DOCSLIB.ORG

Caddisfly Larvae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Caddisfly Larvae MODULE 2: RAPID IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES (AND RECOGNITION OF DISTINCTIVE TAXA) - BY RICHARD CHADD Introduction to this module While some species need a bit of work (and time) to identify, there are a great many which are instantly recognisable, or, with a quick check with a microscope or hand lens, can be identified in a trice. The Water Stick Insect, Ranatra linearis (Linn.) (Heteroptera: Nepidae), pictured on the left, looks like no other British insect from either the terrestrial or aquatic environment. There is really no excuse to stop at Family level if you come across one. The purpose of this module is, therefore, to give you some guidelines to allow you to recognise where you can get the 'easy wins' - taxa which need not result in additional time for analysis to species level. Ultimately, it would be a benefit to the environment to do everything you can to the lowest possible level, but of course, time can be an issue. The module is manifestly not designed to be an identification guide. It aims to tell you which taxa are worth a quick stab at (and which are not) and which features you need to look at to undertake either recognition or swift identification. You're expected to do some work. For example, you might take, say, a leech and give it the once over, to decide if you can easily identify it and, if you can, which feature(s) you need to look at to tell you what it is. This module gives you the starting-point to make this assessment - the actual identification is up to you. It isn't comprehensive: some, more tricky families (e.g. hydrobiid gastropods) are left out. Anything not mentioned in this module will be covered in the relevant taxon-specific module (Module 10, in the case of Hydrobiidae). You'll need access to much of the mandatory literature outlined in the introductory leaflet (the ones with asterisks against them) to do this. The relevant guide is referenced at the beginning of each section. Module 2: Version 1, April 2007 (Richard Chadd) Page 2 of 41 INTRODUCTION CONTINUED Within each section, there are mandatory exercises, which will be marked by your tutor. You can submit them by printing out this workbook and filling in the appropriate spaces by hand (but please add your name to the front of the workbook), or you can use the template appended to the introductory part and send completed exercises by email. There are also occasional self- assessment exercises, which are not mandatory and do not contribute to your certification, but may be helpful in understanding a principle or technique. The module is loosely arranged in taxonomic order, starting with the 'lower' taxa (flatworms, leeches, etc.) and moving up through the Orders of arthropods. This module contributes the second 50% of the mark towards the ‘Basic Level’ of certification. Module 2: Version 1, April 2007 (Richard Chadd) Page 3 of 41 SECTION 1: FLATWORMS, LEECHES AND GASTROPOD MOLLUSCS For this section, you'll need a copy of the FBA guides to (1) triclads (Reynoldson & Young, 2000), (2) leeches (Elliott & Mann, 1979) and (3) gastropods (Macan, 1977). The "Illustrated Guide to Molluscs" (Janus, 1965) would be extremely helpful, too (see introductory leaflet, pages 5 and 6). There are only 12 species of freshwater triclads found in Britain and Ireland, which makes species-level identification a reasonably straightforward proposition. When you consider that two of them (Bdellocephala and Phagocata woodworthi Hyman) are rather rare and two (P.vitta (Dugès) and Crenobia) are stenotherms - restricted to cool waters in uplands and close to springheads - the job becomes that little bit easier. You're unlikely, for example, to find P.woodworthi outside of Loch Ness or either of the stenotherms in a large river in the lowlands. Virtually all of the triclads can be separated with ease just by looking at: 1. Eyes (number, arrangement/position and separation); 2. General colour (and distribution of pigment, if any); 3. Shape (including possession of 'tentacles'). The only major sticking point comes in identifying Polycelis nigra (O.F. Müller) and P.tenuis Ijima, in which you cannot rely upon colour for separation of the two species. But all members of the Genus: Polycelis have multiple eyes arranged