Odonata of the Osa Peninsula - Frontier

Odonata of the Osa Peninsula
Brenda Loznik (Assistant Research Officer)
Frontier Costa Rica
August 2012
A Species Checklist
Perithemis electra

Introduction
Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata) are amongst the most attractive and captivating groups of
insects. Their bright colors, aerial acrobatics, large body size and unique mating patterns
capture everyone’s attention. In Latin America, a lack of field guides, active researchers and a
widespread ignorance have caused this order to be understudied in comparison to other parts
of the world. In a world where land managers are limited by a combination of time, money
and personnel constraints, the use of secondary approaches to monitor biodiversity and detect
change in habitat quality is essential. Dragonflies are excellent invertebrates to include in
monitoring programs because of their usefulness as indicators for assessing both terrestrial
and aquatic habitats (Schmidt, 1985; Corbet, 1993; Chovanec, 2000; Schindler et al. 2003).
Dragonflies can be used as indicators of ecological health, ecological integrity, environmental
change and the hydrological dynamics of water bodies (Clark and Samways, 1996; Moore
1997; Chovanec and Waringer, 2001; Flenner and Sahlen, 2008). There are many advantages
of using dragonflies as bioindicators (summarized by Chovanec and Waringer, 2001):
� Advanced knowledge on the ecological requirements of a large number of Odonate
species.
� A high correlation between the presence of habitat components and the presence of
certain species.
� A relatively small number of species (approximately 5.000 worldwide as opposed to
100.000 species of butterflies. Esquivel, 2006) which can often be identified in the
field.
� A relatively long ontogenetic development makes medium to long-term monitoring
possible.
� They react rapidly to a change in habitat quality by appearance/disappearance or by a
change in abundance.
� They serve as umbrella species representing both aquatic and terrestrial assemblages.
Before the use of dragonflies can become a common practice in Central America, we need to
fill some of the gaps in our current knowledge on this order. For example, little is known
about the seasonal diversity, behavior, migration patterns and larva-adult associations of most
species in this order (Esquivel, 2006). Thereby, very little region specific baseline inventory
lists are published that can be used for conservation planning.
In the present study, the dragonfly assemblage of a forest reserve owned by Osa Conservation
on the Osa Peninsula in Costa Rica was studied with the overall aim of filling some of the
earlier described gaps in our knowledge of Central American Odonata. The objectives of this
study are:
1) To collect baseline presence/absence data to which future surveys can be compared to
in order to detect changes in habitat quality that may have gone unnoticed by humans.
2) To collect data on habitat use and seasonality.
3) To create a photo ID guide of the species present in the area to facilitate future
research efforts.

Site description
Even though Costa Rica covers only 0.01% of the world’s landmass, it is estimated to have
5% of all living species (INBio, 1999). Within Costa Rica, the Osa Peninsula is considered a
biodiversity hotspot comprising over 50% of all species despite representing only 3% of the
country’s landmass (Larsen and Toft, 2009). Thy dry season lasts from December to April
and the wet season between May and November. Mean annual precipitation is 5500 mm and
the mean annual temperature 27°C (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002). Osa Conservation owns a
1.700 hectares stretch of land in Piro, on the southwestern slope of the Peninsula. The land
has a well-established trail system that runs through primary and secondary rainforest as well
as coastal habitat.
Dragonflies are in all stages of their life cycle closely tied to aquatic habitats (Esquivel, 2006).
They are known to occupy a wide range of aquatic habitats in forests which include seasonal
and permanent pools, seasonal and permanent swamps, lakes, streams, rivers and springs
(Clausnitzer, 2003). In order to get a good picture of which species are present in the area, 5
different survey sites were selected.
1. The OBC (N 08°24’14.3”, W 083°20’13.0”, 21 m above sea level (a.s.l.), Fig. 1A) is
a large open area where the research facilities and volunteer accommodation of Osa
Conservation are located. This site is most heavily disturbed by human presence and
in comparison to the other sites located further away from a water source (i.e. the
nearby Piro River).
2. Ocelotte stream (N 08°24’13.6”, W 083°20’03.2”, 15 m a.s.l. Fig. 1B) is a tributary of
the Quebrada Coyunda river. It is a narrow, shallow, slow-running and undisturbed
stream that is heavily shaded by tall primary forest trees for most parts of the day.
3. The Piro river (N 08°24’20.3”, W 083°20’20.7”, 35 m a.s.l. Fig. 1C) is a broad river
that in the sampling area runs through a small patch of secondary forest. The river is
fairly shallow during the months of the dry season when this study was conducted but
deeper pools are present.
4. Piro trail (N 08°23’50.0”, W 083°20’25.9”, 27 m a.s.l. Fig. 1D) is a secondary forest
trail near a large open lagoon formed by the Piro river. It is a narrow and shaded trail
but with some open sunny patches.
5. The Swamp (N 08°24’44.7”, W 083°20’46.5”, 27 m a.s.l Fig. 1E-F) is an open grassy
(classed invasive) area located near the road that runs towards Carate. The swamp was
mostly dry for the first two months of the survey but filled-up quickly when the rain
became more frequent in April which coincided with the time when all but a small
patch of grass was removed by Osa Conservation.

