BWO (?)

[gaeronf]

These were all over the place today. Surprisingly enough, I only saw 1 fish rise the whole day. I've taken a recent interest in the bug aspect (of fly fishing). So, when I saw these flying about, I had to catch one and take a picture. It was more difficult than I originally thought. So, I was wondering, do you guys have any tips for photographing insects when they are in their adult stage? Anyway, I think this is a BWO, but would like your input. ...BWO is just an educated guess. Also, the insect in the second photo; is that a different bug?

 

[littlelehigh]

first one is a hendrickson. which a red quill pattern works great for on the LL.

Bottom one I'll guess is a BWO hard to tell it's size. Maybe it's a female henderickson IDK.

 

[gaeronf]

Ok. Do you have any tips for catching them and photographing them? I kinda got lucky with these...

 

[gaeronf]

...I guess I was really off with the BWO guess too!

 

[OldLefty]

gaeronf, I'm going to risk getting myself in trouble here. First, I believe it is most times very difficult to identify a critter by a photo; however, I will point out some characteristics of the flies you photographed and see what we've got.

Your first photo is definitely a two-tailed critter. Second, it is a male as can be determined by its large eyes. Third, the secondary wing is fairly large.

By a process of elimination we can rule out a Hendrickson spinner. Hendricksons are a three-tailed critter. We can also rule out a Baetis, or BWO, spinner, since Baetis has a very small, elongated secondary wing.

Now, here's where it gets tricky. You didn't give us any indication of size and that's very important. Without that info it becomes even more difficult. My guess - and that's all it is - is a Quill Gordon spinner, male. That would mean your critter was about a size 14 equivalent?

As for the photo of the dun it, too, is a male with those large eyes. I think I see only two tails and I think I see a very small elongated secondary wing. These are characteristic of a Baetis, or BWO. Again, you gave us no indication of size. Again, I'm guessing. That would mean your critter was about a size 18 or 20 equivalent?

 

[turkey]

I agree with oldlefty about trying to ID bugs from photos. I think its extremely difficult to wager anything more than an educated guess most of the time.

your second bug, I would also guess, is a Baetis (assuming it is the correct size). The turbinate eyes are a good clue.

Those are good pics GF.

 

[Chaz]

Neither is a hendrickson because of the tails. Like Dave said, hendricksons have three. I'm going with they are the same fly ones a dun, the second fly, the first fly is a spinner, I'll even take a stab at it being a P. Adoptiva, except that the tails point to something else. Possibly a Quill Gordon. Hard to tell without something to compare the size.

 

[sandfly]

to me after looking at some data it seems to be Ameletus ludens (Brown Dun)

 

[gaeronf]

They were both about a size 14, though the 1st was a little smaller than the 2nd, not to the extent that it was a 16 though. Also, on the 2nd fly, the eyes were noticeably larger.

 

[littlelehigh]

I'll assume these came from the LL the second was positively a BWO. The first a Red quill would work just fine and I'll agree with old lefty and sand fly on it's technical name. When I was on stream they were both coming off in good to decent numbers averaging a size 18.

 

[gaeronf]

These came from a stream in which a name will not be placed. It's not really in the area of the little lehigh.

 

[pcray1231]

2nd one not a Baetis, going to disagree with old lefty here. Blow up that pic and that is not a tiny hind wing, it's a large one. I count only 2 tails, so not Drunella either. So not a BWO.

They are also not hendricksons because they only have 2 tails, as several have said.

Amaletus fits, as Sandfly indicated. My guess is Quill Gordon, though. Epeorus pleuralis. For BOTH, just a spinner and a dun, both same species. Fits fits for size, color, wings, tails, and timing!

If so, these transform to duns on the bottom, NOT in the surface film. Thus making them a good wet fly hatch.

 

[OldLefty]

pcray, upon further scrutiny you could be right about the second one. I just flat out dislike trying to identify critters based on photos like this, especially without the photo showing a side-on view. Add to that the fact that I'd want precise, comprehensive info (size, etc.). Without all this, most times I feel like I'm "shootin' in the dark."

 

[pcray1231]

Approximate size is important, and can and should easily be added by most "ID" threads. But top-notch pictures are difficult for anyone to get streamside. So I don't get all upset if it's not a perfect picture, so long as they don't get upset if our ID's aren't!

In a picture, what the photographer should be trying to capture, as best as possible, is the main wing, the hind wing (if present), and number of tails. Those are most important to get it narrowed down to a reasonable number of possibilities. After that, color, and decent view of the body shape, tail color and striations, leg color and striations, etc, can help cement the ID. Should also add approximate size and timing, and location to the extent they are willing to divulge.

I find both pics better than average for ID purposes, and the 1st one is about as good as it gets.