Ancylis columbiana

or A. simuloides?

Am I correct to assume this was not dissected? This is BOLD sample BIOUG00847-B02 in BOLD:AAF4251, the BIN for simuloides. The ID as for your specimen as columbiana is credited to yourself. The ID as columbiana for your BG #632327 was made by the BOLD engine which might be using your ID for this specimen. That specimen in turn looks like your BG #635652 and #1645936 which you identified as simuloides.

There is some separation from others in the BIN so the ID is not exactly contradicted. I questioned BG #940423 identified by Tomas Mustelin as simuloides. Tomas now says dissection is required.

I am not recommending that you change the ID. Just wanted more info.

… Steve Nanz, 24 June, 2020 - 9:10am

or A. simuloides?

This specimen was not dissected by myself, but was ID'd by myself via comparison with images primarily at MPG; and was most likely submitted to BOLD with this ID. I did re-run the sequences via BOLD's ID engine, and they are very closely matched. Could it be that these 'two' species may actually be the same species, or at least all my submissions?

My thanks again to you, for taking a closer look at these Ancylis specimens.

… Jim Moore, 24 June, 2020 - 12:05pm

Two species

It's two species. See McDunnough (1955), Am. Mus. Novit., 1725: 1-16, info on genitalia, life history, etc.

While I think it is possible that yours are misidentified and BOLD actually has no barcoded examples of columbiana, I do think yours fit that species so I'm keeping it as such at MPG. I would suggest moving your simuloides to columbiana for consistency if you agree it's the same species as this or move them all to genus. Maybe you could one dissected and barcoded. That would likely end speculation.

… Steve Nanz, 24 June, 2020 - 12:55pm

Moved

Moved from Ancylis.

… v belov, 25 November, 2010 - 1:07pm