A B
C D
E F
Figure 1: the survey sites. A) OBC; B) Ocelotte stream; C) Piro river; D) Piro trail; E) Swamp (February) and
F) Swamp (April). Notice the stick in pictures E and F indicating the same location in both pictures.

Methods
To account for both seasonal and daily activity patterns, each site was surveyed 16 times in 4
different time slots between January 30 th and May 17 th 2012. Over the course of a month (4
weeks), each site was visited in the early morning (8 AM – 10 AM), late morning (10 AM –
12 AM), early afternoon (1.30 PM – 3.30 PM) and late afternoon (3.30 PM – 5.30 PM).
Because it was not possible to establish transects of equal length, sampling was standardized
by 30 minutes of intense sampling (excluding the time needed for analysis). Adult dragonflies
were netted, measured, photographed and released. For each individual, notes were taken on
time of capture, sex, behavior, height of perching and whether it was found in the sun or in the
shade. Because two species of the genus Uracis (U. imbuta and U. fastigiata) were found to
be extremely abundant and it was feared that capturing these species would severely
underestimate their abundance, I decided to tally them when they were encountered on a
survey. With the help of the pictures, each individual was later identified to genus and where
possible to species with the help of Esquivel (2006), Garrison et al. (2006 and 2010) and
Haber and Wagner (2011). Bill Haber kindly provided help in identifying difficult species.
Some species can only be identified with full confidence by examination of their genitalia or
appendages, which was out of the scope of this project. I have identified each individual to the
best of my ability and within the limitations of a field survey but mistakes could have been
made for species that look very alike or are not formally described. The females of two
species of the genus Argia (A. frequentula and A. pulla) were hard to distinguish in the field.
To avoid misidentification, I decided to group these two species together as Argia aggregation
(Argia agg.). Some species were encountered outside of the systematic surveys (between
January 2010 and June 2012). For the completeness of this study, they are included in the
species list (Appendix I) and phenology table (Appendix II).
Analysis
Species accumulation curves were made to test whether the five surveyed sites were
adequately sampled. Two non-parametric estimators of species richness were generated with
the freeware application EstimateS version 8.2.0 (Colwell, 2006). Both parameters are
incidence based (i.e. they rely on presence-absence data) and estimate the number of species
that are yet to be collected based on a quantification of rarity. In the case of Chao 2 rarity is
quantified as the number of species that occur in only one (uniques) or two samples
(duplicates) whereas the first order jackknife only looks at uniques (Colwell and Coddington,
1994). For each site, a Coleman curve was created, which is the incidence-based alternative to
a rarefaction curve that allows more heterogeneity (e.g. temporal and spatial variation in

