Sorry again. I will wait and leave the frassing to someone else in the future. :)

We didn't mean to sat you shouldn't frass. By all means, take control of your own images. But while we would like absolutely the best images possible in the guide, we realize that isn't always going to happen. Sometimes our images won't quite meet our critical standards, but right now they are the only images of that animal, or with that view, or from that state. In that case, something a little less than excellent is certainly still valuable and informative in the guide. We always check the guide page to see what is there, ask if our image might still be informative even if it is not exactly what we wished we had captured, and then make the decision to frass or not to frass. Hope this helps and look forward to more images from you and Virginia!

We're not sure what you see in this image that helps you ID it, since we're still in the sorry stage where all grasshoppers look alike to us. But wonder if you could look at these images which are just on the family page in the guide and see if they could possibly be ID'd? Their antennae remind us of this image, but we could be totally wrong since they also remind us of Achurum and Leptysma!!

Well, I'm wearing orthopedic shoes on this one, thanks for the QC check. I was looking at the antennae: the sword-shape with the prominent antennomeres. Also, I was noting the strong slant-face shape, and slantedness (if that's a word) of the eyes.

You are most correct in expressing doubts. I was not paying sufficient attention to the fact that this is a nymph, with poorly-developed wings, so looking at adult characters may not be that wise. (Best field-mark for Metaleptea is the neatly "clipped" end of the wings, obviously not visible in a nymph.) Or, it is one of several similar-looking grasshoppers that have short winged forms, such as Achurum, etc., as you mentioned. In addition to those genera you mentioned, I note that Mermiria has similar antennae and general slant-faced shape.

I'll look at your other images and see if I have any ideas, but I'd take them with grams of salt!

So, I stand corrected--we'd better leave this at the family (?) level for now. Orthopterans are tough.

Patrick Coin
Durham, North Carolina

Too bad, we were hoping to get an opportunity to move out some of the images from the pages of Acrididae. It is amazing that these species aren't more closely related than just family. Seems like they should all be in the same subfamily at least. If there are only a few genera that they could be, what about making a No Taxon page for them and at least directing people in the right direction by identifying possible genera? By the way, here's another for your consideration

Yes, we need an orthopterologist! Eric is very good, but I just noticed one of his comments about one of these "being narrowed down to a half-dozen genera." My invertebrate zoologist friend--I must induce him to take a look at our orthoptera--he knows most of the North Carolina species.

As I said, thanks for correcting my (unwarranted) jumping to conclusions. As Milo found in Norton Juster's The Phantom Tollbooth, "he who jumps to conclusions has to swim back through the Sea of Knowledge". I can't find the exact quote on the web, though here is a reference to it. Some may swim through the Sea of Knowledge and come out completely dry, of course. I'm trying to let some soak in.

Patrick Coin
Durham, North Carolina

Amazing. Thank you.