by vabrou » Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:30 pm
This was part of my experimentation with operating light traps at different heights. There have been several journal publications from the 1950s-1960s discussing this subject, even one publication where a Louisiana state record skipper species was captured in an entomological survey in North Louisiana using an airplane. Some light trap studies were done using traps mounted at different elevations of forest fire towers. What I discovered over the past half century is that the more delicate species e.g. geometrids, pyralids, and smaller micros are much less often captured at traps operating at greater heights. Sphingids occurred in greater quantities at higher elevations, and the most delicate species are most often captured at heights of 1-3 feet above ground. The image of a trap operating 53 feet above ground is just one of many heights I operated light traps. The traps we operated at 1-3 feet heights are responsible for large numbers of numerous new Louisiana state record lepidoptera species, and including discoveries of many species new to science. All of these records are examples of how we were able to discover over 400 species of just moths new to science in Louisiana. So, we not only learned a lot, but we proved these matters using basic scientific methods, but consider 'NO ONE' else has bothered to do this even to today -2023.
More noteworthy concerning trap heights is that the optimal best height for best volume of captures is getting the traps just above the more dense lower secondary growth, not necessarily above the largest trees. You can see what I mean in the original image of a light trap operating at a height of 53'. Note the lower half of that photo illustrates (secondary) dense lower growth.
Another example of just one aspect of our research is, we have been preparing a manuscript where a Gulf-coast (including Louisiana) clearwing moth species has been reported by researchers (those deemed published N.A. Sesiidae experts for the past century) to have one extended annual brood occurring January through December, even in the most current (1988) MONA fascicle on Sesiidae. Each subsequent sesiid author over the past century also were repeating what the earlier authors have also repeated, just as occurs in all of the scientific literature on N.A. Lepidoptera. We discovered there is actually (4) four annual broods of this clearwing moth species in N.A. Right now the fourth annual brood of this particular species is occurring here this year. We run our traps every day of every year to get these actual daily documented data points, as we have done daily for the past 54 years.
To do these things we did not apply meaningless statistical formulas to prove science as fact, as so much of existing scientific literature contains today, but we collected and counted each and every wild adult clearwing moth (100%) captured daily 365-366 days for the past 54 years (no statistical formulas used). I am not a person to speak negatively about statistics, as my only college 'A'' -grades are in statistical courses, and I was employed specifically in Quality Assurance/Quality Control for about 10 years of my early work history in which I used statistical formulas daily.
We began these entomological phenology studies in 1970 when the first 'Moths of North America' MONA fascicle was published on the family Sphingidae and we recognized there was made-up and anecdotal opinions stated as factual and plagiarized phenology crap throughout the book. Now, we went a bit overboard in eventually publishing a 30-year non-stop study of the Sphingidae of Louisiana which covered the years (1970-1999) in which we counted daily and reported capturing 83,889 wild adult Sphingidae specimens representing 46 species within the state of Louisiana, including discovering two new hawk moth species, both from right here at my home location.
And the majority of all our 461 entomological publications to date includes 365-366 day phenology data. SO 'WE LEARNED QUITE A LOT, going 'where no researchers have gone before'. Here is a jpg illustrating small series of a sample (~250 males and females) of a newly discovered clearwing moth nearly all collected using MV light traps running about (1-2) feet above ground. I hope to describe this species and 25 or other new clearwing moth species we discovered here in Louisiana. Covell (1984) and (2005) stated only one species of clearwing moth is attracted to UV light, yet I have personally captured ~100,000 clearwing moths representing ~30 different clearwing moth species in my UV light traps here in Louisiana. Obviously, that statement is not true.
Here is a phenogram illustrating the (4) annual broods we recorded occurring in Louisiana for the hawkmoth species Paonias myops in Louisiana. Paonias myops (J. E. Smith): four broods, first peaking late March; peaks two through four occur at approximately 50-day intervals, beginning early June. P. myops was previously reported by Beutenmüller (1895) as probably double-brooded near New York City, by Hodges in MONA (1970-71) as seemingly single-brooded (March through October), and by Heitzman (1987) as having multiple broods in Missouri. Look for yourself at my published phenogram (pasted here) concerning Paonias myops in Louisiana. How many annual broods do you count, certainly not one annual brood stated in MONA ? Handy jpg of a male Paonias myops from Louisiana attached
Hodges in MONA also reported the two other species of the genus Paonias occurring in N.A. as each having '2' annual broods. But, neither actually have two annual broods in N.A., in fact we proved these two species as well have '4' annual broods in Louisiana. In fact only a single species addressed by Brou and Brou and by Hodges in (MONA) of the 58 hawkmoth species occurring in Louisiana had the correct phenology stated by Hodges. Brou Jr., V.A. and C.D. Brou 1997. Distribution and phenologies of Louisiana Sphingidae. Jour. Lepid. Soc. 51:156-175
I will end my comments by saying what I have said for most of the past half century "DON''T BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU READ IN OUR SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE" no matter how many PhDs say so. The vast majority of our scientific literature is simply plagiarized by current authors. What is not plagiarized is simply anecdotal opinions without any proofs. If you don't agree, then your spending too many hours out in the field and not in your library.
- Synanthedon new species - series fem red.jpg (492.01 KiB) Viewed 10 times
- DSCF0844.JPG (511.48 KiB) Viewed 10 times
- myops.jpg (55.58 KiB) Viewed 10 times