abundance of species between samples) and is therefore less likely to overestimate the
species richness (Colwell et al. 2004).
Results
General
I captured a total of 343 individuals (3497 when U. imbuta and U. fastigiata are included)
representing 54 species, belonging to 31 genera and 10 families (8 Anisoptera, 2 Zygoptera,
see Appendix I). Two species could not be identified to genus level and are classified as
Unknown species A and B. A total of 39 species were recorded during the surveys and an
additional 15 were found on other occasions. Two families stand out for having both the most
genera and species: Libellulidae and Coenagrionidae (Figure 2). The two families combined
comprise ~ 73% of the species found in the area.
A
B
Figure 2: Distribution of genera (A) and
species (B) among the families found on Osa
Conservation’s land.

Species distribution patterns
For the 49 species that could be identified to species level, the broad distribution patterns on
the North and South American continents were analyzed based on Esquivel (2006) (Table 1).
The majority of the species found are widespread in Central and South America (57.1%)
followed by species that are widespread in North, Central and South America (24.5%).
10.2% of the species only occurs in Central America and 4.1% is confined to the Nicaragua-
Costa Rica-Panama region. No species endemic to Costa Rica were found. A small number of
species are primarily South American species whose northern limit is Costa Rica. A similar
small number of species is common in both North and Central America. One species,
Telebasis Boomsmae was described from Mexico and Belize but was encountered on several
occasions.
Table 1: Distribution patterns of odonata found in the study area.
Between site comparisons
Species accumulation curves
Species accumulation curves based on Chao 2 and first order jackknife estimates of species
richness are plotted together with a Coleman curve and the observed species richness (Figure
3). Sample order was randomized 50 times in order to smoothen out the curves by reducing
the influence of sample order. None of the species accumulation curves shown below have
reached an absolute asymptote indicating that not all species present as the sites were found
during the surveys. Piro trail appears to be the site that was sampled most successfully
whereas many new species await discovery in Ocelotte stream and the swamp. Because of the
lack of an asymptote, it is not possible to say how many more species are yet to be discovered
For all but two sites (Piro river and the Swamp) the two estimators are fairly consistent in
their estimates of species richness. For the two sites with the highest number of observed
species (Piro river and the Swamp) the estimators overestimate the species richness when
compared to the actual observed number of species.
Species Percentage (%)
Middle and South America 28 57.1
Widespread 12 24.5
Primarily Middle America 5 10.2
Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama only 2 4.1
Primarily South America 1 2.0
North and Middle America 1 2.0
Costa Rica only 0 0.0

Cumulative number of species
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
Cumulative number of samples
A
C
E
14
12
7
Chao2
6
Jacknife 1
5
Coleman
4
Observed3
10
Chao 2
Jacknife 8 1
Coleman 6
Observed
4
10
9
8
2
1
0
2
0
Chao 2
Jacknife 1
Coleman
Observed
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
Cumulative number of samples
Figure 3: Species accumulation curves
for the OBC (A), Ocelotte stream (B),
Piro river (C), Piro trail (D) and the
Swamp (E). The non-parametric
parameters of richness Chao 2 and firstorder
jackknife (jackknife 1) are plotted
together with the observed species
richness and a Coleman curve.
B
D
C
Ja
C
O
C
Ja
C
O

Abundance and Richness
Comparisons among sites for total species richness and abundance showed that the swamp has
the highest species richness but the second lowest number of individuals. (Figure 5). A similar
situation is found along the Piro river where a high species richness is accompanied by a
relatively low abundance. Ocelotte stream has a relative high species richness but the lowest
abundance due to a virtual absence of Uracis species. The high number of individuals
encountered in some sites is greatly influenced by the presence of Uracis species who occur
in high numbers in forest understory.
Swamp
Piro trail
Piro river
Ocelotte stream
OBC
Species richness and abundance per site
Species richness
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Species abundance
Total abundance
Total richness
OBC Ocelotte stream Piro river Piro trail Swamp
Richness 6 10 18 6 19
Abundance 1571 56 365 1083 361
Unique species, that is species that were found in only one of the five surveyed sites,
represent 26 of the 39 species observed (Table 2). The Swamp and the Piro river are the sites
where the highest proportion of unique species were encountered (respectively73.7% and
50%), followed by the Ocelotte stream (20%). The OBC and Piro trail contained virtually no
unique species.
Figure 5: comparisons of species richness and abundance for the five surveyed sites.