in a border around the 'head' (all of the other triclads have two) and P.felina has tentacles on its 'head'. So, identification of the latter and separation of the co-operating taxon group of P.nigra/ tenuis from all of the other triclads is easy. So, check the eyes, then the colour, then see if it has tentacles on its head and/or what general shape it is. Comparing against the pictures in the front of the FBA guide may well crack it for you. It may be wise to make a quick reference to the key just to make sure. You can confuse Planaria torva (O.F. Müller) with one of the larger Dugesia, or a small Dendrocoelum with P.vitta unless you follow the key feature on degree of separation of the eyes. Live material is much easier to identify, but there is a key you can apply to preserved triclads on page 48 of the FBA guide. Module 2: Version 1, April 2007 (Richard Chadd) Page 4 of 41 EXERCISE 1: IDENTIFY A TRICLAD This mandatory exercise is worth 5 points. Find a triclad of any family (Planariidae, Dugesiidae or Denrocoelidae). This should preferably be a live one - you'll find identification much easier. In the space below, either attach a photograph (or more than one, if necessary) or make a sketch of your specimen. The sketch needn't be of the whole animal, just the diagnostic features, if you wish. Write down which species you think it is (or species group in the case of P.nigra/tenuis). Also write down why you believe it to be this species (your 'diagnosis'), with arrows pointing to the relevant bits if you feel it necessary to do so. Complete exercise 1 in the space below or use the template appended to the introductory leaflet. Mark = / 5 Module 2: Version 1, April 2007 (Richard Chadd) Page 5 of 41 SECTION 1: CONTINUED There are 16 species of leech known to be resident in British freshwaters. Like the triclads, this is not an especially scary number to deal with. Unlike the triclads, however, some of them are not especially easy. The five species in F: Erpobdellidae can be tricky, so are not covered in this module (but will be in Module 3). On the other hand, the members of F: Glossiphoniidae (especially the common ones) are really very easy to recognise. There is only one species in F: Piscicolidae, so identify the family and you've got the species. Which leaves two species of F: Hirudinidae, which are also pretty straightforward. As with triclads, start with the eyes. Count them and note the arrangement. • Eight eyes in four ranks of two, arranged so that a line through them makes a double chevron (like a Citröen badge) is an erpobdellid. Note the family and stop. • Eight in a ring around the head is one of two hirudinids. • Six or eight eyes in two (roughly) parallel lines down the middle is one of five glossiphoniids. In this arrangement, only Theromyzon tessulatum (O.F. Müller) has eight eyes. • Four eyes is Piscicola geometra (Linn.) if they are in a square pattern, or Hemiclepsis marginata (O.F. Müller) (F: Glossiphoniidae) if the front two are closer together than the rear two • Two eyes is one of two glossiphoniids. Now look at the colour (this may change on preserved material, so be careful). • Hirudinidae: Hirudo has two big red lines on the dorsal surface (it's also a Red Data/BAP species, so a "yahoo!" moment if you find it!), Haemopis is uniform grey/black. • Six-eyed glossiphoniid: Glossiphonia heteroclita (Linn.) is bright amber or pinkish - almost invisible on a white background (and the front pair of its six eyes are closer together than the other four). Is it firm, like a wine gum, or soft and squashy, like a jelly tot? This may be easier to tell in a live specimen • A firm beast, with six eyes, is G.complanata (Linn.). The remaining two squashy glossiphoniids require examination for papillae on the dorsal surface (this will be covered in Module 3). N.B. Theromyzon is also squashy. Does it have a callosity, like a tiny, hard 'plate' just behind the two eyes? • Yes? It's Helobdella stagnalis (Linn.). Module 2: Version 1, April 2007 (Richard Chadd) Page 6 of 41 SECTION 1: CONTINUED In the four glossiphoniids with six eyes, the eyes may (rarely) be fused, and there is also a rare 2-eyed species - Haementeria costata (Fr. Müller) - so be careful! Module 2: Version 1, April 2007 (Richard Chadd) Page 7 of 41 EXERCISE 2: IDENTIFY A LEECH This mandatory exercise is worth 5 points. Find