25 mm (within 1 mm). Went back and measured the background from one of the two shots.

I may preserve, or chill, or pin, or etc. at some point, but for now I'm happy doing "field" shots.

I *do* need to learn to estimate size better, especially when asking experts such as yourself to help key specimens out, but I rarely put sizes as I'm almost assuredly going to make a very bad guesstimate.

I don't know if 25 mm falls in the "giant caddisfly" range, but that was the size of this critter. It was rather large compared to most caddisflies we get at our light. They're usually about the size of a brown lacewing (around half this guy's size).

If by "field shots" you mean that you are happy taking pictures of bugs for the pleasure of seeing them on the web, that's fine. If, however, you want to actually identify these critters that you are photographing then you will have to supply more than pictures. You might throw a small glass jar or film canister full of ethanol in with your camera gear, plus a small ruler or tape measure. That way you can gather the necessary data without guessing. There are aquatic entomologists in the Northwest that would be happy examine any specimens that you collect.

Mr. Ames, perhaps it's just the miscommunication so often inherent in emails/blog posts, but I'm starting to become a little offended by your characterization of some of the participants on BugGuide, I think.

Apparently, you believe that a person is EITHER a self-publisher of pretty pictures OR a serious taxonomist who wants "to actually identify" something (as if anything else is a waste of time). At least your post(s) come across that way.

I would put forth that BugGuide is not the appropriate venue for either of those very limited characterizations. Neither requires the use of the BugGuide. The serious entomologist/taxonomist (amateur or pro) can collect specimens and key them out and.or send them to their regional professional entomologists (as you suggest) quite independently of this guide. Likewise, those who wish to self-publish their pictures "for the pleasure of seeing them on the web" may use Flickr or any of the many other picture/photo sharing venues available online. BugGuide is *not* Flickr, and it is not solely a hardcore ID tool or taxonomy key.

To me anyway, BugGuide is a place where professional and amateur science folks, and professional and amateur photographers, and folks who are every possible combination of those labels, can share their enthusiasm for these amazing critters, compile a database (beyond that which any single individual or lab could ever entertain) of images/identifications which will produce some data as to geographic and temporal range for various species, and share images and descriptions of these critters and their behaviors that will further our appreciation, understanding, and possibly identification as well in the future. I, myself, have learned SO much by participating in this guide, and I've heard similar stories from MANY folks on here, including folks who've been professional entomologists for decades!

Hard core identification tools like internal dissections and/or DNA analyses are of very limited help in a photographic guide of this sort. While it is handy to know that Bugus firstus and Bugus secundus can only be identified to species level by internal dissection of their genitalia, this only creates a useful footnote on the "Info" page for this genus. Showing separate shots of the two species, both seemingly identical, which were keyed out in a lab, doesn't really help the next chap who takes a picture of one of these individuals. That specimen would *also* have to be sent to a lab for analysis if the person cared to do so.

This (visual/photographic) guide *does* have the built in limitation of occasionally trying to key out specimens which simply *cannot* be keyed out passed a certain level from photographs, especially incomplete or less than optimal quality photographs. If some of my specimens can only be keyed to genus, family, or even order occasionally, so be it. That does *not* just make me a taker/self-publisher of pretty pictures.

"Field shots" means exactly what it says: shots taken "in the field" as opposed to "in the lab or studio". I *like* walking around outdoors, whether it be a forest, field, nature preserve, mountain, or whatever, and taking pictures of the critters I find there. I *am* curious what the critters are that I'm taking pictures of. If other amateurs like myself, or pros that happen to frequent our little group, can help me ID some of them as far as possible, that's great! If that information helps pros (or amateurs) in any way whatsoever with furthering the knowledge of what critters are found where and when, even better!! And if some of those pros or amateurs take pleasure in seeing any of my pictures on the web, or hearing about that particular outing or critter's behavior, superb! And if they, or I, get to explore vicariously and expand our exposure and knowledge of critters beyond those that we've run into personally by enjoying other folks' photos and stories... "Huzzah!" I say.

If my sole purpose in taking a pic of a particular bug is only to key it out to the furthest extent possible, rest assured, I will collect, preserve, and mail said culprit with due dispatch as you have recommended!

that was kind of an interesting response ...... perhaps a result of the early AM? Whatever. While I probably qualify as a "self-publisher" since some of my publications are initiated by myself, and I make most of my own photos and other illustrations for those publications (and I always think they are "pretty" - or something like that :-)), I do qualify as a serious Trichopterist. And I was the one who asked Tom to provide some advise for this critter and your future efforts. Sorry you took it the wrong way and sorry Tom but I for one definitely know you meant well. Ya always do.