Seasonality
Table 2: Total number of unique species found at the surveyed sites
Over the course of this survey, the species richness per month stayed practically stable
ranging starting from 26 species in January-February and ending with 23 species in May-June
(Figure 6). A fairly similar number of new species was found each month which gives rise to
the possibility that more species can be discovered in the following months. The stable
species richness even with regular species discoveries is evidence of a clear seasonality
pattern where some species disappear and new ones appear (see also Appendix II).
Species richness
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
26
36
28
# of unique
February March April May
Month
species
Species richness by month
44
25
Percentage of total
Swamp 14 73.7
Piro river 9 50.0
Ocelotte stream 2 20.0
OBC 1 16.7
Piro trail 0 0.0
Figure 6: Overall species richness and cumulative richness per months.
53
23
Species richness
cumulative richness

Discussion
268 species of Odonata have been found in Costa Rica and at least 13 more species await
formal description (Ramírez et al. 2000). The present survey yielded a total of 54 species,
20.2% of the species currently known to be present in Costa Rica. Thereby, at least two more
species of the Aeshnidae family were seen but it was not possible to identify these
individuals. Species accumulation curves and the fact that new species (i.e. species that are
not included in the current species list) were still encountered on a regular basis towards the
end of the surveying period suggest that more species await discovery. This can be
contributed to species seasonality and the formation of new aquatic habitats in the wet season.
For this survey I decided only to include individuals that were actually caught. Although this
decision may have underestimated species richness and abundance in some instances, I felt
that the advantages of this approach outweighed the disadvantages. For example, it reduced
biasing this study towards species that are easily identified in the field and made identifying
species that look very alike (especially in the Coenagrionidae family) easier. Thereby, it
prevented learning over time which would have resulted in biased seasonality patterns. I made
an exception for U. imbuta and U. fastigiata because these species were so abundant that not
tallying them would severally underestimate their abundance. Even with this approach, it was
not always possible to identify an individual to species or even genus level. In two cases it
was not possible to identify the species based on pictures. Bill Haber suggested that Unknown
species A could be an Erythrodiplax or Anatya species and Unknown species B a member of
the Erythemis genus or possibly Erythrodiplax connata or Erythrodiplax kimminsi. The
Psaironeura sp. is probably the more common P. remissa that can only be distinguished from
P. selvatica from the morphology of their upper appendages. The Perissolestes sp. is either P.
remotus or P. magdalenae that again, can only be distinguished from their cerci.
When comparing this study to that of Ramírez et al. (2000), who looked at the dragonfly
community of Costa Rica as a whole, it stands out that only a small percentage of the species
found are endemic to Costa Rica or its bordering countries. In a way this is surprising since
the Osa Pensinsula is often praised for its high number of endemic species. However, most
studies on tropic insects show that species often have wide ranges and that high levels of
endemism are the result of a sampling artifact (Gaston et al. 1996). Not a single member of
the Gomphidae family was found even though this family is relatively species rich in Costa
Rica (Ramírez et al. 2000). Gomphidae generally have cryptic coloration and emerge for
only short periods of time and are therefore hard to find.
The results of this project are a first step towards a possible monitoring program that can
detect early changes in forest composition and water quality and the effects of management.