a leech of any family except Erpobdellidae. In the space below, either attach a photograph (more than one, if necessary) or make a sketch of your specimen. The sketch needn't be of the whole animal, just the diagnostic features, if you wish. Write down which species you think it is. Also write down why you believe it to be this species (your 'diagnosis'), with arrows pointing to the relevant bits if you feel it necessary. Complete exercise 2 in the space below or use the template appended to the introductory leaflet Mark = / 5 Module 2: Version 1, April 2007 (Richard Chadd) Page 8 of 41 SECTION 1: CONTINUED There are over 40 species of gastropod mollusc in fresh or brackish waters in Britain.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Water Beetles
    Ireland Red List No. 1 Water beetles Ireland Red List No. 1: Water beetles G.N. Foster1, B.H. Nelson2 & Á. O Connor3 1 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ 2 Department of Natural Sciences, National Museums Northern Ireland 3 National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government Citation: Foster, G. N., Nelson, B. H. & O Connor, Á. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 1 – Water beetles. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Cover images from top: Dryops similaris (© Roy Anderson); Gyrinus urinator, Hygrotus decoratus, Berosus signaticollis & Platambus maculatus (all © Jonty Denton) Ireland Red List Series Editors: N. Kingston & F. Marnell © National Parks and Wildlife Service 2009 ISSN 2009‐2016 Red list of Irish Water beetles 2009 ____________________________ CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 3 NOMENCLATURE AND THE IRISH CHECKLIST................................................................................................ 3 COVERAGE .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Data Quality, Performance, and Uncertainty in Taxonomic Identification for Biological Assessments
    J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2008, 27(4):906–919 Ó 2008 by The North American Benthological Society DOI: 10.1899/07-175.1 Published online: 28 October 2008 Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in taxonomic identification for biological assessments 1 2 James B. Stribling AND Kristen L. Pavlik Tetra Tech, Inc., 400 Red Brook Blvd., Suite 200, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-5159 USA Susan M. Holdsworth3 Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Mail Code 4503T, Washington, DC 20460 USA Erik W. Leppo4 Tetra Tech, Inc., 400 Red Brook Blvd., Suite 200, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-5159 USA Abstract. Taxonomic identifications are central to biological assessment; thus, documenting and reporting uncertainty associated with identifications is critical. The presumption that comparable results would be obtained, regardless of which or how many taxonomists were used to identify samples, lies at the core of any assessment. As part of a national survey of streams, 741 benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected throughout the eastern USA, subsampled in laboratories to ;500 organisms/sample, and sent to taxonomists for identification and enumeration. Primary identifications were done by 25 taxonomists in 8 laboratories. For each laboratory, ;10% of the samples were randomly selected for quality control (QC) reidentification and sent to an independent taxonomist in a separate laboratory (total n ¼ 74), and the 2 sets of results were compared directly. The results of the sample-based comparisons were summarized as % taxonomic disagreement (PTD) and % difference in enumeration (PDE). Across the set of QC samples, mean values of PTD and PDE were ;21 and 2.6%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • ( ) Hydropsychidae (Insecta: Trichoptera) As Bio-Indicators Of
