We can always delete some of these if you think that there are too many. Or if you think I overstepped the confidence of your ID with any of my placements please just let me know.

about overcrowding. (Compare to Hydropsychidae, where most of the specimens will probably never move to genus due to photo ID difficulties.) As for confidence, I do the best I know how and hope that someone will correct me if I really screw up. Collective knowledge is a pretty cool thing. :)

Just to clarify I wasn't questioning your IDs, I was questioning my ability to properly interpret your intentions. Each person has their own style of communication and text is a difficult method to begin with. So if I ever take a "probably" or a "maybe" too far, please know I will gladly move any image higher in the guide if that is where you would like the image stored.
Anyway, I'm done my caddis images for now, thanks for all the help, maybe off to mayflies.

I did not assume you were questioning the ID and would have absolutely no problem if you did. It's really a gray area trying to decide where an ID that begins with something like "probably" or "it looks like" should go. The simple truth is that most photo IDs are going to involve varying degrees of uncertainty. Even if one can glean every bit of useful information from a photo, some can only get to the point where an ID can neither be proven nor disproven based on the photo alone. I can find plenty of examples where an ID can't be proven from the photo, but unless I can disprove that ID, I'm quite content to leave it alone (or, at most, to mention that it might be uncertain). Heck, the scientific literature is full of bona fide experts disputing or correcting the identifications done by other bona fide experts, and they are not working with photos. If that doesn't bother the experts, then it sure doesn't bother an amateur hack like me. I'll let you know if a placement seems to be pushing it--if I know! On to the mayflies! :)