Odonata of the Osa Peninsula

A Species Checklist

Brenda Loznik (Assistant Research Officer)

Frontier Costa Rica

August 2012

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 30th

and May 17th

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.

Figure 2: Distribution of genera (A) and

species (B) among the families found on Osa

Conservation’s land.

A

B

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.

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

Table 1: Distribution patterns of odonata found in the study area.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15 20

Chao 2

Jacknife 1

Coleman

Observed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15 20

Chao 2

Jacknife 1

Coleman

Observed

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 5 10 15 20

Cu

mu

lati

ve

nu

mb

er o

f sp

ecie

s

Chao2

Jacknife 1

Coleman

Observed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15 20

Cumulative number of samples

Chao2

Jacknife 1

Coleman

Observed

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20

Cumulative number of samples

Chao 2

Jacknife 1

Coleman

Observed

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 first-

order jackknife (jackknife 1) are plotted

together with the observed species

richness and a Coleman curve.

A

B

C

D

E

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.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

OBC

Ocelotte stream

Piro river

Piro trail

Swamp

Species richness

Species abundance

Species richness and abundance per site

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.

Table 2: Total number of unique species found at the surveyed sites

Seasonality

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).

2628

2523

26

36

44

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

February March April May

Sp

ecie

s ri

chn

ess

Month

Species richness by month

Species richness

cumulative richness

# of unique

species

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.

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.

Family Species

Anisoptera

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: Odonata Species checklist (current as of July 2012)

Family Species

Zygoptera

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 I continued.

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: 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

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 II continued.

Anisoptera – Calopterygidae Hetaerina fuscoguttata ♂

Hetaerina fuscoguttata ♀ Hetaerina occisa ♂

Hetaerina occisa ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Hetaerina titia ♂ Hetaerina titia ♀

Coenagrionidae

Acanthagrion inexpectum ♂ Acanthagrion inexpectum ♀ © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Acanthagrion trilobatum ♂

Acanthagrion trilobatum ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Argia adamsi ♂

Argia adamsi ♀ © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Argia cupraurea ♂

Appendix III: Odonata of the Osa Peninsula. A picture ID-guide of the species found between January and June 2012

Argia cupraurea ♀ Argia difficilis ♂ © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Argia difficilis ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Argia frequentula ♂

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Argia frequentula ♀

Argia indicatrix ♂ Argia indicatrix ♀ © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Argia pulla ♂

Argia pulla ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Argia translata ♂

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011 Argia translata ♀

Ischnura capreolus ♂

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Ischnura capreolus ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Ischnura capreolus ♀ (immature)

Leptobasis vacillans ♂

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Leptobasis vacillans ♀

Metaleptobasis westfalli ♂ Neoerythromma cultellatum ♂

Neoerythromma cultellatum ♀ © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Telebasis boomsmae ♂

Telebasis digitocollis ♂

Lestidae Lestes forficula ♂

Lestes forficula ♀

Heteragrion erythrogastrum ♀ Perilestidae Perissolestes sp. ♂ - © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Perissolestes sp ♀ © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Platystictidae

Palaemnema sp. ♀

Protoneuridae

Neoneura esthera ♂ Neoneura esthera ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011 Protoneura amatoria ♂

Protoneura amatoria ♀

Megapodagrionidae

Heteragrion erythrogastrum ♂

Protoneura sulfurata ♂ Protoneura sulfurata ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Psaironeura sp. ♂

Psaironeura sp. ♀ © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Zygoptera – Aeshnidae Gynacantha tibiata ♂

Libellulidae Anatya normalis ♂

Anatya normalis ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Megaloprepus caerulatus ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Pseudostigmatidae

Mecistogaster ornata ♂ - © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Megaloprepus caerulatus ♂

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Mecistogaster ornata ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Brachymesia furcata ♂ Cannaphila insularis ♂

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Cannaphila insularis ♀ (immature)

Dythemis multipunctata ♂ © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Dythemis sterilis ♂

Dythemis sterilis ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011 Erythemis peruviana ♂

Erythemis peruviana ♀

Dythemis multipunctata ♀

Erythemis vesiculosa ♂ Erythemis vesiculosa ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Erythrodiplax andagoya ♂

Erythrodiplax andagoya ♀ © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Erythrodiplax castanea ♂

Erythrodiplax castanea ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

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

Macrothemis inequiunguis ♀

Micrathyria ocellata ♂ 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 ♂

Pantala flavescens ♀

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Pertithemis electra ♂

Tramea calveri ♂ © W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Tramea calverti ♀

Unknown species A ♀

Unknown species B ♀

Uracis fastigiata ♂

Pantala flavescens ♂

Uracis fastigiata ♀

Uracis imbuta ♂

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011

Uracis imbuta ♀

© Brenda Loznik

© W.A. Haber 2004-2011 http://efg.cs.umb.edu/monteverde/Ode/OdeIntro.html