I just wanted to mention a possible alternative to the traditional No Pest Strips mentioned here. Hercon Vaportape II has the same active ingredient (Dichlorvos,10% vs. 18.6%) but in a more user-friendly, 1" x 4" thin strip and easier to cut. Vaportape II is intended to use as a fumigant in outdoor insect traps and is available from any place that sells insect pest management or insect monitoring supplies such as Great Lakes IPM, https://www.greatlakesipm.com/. The label says to replace after 12 weeks or when effectiveness diminishes. I'd imagine they'd last longer in an enclosed drawer. I have not used either product in insect drawers for pest control so can't vouch for their effectiveness or advisability of doing so since neither product are labelled for such use.

Image courtesy of Julieta Brambila, USDA APHIS PPQ, Bugwood.org

I believe that this philosophy can also apply to habitat (in addition to weather or time of day). Most of my most exciting records here in DRC were captured in degraded habitats. I think many collectors who come to the tropics aim to do their collecting in pristine habitats (and there's certainly logic to this) and naturally pass-by "less optimal" locations.

Back in the day, when you you could safely camp in the forest and travel around relatively freely, lots collectors would visit Mt. Hoyo, here in Ituri. A common staging point was Nyankunde, which had an airstrip, hospital and a significant ex-pat community given the size of the village. Nyankunde is not all that biogeographically interesting and so it seems very few bothered to do any collecting in the area.
I've collected the holotype of Neptis morosopsis and discovered a colony of Euchrysops kabrosae at the top of the hill directly behind the hospital.

It seems we are back.

Grmpfff the problem seems worst than thought by my tech team... and I am facing a TOTAL non-professionalism from Ilance (the Canadian company who created the marketplace software)... so it will take more time... I keep you all informed.

You can indeed hit the "Donate" button below, no differences.

Thank you !!!

COI does not really give a reliable indication of species status, only a suggestion of probability. On the other hand a combination of various mitochondrial genes and importantly also a number of nuclear genes gives a much better indication of specificity ... but even then results can be unreliable in some cases.

Adam.

PS. I agree with John's comment just above. DNA characters are just that ... another category of characters. They should be taken into consideration alongside all other 'traditional' characters.

(John) that makes me wonder what the pros have been doing for two centuries, arguing about whether something is a species or subspecies.

While CO1 gives some insight- and clears up some of these issues, I'd hope there was SOME standard being set...or at least a baseline guideline.

I see a lot of stuff in BOLD BINs that are all roughly equal off the same branch, and presumably then all manner of taxa(?) could be named as species.

Oh shoot! I know I got the email while travelling but somehow it went off to spam and disappeared. Can you resend the link to donate? Or should I just hit the yellow "Donate" button below? Does it make any difference?

Chuck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:50 pm Thanks Adam.

"Smaller difference in COI". Noting the other factors- range, flight period, etc. how the heck then would one determine Sp vs SSP considering COI?

If we use 2% as a safe range for species (noting that many are now less than that), what might be the difference for a ssp? Must be less than 1/3 of 1%, considering glaucus and appalachiensis.

I expect the answer is "it depends" and "the other factors" but then still....we can argue morphology all day, argue about distant populations, etc...even combining all the factors, are there ANY guidelines for Sp vs SSP now?

To me, DNA data is just another character to use in making what is fundamentally a subjective decision. The DNA % difference is neither stronger nor weaker evidence of speciation than morphology and biology. Species are biological facts, but the rest of classification, both higher and lower levels, is a human construct. At least, that's the way I look at the situation....

jh

Yes, we had to buy a larger server due to too many pictures uploaded by sellers.
We should be back today or tomorrow.

Thank you very much to all those who have sent their yearly donation !
Good to see you're always here to help !

Down again? "The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later."

Thanks Adam.

"Smaller difference in COI". Noting the other factors- range, flight period, etc. how the heck then would one determine Sp vs SSP considering COI?

If we use 2% as a safe range for species (noting that many are now less than that), what might be the difference for a ssp? Must be less than 1/3 of 1%, considering glaucus and appalachiensis.

I expect the answer is "it depends" and "the other factors" but then still....we can argue morphology all day, argue about distant populations, etc...even combining all the factors, are there ANY guidelines for Sp vs SSP now?

Chuck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 2:26 pm OK, next question! Subspecies.
I know IUCN doesn't recognize subspecies, but we all know it has been commonly used for centuries.
However, as of late, most of what I'm seeing is ssp or populations elevated to (or recognized as) full species. I can't even recall the last time I saw a new ssp described.

Lots of new subspecies are described nowadays, probably they get less visibility.

IUCN is a conservation body, and it puts emphasis on species conservation rather than individual subspecies. If you meant ICZN, it treats subspecies as one of two taxon 'ranks' in the Species-group, so I guess you probably do mean IUCN.

Chuck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 2:26 pm How do genetics play into this? The description of Dryocampa kendalli notes a difference in COI of 1.3% (plus morphological and range) from D rubicundra to call it a new species. Papilio appalachiensis COI differs .33% from glaucus.

Is subspecies simply out of vogue? We don't know what valid differentiators might define a subspecies?

