Remember, the idea behind including supporting information for your identifications is to show others your reasoning. Anybody who is not in this class does not know what "lab manual" you're referring to. Instead, you can reference "Marshall 2006, p??" or "Borror & DeLong" depending on which key you used.

I've been noticing a lot of overly specific identifications on observations. Try not to get too hung up on identifying things to species, or even to genus. As a rule of thumb, you should assume that any genus has at least 10 species present in North America, and that any family has at least 10 genera. That means at least 100 species per family. So when you ID something to genus or species, you should be confident that you can rule out the other nine genera and nine species - and if you can't rule out another genus, you have to rule out 99 other species!

When you make an ID, ask yourself: if I was presented with a related species, would I be able to tell the difference? Most of the time, the answer will be no, simply because you don't know what those other species look like.

So, focus on the family level for now. If you suspect a particular species, find out what the family-level characters are, and make sure they match. If they do, make a family-level ID. If they don't, find the correct family using a key or guide.

Just a reminder to everyone that your IDs on the observations of others must be accompanied by a reference to a source, or statement of evidence used to reach that ID. When you make an identification, you can include additional comments in the box below the taxon name.