Future surveys should include a wider range of altitudes and habitats and should be conducted
year-round to determine the full composition of the local Odonata community.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all Frontier volunteers and staff that have helped me catch and
photograph dragonflies. Thereby a special thank to Bill Haber whose help was invaluable.
References
Chovanec, A. 2000. Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata) as indicators of the ecological integrity of aquatic systems—
a new assessment approach. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische und
Angewandte Limnologie 27: 887–890.
Chovanec, A. and Waringer, J. 2001. Ecological integrity of river-floodplain systems – assessment by dragonfly
surveys (Insecta: Odonata). Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17: 493–507.
Clark, T.E. and Samways, M.J. 1996. Dragonflies (Odonata) as indicators of biotope quality in the Kruger
National Park, South Africa. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 1001-1012.
Clausnitzer, V. 2003. Odonata of African humid forests – a review. Cimbebasia 18: 173-190.
Colwell, R.K. 2006. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples.
Version 8. < purl.oclc.org/estimates>.
Colwell, R.K. and Coddington, J.A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical
Transactions: Biological Sciences 345: 101–118.
Colwell, R.K., Mao, C.X. and Chang, J. 2004. Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based
species accumulation curves. Ecology 85: 2717-2727.
Corbet, P.S. 1993. Are Odonata useful as bioindicators? Libellula 12: 91-102.
Esquivel, C. 2006. Libélulas de Mesoamérica y el Caribe. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Middle America and
the Caribbean. Editorial INBio, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica.
Flenner, I. and Sahlen,G. 2008. Dragonfly community re-organisation in boreal forest lakes: rapid species
turnover driven by climate change? Insect Conservation and Diversity 1: 169-179.
Garrison, R.W., von Ellenrieder, N. and Louton, J. 2006. Dragonfly Genera of the New World: An illustrated
and annotated key to the Anisoptera. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.
Garrison, R.W., von Ellenrieder, N. and Louton, J. 2010. Damselfly Genera of the New World: An illustrated
and annotated key to the Zygoptera. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.
Gaston, K.J., Gauld, I.D. and Hanson, P. 1996. The size and composition of the hymenopteran fauna of Costa
Rica. Journal of Biogeography 23: 105 – 113.
Haber, W.A. and Wagner, D. 2011. Dragonflies and damselflies: Odonata of Monteverde, Costa Rica.
http://efg.cs.umb.edu/monteverde/Ode/OdeIntro.html
INBio. 1999. Annual memory. Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica.
Larsen , T. and Toft, R. 2009. Osa – where the rainforest meets the sea. Zona Tropical Publications, China.
Moore, N.W. 1997. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan: Dragonflies IUCN/SSC Odonata Specialist
Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Ramírez, A., Paulson, D.R. and Esquivel, C. 2000. Odonata of Costa Rica: diversity and checklist of species.
Revista de Biología Tropical 48: 245 – 252.
Sanchez-Azofeifa, A., Rivard, B., Calvo, J. and Moorthy, I. 2002. Dynamics of tropical deforestation around
national parks: remote sensing of forest change on the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica. Mountain Research
and Development 22: 352-358.
Schindler, M., Fesl, C. and Chovanec, A. 2003. Dragonfly associations (Insecta: Odonata) in relation to habitat
variables: a multivariate approach. Hydrobiologia 497: 169 – 180.
Schmidt, E. 1985. Habitat inventarization, characterization and bioindication by a ‘Representative Spectrum of
Odonata Species (RSO)’. Odonatologica 14: 127–133.

Appendix I: Odonata Species checklist (current as of July 2012)
Anisoptera
Family Species
Calopterygidae Hetaerina fuscoguttata (Selys, 1853)
Hetaerina occisa (Hagen in Selys, 1853)
Hetaerina titia (Drury, 1773)
Coenagrionidae Acanthagrion inexpectum (Leonard, 1977)
Acanthagrion trilobatum (Leonard, 1977)
Argia adamsi (Calvert, 1902)
Argia cupraurea (Calvert, 1902)
Argia difficilis (Selys, 1865)
Argia frequentula (Calvert, 1907)
Argia indicatrix (Calvert, 1902)
Argia pulla (Hagen in Selys, 1865)
Argia translata (Hagen in Selys, 1865)
Ischnura capreolus (Hagen, 1861)
Leptobasis vacillans (Hagen in Selys, 1877)
Metaleptobasis westfalli (Cumming, 1954)
Neoerythromma cultellatum (Selys, 1876)
Telebasis boomsmae (Garrison, 1994)
Telebasis digitocollis (Calvert, 1902)
Lestidae Lestes forficula (Rambur, 1842)
Megapodagrionidae Heteragrion erythrogastrum (Selys, 1886)
Perilestidae Perissolestes sp.
Platystictidae Palaemnema sp.
Protoneuridae Neoneura esthera (Calvert, 1903)
Protoneura amatoria (Calvert, 1907)
Protoneura sulfurata (Donnelly, 1989)
Psaironeura sp.
Pseudostigmatidae Mecistogaster ornata (Rambur, 1842)
Megaloprepus caerulatus (Drury, 1782)