    ว.วิทย. มข. 40(3) 654-666 (2555) KKU Sci. J. 40(3) 654-666 (2012) แมลงน้ําวงศ!ไฮดรอบไซคิดี้ (อันดับไทรคอบเทอร-า) เพื่อเป2นตัวบ-งชี้ทางชีวภาพของคุณภาพน้ํา Hydropsychidae (Insecta: Trichoptera) as Bio-indicators of Water QuaLity แตงออน พรหมมิ1 บทคัดยอ การประเมินคุณภาพน้ําในแมน้ําและลําธารควรที่จะมีการใชปจจัยทางกายภาพ เคมีและชีวภาพควบคูกัน ไป ปจจัยทางชีวภาพที่มีศักยภาพในการประเมินคุณภาพน้ําในแหลงน้ําคือกลุมสัตว+ไมมีกระดูกสันหลังขนาดใหญที่ อาศัยอยูตามพื้นทองน้ํา โดยเฉพาะแมลงน้ําอันดับไทรคอบเทอรา ซึ่งเป3นกลุมสัตว+ที่มีความหลากหลายมากกลุม หนึ่งในแหลงน้ํา ระยะตัวออนของแมลงกลุมนี้ทุกชนิดอาศัยอยูในแหลงน้ํา เป3นองค+ประกอบหลักในแหลงน้ําและ เป3นตัวหมุนเวียนสารอาหารในแหลงน้ํา ระยะตัวออนของแมลงน้ํากลุมนี้จะตอบสนองตอปจจัยของสภาพแวดลอม ในแหลงน้ําทุกรูปแบบ ระยะตัวเต็มวัยอาศัยอยูบนบกบริเวณตนไมซึ่งไมไกลจากแหลงน้ํามากนัก หากินเวลา กลางคืน ความรูทางดานอนุกรมวิธานและชีววิทยาไมวาจะเป3นระยะตัวออนหรือตัวเต็มวัยของแมลงน้ําอันดับไทร คอบเทอราในประเทศแถบยุโรปตะวันตกและอเมริกาเหนือสามารถวินิจฉัยไดถึงระดับชนิด โดยเฉพาะแมลงน้ํา วงศ+ไฮดรอบไซคิดี้ มีการประยุกต+ใชในการติดตามตรวจสอบทางชีวภาพของคุณภาพน้ํา เนื่องจากชนิดของตัวออน แมลงน้ําวงศ+นี้มีความทนทานตอมลพิษในชวงกวางมากกวาแมลงน้ําชนิดอื่น ๆ 1สายวิชาวิทยาศาสตร+ คณะศิลปศาสตร+และวิทยาศาสตร+ มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร+ วิทยาเขตกําแพงแสน จ.นครปฐม 73140 E-mail: [email protected] บทความ วารสารวิทยาศาสตร+ มข. ปQที่ 40 ฉบับที่ 3 655 ABSTRACT Assessment on rivers and streams water quality should incorporate aspects of chemical, physical, and biological. Of all the potential groups of freshwater organisms that have been considered for
    [Show full text]
  • Chalk Rivers: Nature Conservation and Management
    Chalk rivers: nature conservation and management Item Type monograph Authors Mainstone, C.P. Publisher English Nature and Environment Agency Download date 03/10/2021 21:57:44 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/27247 C halk rivers nature conservation and m anagem ent Chalk rivers nature conservation and management March 1999 C P Mainstone Water Research Centre Produced on behalf of English Nature and the Environment Agency (English Nature contract number FIN/8.16/97-8) Chalk rivers - nature conservation and management Contributors: N T Holmes Alconbury Environmental Consultants - plants P D Armitage Institute of Freshwater Ecology - invertebrates A M Wilson, J H Marchant, K Evans British Trust for Ornithology - birds D Solomon - fish D Westlake - algae 2 Contents Background 8 1. Introduction 9 2. Environmental characteristics of chalk rivers 12 2.1 Characteristic hydrology 12 2.2 Structural development and definition of reference conditions for conservation management 12 2.3 Characteristic water properties 17 3. Characteristic wildlife communities of chalk rivers 20 3.1 Introduction 20 3.2 Higher plants 25 3.3 Algae 35 3.4 Invertebrates 40 3.5 Fish 47 3.6 Birds 53 3.7 Mammals 58 4. Habitat requirements of characteristic wildlife communities 59 4.1 Introduction 59 4.2 Higher plants 59 4.3 Invertebrates 64 4.4 Fish 70 4.5 Birds 73 4.6 Mammals 79 4.7 Summary of the ecological requirements of chalk river communities 80 5. Human activities and their impacts 83 5.1 The inherent vulnerability of chalk rivers 83 5.2 An inventory of activities and their links to ecological impact 83 5.3 Channel modifications and river/floodplain consequences 89 5.4 Low flows 92 5.5 Siltation 95 5.6 Nutrient enrichment 101 5.7 Hindrances to migration 109 5.8 Channel maintenance 109 5.9 Riparian management 115 5.10 Manipulation of fish populations 116 5.11 Bird species of management concern 119 5.12 Decline of the native crayfish 120 5.13 Commercial watercress beds as a habitat 121 5.14 Spread of non-native plant species 121 3 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stoneflies (Plecoptera) of the Netherlands
    Me thods and results of EIS mappi ng schemes i n the Net herlands, J. van To l & P. J . van Helsdi ngen (Eds) Ni euwsbrief Eur opean Invertebrate Survey - Nederlan d , 10 (1981) : 73-77 . THE STONEFLIES (PLECOPTERA) OF THE NETHERLANDS E .E.C.M. Claess e n s Rijksmuseum van Natuurli jke Historie, Leiden * Introduction springs, brooks and r i vers, but some live on the shores of lakes. The order occurs world- wide , but Recently I have ma de a survey of the Dutch spe­ is exclud ed from the tropics. The species diver­ cies of stoneflies (Pl ecoptera). This study was sity is greatest in the temperate regi ons . started because we had the impression that the The most important factors influencing distri­ number of species of this insect order had de­ bution are stream velocity, altitude , substratum, clined severel y in the course of this century, chemi cal composition of the water, temporal while some of the remai n i ng species had become drying out of the habitat and the abil ity to much restricted in t heir dist ributi ons. Theim­ colonize (e. g . Hynes 1941). The water movement portant changes i n abundance and distribution influences the oxygen content and substratum; we re e xpected to be related with the severe de­ altitude the temperature of the water. terioration of the environment, especially during the more r e cent decades. The aim of the present The imagines of most species emerge earl y in study was to describe the pre s e nt situation for spring, but some emerge only in autumn.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Larva of Philopotamus Achemenus Schmid 1959 (Trichoptera: Philopotamidae) and a Larval Key for Species of Philopotamus in Greece
