E. atrocincta is not sexually dimorphic.

Aren't the males orange- adult males have a black stripe and immature males lack the stripe?

E. atrocincta has been confused in the past with E. nigrocincta. The latter is sexually dimorphic, but E. atrocincta is not. And E. atrocincta itself comes in several colour forms. Without black stripe (= f. pseudoperpulchra) as in this specimen, with black stripe on the 3rd abdominal segment (= the nominal form) and completely orange (= f. aurata).

If I understand your comment above, BG should have three E. atrocincta pages:

E. atrocincta (nominal form, with black stripe on 3rd abdominal segment);
E. atrocincta forma pseudoperpulchra (no black stripe); and
E. atrocincta forma aurata (completely orange).

What we currently have, however, based on comments on this image are two pages:

E. atrocincta forma nigrocincta (dimorphic specimens similar to E. the European E. nigrocincta); and
E. atrocincta (which includes specimens with various patterns, including some that appear to be completely orange).

So I'm confused.

Should these images be reorganized, or isn't this worth our while given uncertainties about the species and their distributions?

Any guidance you can supply will be much appreciated!

E. atrocincta and E. atrocincta forma nigrocincta should be sufficient. The infraspecific forms pseudoperpulchra and aurata have no real taxonomic meaning. The names are historical. And only interesting if you want to look up the old literature. Forma nigrocincta is a special case. This name should be used tentatively for E. nigrocincta lookalikes as long as E. nigrocincta is not formally accepted as being part of the US Collembola fauna by US taxonomists.

We'll stick with the status quo, then. Thanks!

Good to know, thanks for the info. Perhaps the info under "Identification" should be updated.

I may attempt to update later when I have more time--and assuming, of course, that I can sort out Frans' various comments regarding this genus. :)

Thanks Ken! :)

Thanks!!