I was thinking Illinois/northern per the range descriptions, but I shouldn't have used range as a "deciding" ID factor.

...but I tend to play things safe. :)

... about Caddisfly IDs, so I have no problem with playing it safe. I forgot my own rule about using actual physical characteristics rather than mere probability. (I always tweak the noses of professional birders when they say, "this species is not X because X's range is too far away.")

the phrase I push is "do not key by geography." Just seems logical to me. If we always followed known distribution we would never have new distribution records, or perhaps new species. For caddis flies the vast majority cannot be determined to species, or even genus, without a good look at parts that are not visible in habitus pics like those of Bugguide.

for the correction. I think you're right but I'll put it in ID request for verification.