    Zootaxa 3815 (3): 428–434 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3815.3.8 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7F045CE9-D24B-4AB8-ACA1-234C380A6FCE Description of the larva of Philopotamus achemenus Schmid 1959 (Trichoptera: Philopotamidae) and a larval key for species of Philopotamus in Greece IOANNIS KARAOUZAS Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, 46.7km Athens-Sounio Av., Anavis- sos 19013, Greece. E-mail: [email protected]; Phone number: +30 22910 76391; Fax: +30 22910 76419 Abstract The larva of Philopotamus achemenus is described for the first time. The diagnostic features of the species are described and illustrated and some information regarding its ecology and world distribution is included. Furthermore, its morpho- logical characters are compared and contrasted in an identification key for larvae of the Greek species of Philopotamus. Key words: Caddisfly, taxonomy, identification, larva, distribution Introduction The family Philopotamidae in Greece is represented by the genera Chimarra Stephens 1829, Philopotamus Stephens 1829, and Wormaldia McLachlan 1865. The genus Philopotamus in Greece is represented by 3 species (Malicky 1993, 2005): P. montanus (Donovan 1813), P. variegatus (Scopoli 1763) and P. achemenus Schmid 1959. Philopotamus montanus is commonly distributed throughout Europe, extending to northwestern Russia (Malicky 1974, 2004; Pitsch 1987), while P. variegatus is widely distributed in central and southern Europe and the Anatolian Peninsula (Gonzalez et al. 1992; Sipahiler & Malicky 1987; Sipahiler 2012). Both species can be found in Greek mountainous running waters and their distribution extends throughout the country, including several islands (i.e., Euboea, Crete, Samos; Malicky 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Ecology of the Stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Flanders
    Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim. 2008, 44 (3), 203 - 213 Distribution and ecology of the stonefl ies (Plecoptera) of Flanders (Belgium) K. Lock, P.L.M. Goethals Ghent University, Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology, J. Plateaustraat 22, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Based on a literature survey and the identifi cation of all available collection material from Flanders, a checklist is presented, distribution maps are plotted and the relationship between the occurrence of the different species and water characteristics is analysed. Of the sixteen stonefl y species that have been recorded, three are now extinct in Flanders (Isogenus nubecula, Taen- iopteryx nebulosa and T. schoenemundi), while the remaining species are rare. The occurrence of stonefl ies is almost restricted to small brooks, while observations in larger watercourses are almost lacking. Although a few records may indicate that some larger watercourses have recently been recolonised, these observations consisted of single specimens and might be due to drift. Most stonefl y population are strongly isolated and therefore extremely vulnerable. Small brooks in the Campine region (northeast Flanders), which are characterised by a lower pH and a lower conductivity, contained a different stonefl y community than the small brooks in the rest of Flanders. Leuctra pseudosignifera, Nemoura marginata and Protonemura intricata are mainly found in small brooks in the loamy region, Amphinemura standfussi, Isoperla grammatica, Leuctra fusca, L. hippopus, N. avicularis and P. meyeri mainly occur in small Campine brooks, while L. nigra, N. cinerea and Nemurella pictetii can be found in both types. Nemoura dubitans can typically be found in stagnant water fed with freatic water.