Bugguide is indeed a fascinating place for both the amateur and serious; whether photographer, taxonomist, or naturalist. There are those, like me. who come here to be fascinated by the pictures of critters we will never see alive. And, hopefully if folks fill out the submittal form, we also learn something about distribution, habitat and most importantly what they look like alive - something you don't see in a typical insect collection. And we are always trying to learn more about the pictures we see - like how long was the critter really; where are they from, are the pictures of the same critter - even though the pictures look different; and, in the case of caddis, did you keep it so perhaps you would share with a taxonomist to get a species level determination for a picture of something that no one else but you has a picture of. Very few caddis can be reliably determined to genus let alone species from a picture. (And it does take examination of the private parts - my experience with DNA indicates that it has just as many problems as critters in hand.) Tom is one of the few folks who actually takes pictures of the differing "perspectives" of the same species, and occasionally their private parts. Habitus photos like yours of males and females of the same species can look different and without the efforts of amateur and professional photographers, us taxonomists would not see many of those differences.

I am pretty sure your specimen is one of the Agrypnia but I cannot be sure from the photos. I didn't arrive at that conclusion by "keying" the critter out because there is no "key" available that can separate caddis (even to families) by characters we can see in pictures such as yours. I looked at the other phryganeid photos on BugGuuide for that white spot on a phryganeid that had a name on it (right or wrong) and then looked at my collection of critters to see if I could find the spot on the actual critter. It is a part of the wing membrane that is very difficult to see but it is either smooth and reflects light, or has very fine white hairs (hat are not well preserved in my collection) on that piece of membrane. With the length info, we can leave it at Phryganeidae if you wish. The large size (for a caddis) and relatively short, thick antennae alone allow one who is experienced with these critters to arrive at that conclusion.

So peace - if you wish to continue with caddis photos on BugGuide I am sure there are folks who will help when they can. There are excellent photographers - perhaps still Tom - who can help with how to take exceptional "field shots." He does, with alot of expertise, take those "pretty" pictures without running back to the lab. You apparantly have seen the pictures. I have been fortunate enough to see the technique, and effort, it takes, I am still willing to provide caddis determinations to the lowest level I possible can from the photo and likely to species if you keep the specimen, which is not hard as you indicate.

We all know that the one moment of discovery is a special event which cannot be replaced. All of us who use BugGuide are striving to make that one moment, via a photo, the most meaningful for ourselves, and those voyeurs like me.

dave

Dave, thanks for your comments. And apologies to Tom if I got bent out of shape too easily. You say he's an amazing fellow, and as all the folks I've met so far on BugGuide are, indeed, amazing people, I'm more than willing to believe it.

It *was* early AM, and as I said above, mistakes can be made when reading without knowing the intended emphasis. When Tom said, "It would be a whole lot easier if folks would TAKE THE TROUBLE" made it feel/sound like some of us just don't and can't be bothered with taking any time with what we do.

His comments of "If by 'field shots' you mean that you are happy taking pictures of bugs for the pleasure of seeing them on the web" contrasted with "If, however, you want to ACTUALLY identify these critters" made it sound like the first was trite and trivial and only the latter mattered. The caps are mine, but the messages came across that way...probably as a result of early AM and overdefensiveness on my part.

Many of us amateurs feel out of our depth with all you experts as it is. One reason that newbies to the Guide, including myself not that long ago, take MANY months to be brave enough to start posting somewhere besides ID Request is because we don't want to make bigger fools of ourselves than we already are. In addition, some of us amateurs spend HOURS trying to track down a single ID, so as not to always take up your guys' valuable time with "common" specimens that we really should be able to start IDing ourselves. AND on top of being very amateur bug enthusiasts, some of us are very amateur in the photography dept. as well!! Doubly damned! :) Again we spend hundreds of hours shooting and improving, looking and compiling, searching and comparing, never to the level of pros like Tom, but making progress and enjoying ourselves. Then to have someone talk about ACTUALLY doing something versus enjoying just seeing our pics on the web...

Anyway, I will blame it all on lack of sleep (I'm a teacher - and contrary to popular fiction, some of us really do put in very long hours) and amateuritis (inflammation of the amateur!). Tom, I offered the explanation above, not to be overdefensive yet again, but hopefully so you and Dave might see why/how I overreacted. Usually, I'm pretty easy to get along with! :) Honest!! (Busy school year start, overdefensiveness, bad cold could do it to a lot of folks. And ninjas. And tornadoes. And the earthquake. And alien invasion. It's not my fault!! Anyway, sorry.

*extends an olive branch - especially to Tom - with a couple REALLY interesting caddisflies on it!*

As it happens, Kevin, I stopped taking photographs professionally about three years ago and went into your profession. I know about lack of sleep. I also know that using the right words and right tone can make all the difference, especially when communicating to children (I teach 10th graders). So if my tone somehow sounded preachy or elitist, I apologize.

My intent was to acknowledge that many people do, in fact, enjoy making these photos and seeing them on the web and need nothing more to feel fully satisfied. There is plenty of room on Bugguide for bug and photo enthusiasts of all stripes. Some, however, ask for identification of their subject critters, and the price of that is to take the time (maybe that's a better word than trouble) to record the data and, ultimately preserve the specimen. Since I came from the photo side, and not the entomology side, that led to my association with field entomologists like Dave Ruiter and the realization his enjoyment of my photographs, and of providing IDs, depends on my supplying him with useful data. It always feels as though we are exchanging gifts.