by making Stenacron a genus so he made the snowball. Then Bednarik kicked it over the hill and the snowball just got bigger and bigger as it got to 2004..HEHE :) And then there is Jeff, Luke and others that are the new big guns on the block. I will have a complex question regarding this subject, but I am unsure how to phrase the question so my thoughts are best seen and understood. And therefore the best answer can be given. I will try to post it this week. I know the answer is out there so we'll see. Mack.
	Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
Entoman	January 1st, 2013, 9:49 pm
Northern CA & ID Posts: 2604	When you said Taxon, are you meaning our "taxon-Roger" ??? Yes. BTW - Happy New Year to you too.
	"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
Brookyman	January 1st, 2013, 10:03 pm
Banned Posts: 797	WOW that's is very cool to know..
	Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts

Quick Reply

Related Discussions

Title	Replies	Last Reply
Re: Anybody know more about Maccaffertium terminatum? In the Mayfly Species Maccaffertium terminatum by Troutnut	3	Jun 11, 2007 by Konchu
Re: Size Variation in March Browns In the Identify This! Board by Fishskicano	5	May 20, 2009 by GONZO
Re: Allright guys...what is it? In the Identify This! Board by Catskilljon	19	May 27, 2009 by GONZO
Re: M. ithaca in M. mediopunctatum section? In the Mayfly Species Maccaffertium mediopunctatum by GONZO	3	Sep 4, 2012 by Entoman
what did you do this winter (10 more) In the Photography Board by Brookyman	0
Re: Finally my "Stenonema" section isn't empty In Stenonema femoratum Mayfly Nymph by Troutnut	2	May 20, 2007 by Troutnut
Re: A few bugs from the Kinderhook Creek (NY) In the Identify This! Board by Agresens	3	Jun 27, 2018 by Konchu
Re: Not sure what this is... In the Photography Board by Freepow	3	Jun 6, 2008 by Freepow
Re: Heptagenia? In Leucrocuta hebe Mayfly Nymph by GONZO	2	Jul 19, 2011 by GONZO
Male + female ... Maccaffertium mediopunctatum adults (13 more) In the Identify This! Board by Brookyman	0

Troutnut.com is copyright © 2004-2020 Jason Neuswanger (email Jason). See my FAQ for information about use of my images. privacy policy