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

> > March Brown/Quill Gordon?

JohnNY has attached these 8 pictures to aid in identification. The message is below.
View Full SizeView Full Size (2.3X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (1.8X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (1.7X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (5.6X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (5.6X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (5.6X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (5.6X larger)
View Full SizeView Full Size (1.4X larger)
This last photo is the intermittent stream where these (what are they?) bugs live, breed and die.
I JUST saw that I was PM'd last JUNE asking for this photo... Sorry...
This last photo is the intermittent stream where these (what are they?) bugs live, breed and die.
I JUST saw that I was PM'd last JUNE asking for this photo... Sorry...
JohnNYJune 7th, 2013, 1:05 pm
Posts: 15I'd love any opinions(or facts) :) on this fly.
The photos were taken in Central NY. These flies were resting on the undersides of leaves above a VERY small intermittent stream.
Notice the length of the two tails.

Thanks in advance for ANY info.
John
BrookymanJune 7th, 2013, 8:41 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
Hi John I am Mack, welcome to our forum here at troutnut. My guess is they are both from the group Heptageniidae. I would say that in the common fly fishing names both are likely called March Browns. As far as their scientific name I feel comfortable call the first one Maccaffertium vicarium as for #2
I really am not real sure. But you are at the right place if you really want to learn. There are some extremely knowledgable people at the site, so I will leave the second one for the pro's. And they are both male spinners. Nice photos.


Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
JohnNYJune 8th, 2013, 12:43 am
Posts: 15Thanks for the welcome.
I appreciate your thoughts.
I'm 99% sure that these guys are brothers. Or at least cousins.
They are the same type of bug.

Could the differences you are seeing be explained in the fact that the one is JUST recently emerged from the shuck beside him while the other has been around awhile?

Could you explain your reasons why it is a March Brown and not a Quill Gordon?

Thanks!
BrookymanJune 8th, 2013, 2:29 am
Banned
Posts: 797
I will try my best.

Or at least cousins. they are relatives.

This can be a long and hard conversation from the details. The configuration of the markings on the upper abdomen on the first one are a match for the march brown. Take a peek at this one it is a freshly molted one. Looking at the thorax you will see the same marking on your.



Now in this picture of this female but you can see the abdominal marking.




Ok now the second one. On the upper side of the abdomen each segment ends with a dark very fine line across it unlike the wider bigger one of the march brown. Next is the wings. Looking closely at them see how few cross veins there are. March browns all have a fairly heavy amount of cross veins especially in the mid area as yours does. Look at the wing tips this area is called the stigma region. Notice how few there are on your second one. Next take a peek at the tails on your second one. They are very dark with very little color change in them meaning dark to light dark to light. As in the march brown.

I am at a total loss on number 2 but some one will know if I think of or find one like it I will post it for you to see. I will say I am still sure its from the Heptageniidae family.


Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
EntomanJune 10th, 2013, 3:18 pm
Site Editor
Northern CA & ID

Posts: 2604
Hi JohnNY,

Welcome to the forum. Neither are March Browns or Gordon Quills, they are Cahills. Distance between the eyes (precluding the Gordons), tergal pattern (dorsal abdomen), and wing venation point to the genus Maccaffertium in the family Heptageniidae. The first is possiblyy pudicum based on the combination of stained stigmatic region of the forewing, stained hind wing tips, and thick banded terga. The second is maybe luteum based on the sparse cross veins in the bulla region of the forewings, the absence of spiracular dots on the abdomen, and the thin posterior tergal lines. There are other species and even genera that could possibly fit, so a better look at the forelegs, forewing venation and private parts are needed to know for sure.
"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
BrookymanJune 10th, 2013, 3:26 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
Nice Kurt.

With you out of town I was just about to call on Roger for his input on the second one. You are right about the first one for sure. I didn't even put enough looking into the the heavy stigma stain, and the hind wing shading.

The tails on # 2 has keep me puzzled by being so dark and most Maccaffertium have pale yellow tails with reddish-brown articulations.


Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
EntomanJune 10th, 2013, 4:11 pm
Site Editor
Northern CA & ID

Posts: 2604
The tails on # 2 has keep me puzzled by being so dark and most Maccaffertium have pale yellow tails with reddish-brown articulations.