    [Show full text]
  • New Species and Records of Balkan Trichoptera III
    097_132_Balkan_Trichoptera_III_Olah.qxd 1/29/2015 12:22 PM Page 97 FOLIA HISTORICO-NATURALIA MUSEI MATRAENSIS 2014 38: 97–131 New species and records of Balkan Trichoptera III. JÁNOS OLÁH & TIBOR KOVÁCS ABSTRACT: We report 113 caddisfly species from Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. Ten new species are described: Wormaldia busa Oláh sp. n., W. daga Oláh sp. n., W. graeca Oláh sp. n., W. homora Oláh sp. n., Tinodes karpathos Oláh sp. n., Hydropsyche sarnas Oláh sp. n., Annitella jablanicensis Oláh sp. n., Allogamus zugor Oláh sp. n., Potamophylax alsos Oláh sp. n., and Beraea gurba Oláh sp. n. Two unknown females are described: Potamophylax kesken Oláh, 2012, and P. tagas Oláh et Kovács, 2012. The Potamophylax tagas species cluster is revised by fine structure analysis of the cluster divergence, including cluster history, probable speciation, divergence between sibling pairs, as well as gonopod, paramer, aedeagus, and vaginal sclerite divergences. Introduction Data and information on the Balkan Trichoptera, especially from Albania, Macedonia Monte- negro and Serbia is still very limited in spite of the very high diversity in these countries. High elevation habitats in several mountain ranges are significant endemic hotspots. Our annual field work, although very limited, is producing every year new distributional data and new species (OLÁH 2010, 2011; OLÁH & KOVÁCS 2012a,b, 2013; OLÁH et al. 2012, 2013a,b, 2014). Both spring and autumnal collecting trips were financed by The Sakertour Eastern Europe, the Birdwatching and Hide Photography Company of the Carpathian Basin and Danube Delta. We have applied the collecting, processing, clearing, cleaning and drawing methods described by OLÁH (2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 1 Table 1. Current Taxonomic Keys and the Level of Taxonomy Routinely U
    Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Table 1. Current taxonomic keys and the level of taxonomy routinely used by the Ohio EPA in streams and rivers for various macroinvertebrate taxonomic classifications. Genera that are reasonably considered to be monotypic in Ohio are also listed. Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Species Pennak 1989, Thorp & Rogers 2016 Porifera If no gemmules are present identify to family (Spongillidae). Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Cnidaria monotypic genera: Cordylophora caspia and Craspedacusta sowerbii Platyhelminthes Class (Turbellaria) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nemertea Phylum (Nemertea) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Phylum (Nematomorpha) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nematomorpha Paragordius varius monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Ectoprocta monotypic genera: Cristatella mucedo, Hyalinella punctata, Lophopodella carteri, Paludicella articulata, Pectinatella magnifica, Pottsiella erecta Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Polychaeta Class (Polychaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Annelida Oligochaeta Subclass (Oligochaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Hirudinida Species Klemm 1982, Klemm et al. 2015 Anostraca Species Thorp & Rogers 2016 Species (Lynceus Laevicaudata Thorp & Rogers 2016 brachyurus) Spinicaudata Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Williams 1972, Thorp & Rogers Isopoda Genus 2016 Holsinger 1972, Thorp & Rogers Amphipoda Genus 2016 Gammaridae: Gammarus Species Holsinger 1972 Crustacea monotypic genera: Apocorophium lacustre, Echinogammarus ischnus, Synurella dentata Species (Taphromysis Mysida Thorp & Rogers 2016 louisianae) Crocker & Barr 1968; Jezerinac 1993, 1995; Jezerinac & Thoma 1984; Taylor 2000; Thoma et al. Cambaridae Species 2005; Thoma & Stocker 2009; Crandall & De Grave 2017; Glon et al. 2018 Species (Palaemon Pennak 1989, Palaemonidae kadiakensis) Thorp & Rogers 2016 1 Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Informal grouping of the Arachnida Hydrachnidia Smith 2001 water mites Genus Morse et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents 2
    Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists (SAFIT) List of Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Taxa from California and Adjacent States including Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels 1 March 2011 Austin Brady Richards and D. Christopher Rogers Table of Contents 2 1.0 Introduction 4 1.1 Acknowledgments 5 2.0 Standard Taxonomic Effort 5 2.1 Rules for Developing a Standard Taxonomic Effort Document 5 2.2 Changes from the Previous Version 6 2.3 The SAFIT Standard Taxonomic List 6 3.0 Methods and Materials 7 3.1 Habitat information 7 3.2 Geographic Scope 7 3.3 Abbreviations used in the STE List 8 3.4 Life Stage Terminology 8 4.0 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species 8 5.0 Literature Cited 9 Appendix I. The SAFIT Standard Taxonomic Effort List 10 Phylum Silicea 11 Phylum Cnidaria 12 Phylum Platyhelminthes 14 Phylum Nemertea 15 Phylum Nemata 16 Phylum Nematomorpha 17 Phylum Entoprocta 18 Phylum Ectoprocta 19 Phylum Mollusca 20 Phylum Annelida 32 Class Hirudinea Class Branchiobdella Class Polychaeta Class Oligochaeta Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Chelicerata, Subclass Acari 35 Subphylum Crustacea 47 Subphylum Hexapoda Class Collembola 69 Class Insecta Order Ephemeroptera 71 Order Odonata 95 Order Plecoptera 112 Order Hemiptera 126 Order Megaloptera 139 Order Neuroptera 141 Order Trichoptera 143 Order Lepidoptera 165 2 Order Coleoptera 167 Order Diptera 219 3 1.0 Introduction The Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists (SAFIT) is charged through its charter to develop standardized levels for the taxonomic identification of aquatic macroinvertebrates in support of bioassessment. This document defines the standard levels of taxonomic effort (STE) for bioassessment data compatible with the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioassessment protocols (Ode, 2007) or similar procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Developmental Trade-Offs and Resource Allocation in Caddis Flies
    Stevens, David J. (2000) Developmental trade-offs and resource allocation in caddis flies. PhD thesis http://theses.gla.ac.uk/3764/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Developmental Trade-Offs and Resource Allocation In Caddis Flies. David J. Stevens A thesis submitted for the degree ofDoctor ofPhilosophy to the Faculty of Science, University ofGlasgow. September 2000 Declaration I declare that the work presented in this thesis has been completed by myselfunless otherwise acknowledged in the text. No part ofthis work has been presented for any other qualification. David Stevens September 2000 Acknowledgements I could not have hoped for two better supervisors than Pat Monaghan and Mike Hansell. I wish to thank them not just for giving me my chance in the first place, but for giving me the freedom within the project to explore many avenues ofinvestigation. Most ofthese proved fruitful, ifonly to teach me not to do it again. The support, encouragement and advice they gave were ofimmeasurable help over the course ofthe project.
    [Show full text]
  • A Manual for the Survey and Evaluation of the Aquatic Plant and Invertebrate Assemblages of Grazing Marsh Ditch Systems
    A manual for the survey and evaluation of the aquatic plant and invertebrate assemblages of grazing marsh ditch systems Version 6 Margaret Palmer Martin Drake Nick Stewart May 2013 Contents Page Summary 3 1. Introduction 4 2. A standard method for the field survey of ditch flora 5 2.1 Field survey procedure 5 2.2 Access and licenses 6 2.3 Guidance for completing the recording form 6 Field recording form for ditch vegetation survey 10 3. A standard method for the field survey of aquatic macro- invertebrates in ditches 12 3.1 Number of ditches to be surveyed 12 3.2 Timing of survey 12 3.3 Access and licences 12 3.4 Equipment 13 3.5 Sampling procedure 13 3.6 Taxonomic groups to be recorded 15 3.7 Recording in the field 17 3.8 Laboratory procedure 17 Field recording form for ditch invertebrate survey 18 4. A system for the evaluation and ranking of the aquatic plant and macro-invertebrate assemblages of grazing marsh ditches 19 4.1 Background 19 4.2 Species check lists 19 4.3 Salinity tolerance 20 4.4 Species conservation status categories 21 4.5 The scoring system 23 4.6 Applying the scoring system 26 4.7 Testing the scoring system 28 4.8 Conclusion 30 Table 1 Check list and scoring system for target native aquatic plants of ditches in England and Wales 31 Table 2 Check list and scoring system for target native aquatic invertebrates of grazing marsh ditches in England and Wales 40 Table 3 Some common plants of ditch banks that indicate salinity 50 Table 4 Aquatic vascular plants used as indicators of good habitat quality 51 Table 5a Introduced aquatic vascular plants 53 Table 5a Introduced aquatic invertebrates 54 Figure 1 Map of Environment Agency regions 55 5.
    [Show full text]