I'm guessing that my photo, IMG_6269, is in Lepidostoma only because it looks like the BOLD image I added below mine. That one is sample ID: 08OFCAD-0234, the data for which can be seen here. Sample ID: 08OFCAD-0234 is placed by BOLD in L. modestum.

All BOLD specimens in modestum were taken from the southern Appalachian Mountains. (I'm now pretty sure my example is out of range for that species. The species was described from specimens found in that area and that's the only area I could find for which this species is listed.) The modestum specimens fall into a single branch of BIN cluster BOLD:AAA2390 which is otherwise composed mostly of specimens identified as L. pictile. Perhaps mine is L. pictile. Provided there are no errors at BOLD, the two species appear to be very closely related. Neither my photo nor the BOLD examples seem to match the original description very well so I guess a BOLD error is possible.

I realize a species identification from a photo is very unlikely. I am, however, wondering if I at least got the genus.

Sorry for the confusion and thanks for taking a look at this.

You did good :-) But I would not advise using BOLD pics to presume the species determination for your specimen. Your pic is good and is indeed of a male Lepidostoma. Based on what I can see of the antennae and palps I would agree it belongs in the modestum group. Weaver 1988 placed 6 species in the modestum group. The data I have access to in BOLD indicates the taxonomy of modestum and pictile are confused with some specimens of both names occurring in the same BIN. And both taxa have wide reported distributions in the literature - See Rasmussen & Morse 2014. The distribution in BOLD shows where the specimens in BOLD came from, not a species' total reported distribution.

There are also what appear to be 4 more BINS in BOLD for the modestum group, although two of them have been named L. lydia. So you can see that the taxonomy of this group is confused based on BOLD. And BOLD does not appear to match what the previous taxonomists have concluded.

You can also see that it will take specimens in hand and more focused taxonomic evaluation to resolve the issue. Most of the material is available - although the specimen that your photo is from would be a great addition. It is the detailed process of examining it all by experienced taxonomists using both the DNA and morphological tools that is needed. Unfortunately the number of trained taxonomists is dropping fast as they age and new students are not trained.

It will be interesting to see if the increased capability and availability of photographic equipment with stimulate an increase in taxonomists in general. Especially in visually homogeneous groups like the Trichoptera where even great habitus photos cannot currently be used for most species determinations.

I was really only looking for genus. Species or species group would have been a nice bonus but I wasn't expecting it. Going froward, I will attempt to photograph genitalia.

Thanks for taking the time to look at this.

try to keep the specimen whenever possible and deposit it in a long term collection. That way if someone is working on the group they could get access to the specimen for detailed morphological work and DNA to go along with the images. If you need help with this let me know via email.