Appendix I continued.
Zygoptera
Family Species
Aeshnidae Gynacantha tibiata (Karsch, 1891)
Libellulidae Anatya normalis (Calvert, 1899)
Brachymesia furcata (Hagen, 1861)
Cannaphila insularis (Kirby, 1889)
Dythemis multipunctata (Kirby, 1894)
Dythemis sterilis (Hagen, 1861)
Erythemis peruviana (Rambur, 1842)
Erythemis vesiculosa (Fabricius, 1775)
Erythrodiplax andagoya (Borror, 1942)
Erythrodiplax castanea (Burmeister, 1839)
Erythrodiplax fervida (Erichson, 1848)
Erythrodiplax funerea (Hagen, 1861)
Erythrodiplax umbrata (Linnaeus, 1758)
Macrothemis inequiunguis (Calbert, 1895)
Micrathyria ocellata (Martin, 1897)
Micrathyria dictynna (Ris, 1919)
Orthemis discolor (Burmeister, 1839)
Orthemis levis (Calvert, 1906)
Orthemis schmidti (Buchholz, 1950)
Pantala flavescens (Fabricius, 1798)
Pertithemis electra (Ris, 1930)
Tramea calverti (Muttkowski, 1910)
Unknown Sp. A
Unknown Sp. B
Uracis fastigiata (Burmeister, 1839)
Uracis imbuta (Burmeister, 1839)

Appendix II: Phenology of Odonata on- and off-transect for the year 2012. The months in
which each species was captured is indicated with a closed circle. Mating and/or reproductive
behavior is indicated with an open circle. Because there was no systematic sampling conducted
in January and June, observations in these months are indicated with † when the species was
only found in January and June or with ‡ when the species was also found in January and June.
Species Jan/Feb Mar Apr May/Jun
On transect
Hetaerina fuscoguttata ‡ • • • •
Hetaerina occisa • •
Hetaerina titia ‡ • • •
Acanthagrion inexpectum •
Acanthagrion trilobatum † • •
Argia adamsi ‡ ° • • •
Argia cupraurea • ° ° °
Argia difficilis • •
Argia aggregation ‡ ° • • •
Argia indicatrix † • •
Argia translata °
Leptobasis vacillans •
Metaleptobasis westfalli ° °
Telebasis boomsmae • •
Telebasis digitocollis † •
Lestes forficula ° °
Heteragrion erythrogastrum ‡ ° • • •
Palaemnema sp. •
Neoneura esthera •
Protoneura amatoria † ° •
Psaironeura sp. •
Anatya normalis • • •
Cannaphila insularis •
Dythemis multipunctata • •
Dythemis sterilis † • • •
Erythemis peruviana ‡ • •
Erythrodiplax andagoya • •
Erythrodiplax castanea •
Erythrodiplax fervida • • •
Erythrodiplax funerea • • • •
Erythrodiplax umbrata •
Macrothemis inequiunguis •
Micrathyria dictynna •
Micrathyria ocellata •
Unknown sp. A •
Unknown sp. B °
Uracis fastigiata • • • •
Uracis imbuta ‡ • • • •