Yes, could be the light. Also, the costal crossveins aren't as well developed as I'm used to seeing and then there's the lack of distinct leg banding as well. Doesn't seem a good fit for the Heptagenia complex of genera, though (but could be).
"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
BrookymanJune 10th, 2013, 5:18 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
Hi Kurt

I looked at bolds website at everything Heptageniidae and nothing that looks
even close.


Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
JohnNYJune 11th, 2013, 7:40 am
Posts: 15I added a photo to my initial post that can be enlarged... if it will help.
Thanks.
BrookymanJune 11th, 2013, 1:15 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
Nice thank you.

I was really liking Kurts call of Maccaffertium luteum because it "basically" fits this one overall. But as I pointed out the tails are very dark. M luteum also has fortibia that are pale ending in darker coloring. And The tails are pale with faint articulation. So I agree that we can remove the genus Maccaffertium from this enigma or it could be a new species that morphed out of luteum. Looking at the head the eyes are very wide spread more like a female but it is a male. The rear femora are really long !!!! like too long !!! I have never seen ones that long.

I have looked at everything in the Heptageniidae family on every website I know of and I can't find anything from any genus that fits the features of this guy. So I am still at a loss for an I'D at this point. If I know Kurt he is thinking of this one right now. I will keep looking and loving the quest of this enigma.


Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
JohnNYJune 11th, 2013, 2:30 pm
Posts: 15These guys live 100 feet from my door. If you could think of any other perspectives that may help id them... suggest away. I'm limited by my camera but I can certainly try to get photos that might help. They are flitting around NOW, so time is of the essence. ;)

EntomanJune 11th, 2013, 2:53 pm
Site Editor
Northern CA & ID

Posts: 2604
Thanks for the additional photo, John. Not a Maccaffertium. I am thinking this is the heptageniid Spinadis simplex (because of the extreme eye spread and long pronotum). If I'm right, this is the first picture of a male imago I've seen. They are very rare and not well documented. Also explains why we couldn't make sense of those tails and legs, Mack.:) There is no common name for them though Cahill would fit.
"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
BrookymanJune 11th, 2013, 2:54 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
OK first true body size from front of head to end of abdomen in MM's, tail length can also be helpful. Wing length is very important.

Views prefered if your camera will capture it.

1;...a head shot it shape and details
2;...the under side of the abdomen
3;...a photo of the front legs to see the length of the different sections
4;...any close ups possible to see fine details

Capture as many as you can, males are prefered for a proper ID.

We need to see if the marking on yours are average. Most times one is identical to another sample but all insect have variability especially color. If you damage some to get the photos it is OK just get good ones
of a complete unharmed one.


Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
BrookymanJune 11th, 2013, 3:45 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
http://www.ephemeroptera-galactica.com/pubs/pub_m/pubmccaffertyw1985p1.pdf

This is the best description I can find so far on Spinadis simplex formerly Anepeorus simplex.

From what I read there are only two species this one and S rusticus which apparently hatches mid July to very early August making your likely S simplex.

Spinadis simplex from what I read is devoid of maculation and there is no mention of the transverse tergal bandings that this one has. I have not be able to locate one photo of Spinadis simplex on the internet.

S rusticus also has eyes that are closer together by less than half the width of the ocelli S simplex are listed as wide spread like we see in this sample. Kurt you are right one the money on S simplex. BUT what is with the tergal bands that are so defined.

A photo of a female spinner especially right between the forewings
and right behind the head. Jeff mentions a transverse structure on the
mesonotum that is figured as # 115 page 36 of Heptageniidae of the world part #2.

http://www.ephemeroptera-galactica.com/pubs/pub_w/pubwebbj2008p1.pdf


Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
CrepuscularJune 11th, 2013, 4:21 pm
Boiling Springs, PA

Posts: 917
Spinadis simplex is pretty small, and I think they are a big river species. What was the approx. size of this one?
BrookymanJune 11th, 2013, 4:35 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
Hi Eric we don't know yet. But looking at the leaf the M pudicum is on which looks like the one sample 2 is on. So would think around the 8 mm range as a guess by the size of center vein of the leaf.

Looking at the map in Jeffs document Hept II that area where John is is also not in the geographical range of S spinadis.

Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
EntomanJune 11th, 2013, 6:28 pm
Site Editor
Northern CA & ID

Posts: 2604
Rusticus is in the different genus Anepeorus. It is a much darker fly with a pointed snout and eyes closer set. Simplex was reassigned it's own genus quite awhile back. Both genera are monotypical, which is the only reason I mentioned species. If memory serves, Flowers in one of her papers mentions that the long prothorax of S. simplex in conjunction with the wide eye set is quite unique and should be diagnostic. I can't open the doc Mack attached on my road setup, but if I remember it, there's not much mention of maculation other than a few females or ones soaked in alcohol for a very, VERY long time.:) As for size, I seem to remember that they are in the 8mm range? I also remember they like deep moving water (over 4 - 5 ft. deep) with heavy trash like logs and stuff.

I could be all wet of course, but it's fun to speculate.:)
"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
BrookymanJune 11th, 2013, 9:12 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
Ah yes Kurt I missed the separation of the genus. In that McCafferty paper it also mention the longer prothorax.

I could be all wet of course, but it's fun to speculate.:)

Thats the fun of learning and sharing.


Mack.
Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
JohnNYJune 11th, 2013, 9:54 pm
Posts: 15If 4-5 feet of water is a prerequisite... they are NOT S.Simplex...
Although these guys are 9mm, they are living in inches of water!
And as I think I stated in the initial post, where I find these guys every year... is an intermittent stream. It has surface flow, reliably from Spring thaw through June. But then it's a crapshoot. It "flows" but not surface flow. It stays WET...lol.

It has at least three different mayflies, three different stones and at least one caddis...

I'm working on more photos...

Thanks again guys...
BrookymanJune 11th, 2013, 10:18 pm
Banned
Posts: 797
From the science literature that I have read through today the body size is 6-7 mm , and the forewing is 7.4-9.5 for a male sample all according to McCafferty.

Sometime they can be found in other waters its just the prefered water that Kurt was mentioning. However with the larger size, not the geographical range, having transverse bands and not the prefered waters type. I would say that is likely not s simplex. I does bare a huge resemblance to it and may still be related to that species. As global warming comes further into play many things are changing and new species, and moving species are becoming common place. Figuring this one may take some real time.

So back to where I was in the beginning "I am at a loss for this one".

WE need Gonzo here !!! Did he take up water skiing too..:-)

Mack.

Banned for threatening another user and then trying to circumvent a kinder "soft" ban with fake accounts
Page:123

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: Timpanoga?
In the Identify This! Board by CalebBoyle
3Apr 5, 2008
by Troutnut
Re: A little somethin somethin
In the Identify This! Board by DayTripper
4Jun 10, 2013
by Oldredbarn
Re: MR, G Kurt , and anybody else my Pudicum enigma
(4 more)

In the Photography Board by Brookyman
4Jun 22, 2012
by Brookyman
Not Stenacron, probably Leucrocuta
In Male Leucrocuta hebe Mayfly Spinner by GONZO
0
Re: Help identifying?
In the Identify This! Board by Doublezz105
3Jul 9, 2007
by Taxon
Re: Insect photos on CatskillFlies website
In the Mayfly Genus Ephemerella by Jpsully
4May 24, 2008
by Softhackle
>> molting in my rearing tank.<<
In the Photography Board by Brookyman
0
Re: Heptagenia?
In the Identify This! Board by Orvisman
1Aug 26, 2018
by Martinlf
Caddisflies in the Ontario area list needed Just the very most important ones
In General Discussion by Brookyman
0
Re: Spinner?
In Male Neoleptophlebia heteronea Mayfly Adult by Martinlf
1May 19, 2012
by Taxon
Most Recent Posts
Brand new member, fly fisherman, and boat coveter
In General Discussion by Stickstring
Re: Hesperoperla or Calineuria
In Male Calineuria californica Stonefly Adult by Millcreek
Quick evening trip to the South Fork Snoqualmie
In Site Updates by Troutnut
Re: Fishing with My Nephew: Sixth Annual Trip
In Fishing Reports by Martinlf (Partsman replied)
Re: Spinadis simplex
In Female Heptageniidae Mayfly Dun by Taxon (Troutnut replied)
Re: Neoleptophlebia
In Neoleptophlebia Mayfly Dun by Millcreek (Troutnut replied)
Neoleptophlebia
In Neoleptophlebia Mayfly Nymph by Millcreek
Neoleptoptphlebia
In Neoleptophlebia Mayfly Nymph by Millcreek
Neoleptophlebia
In Neoleptophlebia Mayfly Nymph by Millcreek
Hesperoperla pacifica
In Hesperoperla pacifica Stonefly Nymph by Millcreek