Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Upcoming Events

Discussion of 2018 gathering

Photos of insects and people from the 2015 gathering in Wisconsin, July 10-12

Photos of insects and people from the 2014 gathering in Virginia, June 4-7.

Photos of insects and people from the 2013 gathering in Arizona, July 25-28

Photos of insects and people from the 2012 gathering in Alabama

Photos of insects and people from the 2011 gathering in Iowa

Photos from the 2010 Workshop in Grinnell, Iowa

Photos from the 2009 gathering in Washington

Dragonflies & Damselflies

Doesn't really fit here, but this seems the best place for it.
A recent report lists the Odonate species found in the extreme NE: 142 spp. in NH, 158 spp. in Me and 131 spp. in NB. Go to home page, URL below, and click on MDDS 2005 Final Report. Scroll to Table 2 of the report. Lots of other info.

common names and references
Guys- As the new kid on the block, I'm just trying to figure out how to best fit in and help with what I can. I agree with both your comments about accepted and/or standardized common names, but I think we need to be careful about what constitutes a standardized or accepted name list. The odonate ones from DSA are easy enough, but I have seen lists for other groups floating around that aren't even in use widely, much less accepted by the authorities in those fields. Robber flies are a typical example. I like where you put the names, Tony.

On another topic, what's the story with internet and print references? For example, in the odonate section, we list only a fraction of the available references, and not even the best ones. Is that just waiting for some editor to come in and fill out, or do we try to keep those lists short, or what? If we are trying to keep those lists short, then I think we should list only the most complete national sites or books... but if we are trying to be complete, there are lots of regional lists, sites and books that are very much worth including. I don't know as much about western sites or western books, but right off the top of my head I can think of 10-15 books that would be very helpful regionally...

Names etc.
Patrick has been a BG contributor much longer than me and hopefully he will comment regarding the number of references, and also about acceptable names.
RE: standard common/scientific names. I think the format for BG is to use a single source, where possible, for names. Less confusing. Ideally, such a list should be an internet resource so that it is available to all.
I'm sure you had noticed that I recommended Gayle Strickland's Odonate site. This was not meant as a slight to you or others. You have posted many superb images on BG and your site's URL is posted on your biographical page. The Strickland's page contains no such useful info. and they have posted only 7 ode images. I thought their site was too good not to advertise it.

No problem, I didn't take it that way. I love their site, and lots of people really like the detail you can get from their photos. They just don't have that many species... a site like Blair Nikula's "Images of odonates" has almost every North American species, so it would be a better all around reference, I think. Hopefully Patrick can add some thoughts on the number of references wanted.

Odonata checklist authority, common names, etc.?
I haven't seen a discussion on this before, that I can recall. Do we have an accepted authority for North American odonata species and their common names?
The only one I've seen is Paulson and Dunkle's THE ODONATA OF NORTH AMERICA. Are people happy using this as more-or-less an authority? I know there have been some changes in common names over the years, and it seems important to have a standard reference on that as well.

Patrick Coin
Durham, North Carolina

Patrick & Giff
Let’s try to establish a standard method for recommending (establishing) common and scientific names for taxa. All Info pages have the same basic structure:

Box 1: Scientific Name;
Box 2: Preferred Common Name;
Box 3: Other Common Names; etc. etc.

Boxes 1 & 2 are used in the Title,

Let’s use Box 3 for the following
USE: ......................................for Common Names
USE: ......................................for Scientific Names

I have tried this on the Odonata page here.
I know the information was already on the page but it was buried at the bottom under Internet References. The references can be pasted into as many info pages, (e.g., family, genus, species) as is practical.
How about using this ‘method’ for ALL the Orders.

Sounds good
That sounds good, but application to most other orders seems problematic. There are standardized, comprehensive, Internet-accessible lists for butterflies and odonata, but not much else. For beetles we can refer to American Beetles, for moths, MNA but I don't have ready access to either of those--not on a daily basis at least.

Still, a good plan, putting that info. up near the top where most of us will notice it.

Patrick Coin
Durham, North Carolina

Probably implicit
in that on the Order: Odonata page, this ref. (The Odonata on NA) is listed under Info>Internet References. This is the authority I followed when I moved 5 species from the genus Aeshna as listed in Dunkle's book to Rhionaeschna (?spelling).
This reference seems to be regularly updated and one cannot question the knowledge of the authors or the committee. So let's accept it but where it differs from Dunkle's or Lam's books then the names used in these 2 books should be mentioned as many people seem to use these 2 books as references.

The currently accepted common
The currently accepted common names are created by the common name committee of the DSA, as listed in previous comments, so that's the best source of names to use. However, DSA does not have a taxonomy committe at present, so different books use different taxonomy. The bylaws of DSA are being changed right now, and one of the items being voted on is creating a taxonomy committee, but it will be a while before the dust settles on any of this, so I think Tony's idea of using taxonomy from the DSA names committee and then listing differences in select books is a good one. I also think Lam and Dunkle are the two best or most widely-used guides right now, although several new national guides are in work (a national damsel guide by Dunkle, a national dragon guide by Nick Donnelly, and eastern and western dragon guides by Dennis Paulson).

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.