Mornin everyone.

I say morning because I just woke up after really catching up on my sleep, since I don't have any classes (yuck) or occupations on Fridays. Anywho, my brain is running a little bit too much at the moment so let me slow it down and get to what I was saying.

I have kinda stagnated on my definitive Chelinidea report, and that's because I hit a sucky wall. The sucky wall in question is tabulata and canyona. I don't know what to make of the two. I don't even know why they're not the same species. I don't get it. They vary too much to have a fixed set of features atributed to them. I'm honestly suspecting that this may just be a morph thing, like the "aequoris" nonsense. Either way, it's caused me to put a pin in my stuff and clear everything else off the table before tackling those two "species" and making a final call. At the very least, I think they should be tied together in some little subsection. Out of the 5, they are very closely connected, and it would be practical to sort them as such.

If you know anything, let me know, give me your two cents. I already read the paper where it talks about them not being seperate species, as well as notable reports on the genus, but hey, there's got to be more takes. It's a small genus too. I'm surprised near nobody touches upon it.

Maybe I'll put out my thing on nymph IDs, which are really clear cut. C. vittiger, hunteri, and tabulata/canyona are each unmistakeable from each other once you recognize the patterns of recurring traits...

Scratching my head for the time being.
-Sophia