Appendix II continued.
Species Jan/Feb Mar Apr May/Jun
On transect
Ischnura capreolus † •
Neoerythromma cultellatum •
Perissolestes sp. •
Protoneura sulfurata † •
Mecistogaster ornata † • •
Megaloprepus caerulatus † •
Gynacantha tibiata † • •
Brachymesia furcata •
Erythemis vesiculosa † •
Orthemis discolor •
Orthemis levis † •
Orthemis schmidti •
Pantala flavescens ‡ •
Pertithemis electra † •
Tramea calverti †
•

Appendix III: Odonata of the Osa Peninsula. A picture ID-guide of the species found between January and June 2012
Anisoptera – Calopterygidae
Hetaerina fuscoguttata ♂
Hetaerina occisa ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Coenagrionidae
Acanthagrion inexpectum ♂
Argia adamsi ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Hetaerina fuscoguttata ♀ Hetaerina occisa ♂
Hetaerina titia ♂ Hetaerina titia ♀
Acanthagrion inexpectum ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Acanthagrion trilobatum ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Argia cupraurea ♂
Acanthagrion trilobatum ♂
Argia adamsi ♂

Argia cupraurea ♀ Argia difficilis ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Argia difficilis ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Argia frequentula ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Argia indicatrix ♂ Argia indicatrix ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Argia pulla ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Ischnura capreolus ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Argia translata ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Ischnura capreolus ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Argia frequentula ♀
Argia pulla ♂
Argia translata ♀
Ischnura capreolus ♀ (immature)

Leptobasis vacillans ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Leptobasis vacillans ♀
Metaleptobasis westfalli ♂ Neoerythromma cultellatum ♂
Lestidae
Lestes forficula ♂
Neoerythromma cultellatum ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Telebasis digitocollis ♂
Telebasis boomsmae ♂
Lestes forficula ♀

Heteragrion erythrogastrum ♀ Perilestidae
Perissolestes sp. ♂ - © W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Perissolestes sp ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Protoneuridae
Neoneura esthera ♂
Megapodagrionidae
Heteragrion erythrogastrum ♂
Platystictidae
Palaemnema sp. ♀
Neoneura esthera ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Protoneura amatoria ♀
Protoneura amatoria ♂

Protoneura sulfurata ♂ Protoneura sulfurata ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Psaironeura sp. ♂
Pseudostigmatidae
Mecistogaster ornata ♂ - © W.A. Haber 2004-2011
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Megaloprepus caerulatus ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Libellulidae
Anatya normalis ♂
Mecistogaster ornata ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Zygoptera – Aeshnidae
Gynacantha tibiata ♂
Psaironeura sp. ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Megaloprepus caerulatus ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Anatya normalis ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Brachymesia furcata ♂ Cannaphila insularis ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Cannaphila insularis ♀ (immature)
Dythemis multipunctata ♀
Dythemis sterilis ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Erythemis peruviana ♀
Dythemis multipunctata ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Dythemis sterilis ♂
Erythemis peruviana ♂

Erythemis vesiculosa ♂ Erythemis vesiculosa ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Erythrodiplax andagoya ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Erythrodiplax castanea ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Erythrodiplax andagoya ♂
Erythrodiplax castanea ♂
Erythrodiplax fervida ♂
Erythrodiplax fervida ♀ Erythrodiplax funerea ♂
Erythrodiplax funerea ♀
Erythrodiplax umbrata ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Erythrodiplax umbrata ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Macrothemis inequiunguis ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Micrathyria ocellata ♂
Macrothemis inequiunguis ♀
Micrathyria ocellata ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Micrathyria dictynna ♂ Micrathyria dictynna ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Orthemis discolor ♂ Orthemis discolor ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Orthemis levis ♂
Orthemis levis ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Orthemis schmidti ♂
Unknown species B ♀
Pantala flavescens ♀
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Tramea calveri ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011
Unknown species A ♀
Pantala flavescens ♂
Pertithemis electra ♂
Tramea calverti ♀
Uracis fastigiata ♂

Uracis fastigiata ♀
Uracis imbuta ♀
© Brenda Loznik
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011 http://efg.cs.umb.edu/monteverde/Ode/OdeIntro.html
Uracis imbuta ♂
© W.A. Haber 2004-2011