Subspecies generally have a smaller difference in COI between them than between species, but it is often best to treat subspecies as visibly distinguishable from the nominotypical population in the large majority of specimens.

Difference in COI sequences is only an indicator that two taxa may be separate species or subspecies. Mostly it is a good indicator, but sometimes distinct species have almost identical COI sequences (e.g. Papilio eurymedon and P. rutulus).

Adam.

Donation sent. Thank you wollastoni, for all your efforts in making InsectNet possible.

OK, next question! Subspecies.

I know IUCN doesn't recognize subspecies, but we all know it has been commonly used for centuries.

However, as of late, most of what I'm seeing is ssp or populations elevated to (or recognized as) full species. I can't even recall the last time I saw a new ssp described.

How do genetics play into this? The description of Dryocampa kendalli notes a difference in COI of 1.3% (plus morphological and range) from D rubicundra to call it a new species. Papilio appalachiensis COI differs .33% from glaucus.

Is subspecies simply out of vogue? We don't know what valid differentiators might define a subspecies?

Donation just sent. Worthwhile forum, thanks.

RIP Mr.Smith
Wow 660 species in small, high altitude country.
In the whole Canada we have here just close to 300 species!

I just checked again and it’s not that small country, just because it is sandwiched between India and China looks so on the maps. Also includes almost all zones of south slop of Himalayan ridge which explain huge diversity of species.
It is for sure good place to visit but unfortunately I don’t think I will have the opportunity to do so.

Sounds like a long life well lived.

Here is the text of the interesting obituary from The Telegraph, for those who cannot access it:


Colin Smith, maths teacher who became an authority on the butterflies of Nepal – obituary
He spent the last six decades of his life in the Asian republic, where he was known as ‘Putali Baje’, or ‘Butterfly Grandpa’

By
Telegraph Obituaries
9 November 2023 • 6:00am

Colin Smith, who has died aged 87, travelled to Nepal aged 29 to teach mathematics, science and English and stayed on to become an authority on the country’s butterflies.

Nepal is one of the best places in the world to see butterflies. Of the 17,500 or so known species, 660 are found in Nepal, of which 20 are on the endangered list. Smith dedicated more than 50 years to their study, publishing numerous research papers and several books and becoming known by locals as “Putali Baje” (“Butterfly Grandpa”).

Colin Philip Smith was born on November 24 1936 in Highgate, north London, to Ebenezer Smith and Rose, née Boosey. As a boy he often visited an uncle whose collection of butterflies and moths sparked an interest which he pursued during school holidays at Boy Scout summer camps.

After taking a BSc in mathematics at Imperial College London, followed by an MSc at University College, he became a teacher, and in 1966 volunteered to serve with the United Mission to Nepal (UMN), a venture involving a number of Christian groups. “I was told that alongside teaching, I needed to have a hobby, too,” he recalled. “I told them that I collected butterflies.” The UMN suggested that he make a collection from Nepal to bring back home.

Instead he decided to stay, and while teaching at a school in Pokhara he met Dorothy Merow, a fellow teacher who had started a small natural history museum and who persuaded him to collect butterflies for it.

After seven years’ teaching Smith decided to devote himself full-time to butterflies. His rare visits to England thereafter included a trip in 1976 to the Saruman Museum (aka the National Butterfly Museum) to learn the latest techniques for handling specimens.

Back in Nepal, he started writing for local natural history journals and in 1989 published his first major study, Butterflies of Nepal (Central Himalaya). His initial goal was to collect specimens of all the 660 species of butterflies found in Nepal with a view to publishing a comprehensive checklist; later, however, he turned to capturing butterflies with a digital camera. His Illustrated Checklist of Nepal’s Butterflies was published in 1995.

In the early 2000s Smith began working mostly on Nepal’s far more numerous moth species, travelling round the country with a fluorescent bulb and a white sheet, collecting specimens for Kathmandu University. Other publications include Lepidoptera of Nepal (2010) and A Photographic Pocket Guide to Butterflies of Nepal, In Natural Habitat (2011).

For many years Smith lived with the family of a Nepali fellow lepidopterist near Pokhara, but in 1995 he bought a small plot of land nearby and built himself a tiny one-room cottage. Last year he was reported to be living on a British pension of £175 a month along with an elderly allowance of 4,000 Nepalese rupees (around £24.50). “I was maybe the richest man in Pokhara in my prime,” he reflected, “But now I’m probably the poorest.”

In 1995 he made the first of several attempts to be granted Nepalese citizenship, but it was only in 2019, after friends organised a petition, and after Smith had been ill for several years, that the government finally responded, and he became the third foreigner, after Sir Edmund Hillary and Toni Hagen (the first foreigner to travel throughout Nepal), to be granted honorary citizenship.

Nepal is now struggling with the social and environmental costs of mass tourism, but in an interview last year Smith recalled that when he first arrived, there were “hardly any roads, let alone vehicles. Only one foreigner had a bicycle.”

Other than a brother living in New Zealand, Smith had no other close relatives. His wish was to have his ashes scattered on the Seti River that flows down from the Annapurna mountains.

Colin Smith, born November 24 1936, died November 4 2023