Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2)


Re: One from last year

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13404
Offline
Agree with you on the naming of E. Vitreus. Pink Lady is what I've most often heard as the common name. And when people say sulfur, I usually make a point to correct it, because I think it's against better judgement to overuse the sulphur name, as there are important differences between types of yellowish bugs.

But I still struggle to call the OP's bug E. Vitreus. Wings is my holdup, I'm still calling that mottled, whereas E. Vitreus is a plain wing. Perhaps I'm overweighting the darkened cross veins. But if I saw that onstream, I'd call it a cahill every time (as in the cahills within the maccaffertium genus). If I didn't call it a cahill, I'd most likely mis-ID it as a March Brown, which is also in the maccaffertium genus. I could probably be convinced otherwise, but I'm really struggling to take it out of maccaffertium.

Posted on: 2012/4/18 22:24

Edited by pcray1231 on 2012/4/18 23:14:04


Re: One from last year
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 7011
Online
Chaz,

explain why the fly pictured above has mottled wings yet no Epeorus have mottled wings.

I've seen pink cahills on penns.....Barred legs, two tails, mottled wings and a rosey-pink cast to the body with a nearly chartreuse blotch on the underside of the thorax. I thought I must have dropped acid. I called it a pink cahill here and got chastized for making up new fly names. Nevertheless, all trilogy of indicators pointed to Stenonema (prior to the lumping into Maccaffertium with the Epeorus)

Why Epeorus is lumped into there I have no idea.....The wings are not mottled in the E-genus.

Anyway, The fly pictured cannot be Epeorus because fo the wings....it could be a pink lady (cahill) but the color is wrong IMHO. So it must be a cream or Light Cahill. I stick with cream.

TN also has the Pink Lady listed as a Epeorus albertae. But again no mottled wings and the body does not have defined segmentation with contrasting color.

Posted on: 2012/4/18 22:47
_________________
Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?


Re: One from last year

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13404
Offline
Maurice, I'm agreeing with you on the ID of this critter for the same reasons. I also agree that I'd resist calling anything in epeorus genus a cahill of any sort, the name "cahill" should be reserved for the true cahills in the maccaffertium genus. I resist calling them sulfur's for the same reason, that name should be reserved for true sulfur's in the ephemerella genus.

I hate all this cross pollination of common names with different genuses, which confuses people and makes people think VERY different bugs are the same bugs. I realize you can't call any of it "wrong" as there is no accepted convention for common names. If it were up to me I'd split up the common name BWO about 4 ways too. Heck as it is, that one covers several FAMILIES, not just different genuses.

But there's a thing or two in your post that I'm not making sense of. We'll start with this.

Quote:
prior to the lumping into Maccaffertium with the Epeorus


Did I miss something? To my knowledge, maccaffertium and epeorus remain very separate genus's. And as you pointed out, the easiest marker to tell between them is mottled wings of maccaffertium vs. plain wings in epeorus.

Posted on: 2012/4/18 23:09


Re: One from last year
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 7011
Online
No you are right Pcray...I mis-spoke. I meant the family Heptageniidae. I actually typed that and then posted, read your post and saw you said Maccaffertium and went back and changed it. because your post mirrored mine I thought I typed the wrong word.

Anyway, I was up late, sorting through all this and I think they just don't belong together. You watch, someday they will put it all back and we can.


Posted on: 2012/4/19 8:17
_________________
Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?


Re: One from last year

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13404
Offline
I think that the cahills and the March Browns do indeed belong in the same genus. What you call that genus I don't really care.

Posted on: 2012/4/19 8:29


Re: One from last year

Joined:
2006/9/13 12:37
Posts: 496
Offline
All cahills are tied with wood duck, ie, mottled wings, hence the name pink cahill. I didn't name the fly and it very well be call something different today than it was when I first identified it many years ago. These things change as we all know and what was once a stenonema is now something entirely different because some biologist want's his name on it.
I is not a sulphur and it is E, Vitreus. That has been the latin name for a long while. The 2 pics are nearly identical.

Posted on: 2012/4/19 10:03


Re: One from last year
Webmaster
Joined:
2006/9/8 9:35
Posts: 4450
Offline
I am with Maurice and pcray1231 on this one. The wings are not plain they are molted. Epeorus vitreus has plain wings.


Posted on: 2012/4/19 14:13


Re: One from last year

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13404
Offline
We need a sandfly tiebreaker here.

Posted on: 2012/4/19 18:38


Re: One from last year

Joined:
2006/9/13 22:36
From Tioga co. formerly of bucks co.
Posts: 5478
Offline
HEPTAGENIIDAE Stenacron heterotarsale ORANGE CAHILL F (body)ORANGE YELLOWISH (wing)YELLOW,VIENED (legs)MOTTLED YELLOW size12-14 8-10 East/midwest (tails)2

taken from our data

Posted on: 2012/4/24 16:02
_________________
sandfly

So many Fish, So little time !!!
from the outer edge of nowhere
fly tying and fishing ghillie..
https://www.facebook.com/BigMeadowsFlyShop




Re: One from last year

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13404
Offline
I could easily go with that. I still like Maccaffertium because of the wing veining/mottling is more severe than the pictures I'm looking at. Nonetheless, stenacron DOES have mottled wings, unlike eporeus. It fits.

By the way, I should apologize for an earlier mispost. It was Stenenoma, not Stenacron, that largely dissolved. There is only 1 species left in Stenenoma. All of the rest were moved, either to Maccafertium, or to Stenacron. Sandfly's suggestion is one of the ones that moved to Stenacron, whereas Maurice and I suggested one of the ones that moved to Maccafertium.

But the species name is no longer heterotarsale, it's now interpunctatum, lol.

Posted on: 2012/4/24 16:48


Re: One from last year
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22213
Offline
I have three or four cahills that will cover this as well as a sulfur or two and even a light hendrickson. Plus some enourmous BWOs in light olive, oh and some Yellow Drake cripples.

Carry on.

Posted on: 2012/4/24 17:05
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank



« 1 (2)



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes
No
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll will close at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com