mothman55 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 15, 2025 3:27 pm Even the more common priamus species are beautiful,
So I guess I get a little miffed when I see others dismiss these beautiful creatures as rubbish or boring.

Of course they are beautiful. And it's impressive to see a dozen female and half dozen pollen-covered males nectaring on one hibiscus plant.

That said, scientifically, they're not so interesting. Virtually all Ornithoptera are lowland (yes, I know not all), and most readily come to ground to nectar in the morning. And while each ssp is often restricted to a single island / chain, they are usually abundant.

I contrast Ornithoptera with Delias. I personally do not care for the colors of Delias, so cosmetically they have never held my interest. But I read everything I can about them, because they are so unique, distinctive in habitat, and offer a great opportunity for new discoveries.

Beauty does not always equate to interesting. From a retail collector's position surely they are beautiful. I find victoriae to be far more beautiful than alexandrae, but that's subjective. On the priamus-types, what I find most interesting is indeed the morphology, but as reflecting divergence- who the $**@ would have ever dreamed up an orange priamus-type? Green, blue, grey, those I understand. But orange? That there is such extreme color variation within the group is astonishing. And makes for a nice display.

I've got one of the leather ones that a Japanese guy kindly gave me when I admired it on one of my collecting trips to Kyrgyzstan many years ago.

I must admit that I mainly use rectanglar papers now, even though there is a risk of antenna damage. I certainly prefer triangular ones, but they always come supplied flat and I really can't be arsed to fold them all.

The Japanese even sell triangular belt boxes to store empty paper triangles and put specimens in when out collecting:
https://roppon-ashi.jp/en/products/fiel ... ags/#20701

Adam.

The main advantage of triangles is not breaking antennae !

The only advantage of rectangles is you can easily put inside a living lepidoptera. For storage, it is very bad as specimens move more inside and will easily break antennae and legs. Rectangles seem popular in the US while triangles are by far majoritary in Europe and Japan.

wollastoni wrote: ↑Sat Mar 15, 2025 5:23 pm ollecting them is a bit boring though, to my mind, a

Subjective, and contingent with experience. Everything is amazing the first time. I remember the first Polyphylla decemlineata I caught at a street
light, the greatest thing I'd ever caught. But if it wasn't for people with varied interests, all we'd have for books would be some boring something:)

By the way, as well as being easy to open to examine the dry specimen without damaging it there is another advantage to triangles ... two of them take up about the same amount of space as an equivalent sized rectangle.

Adam.

livingplanet3 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 12, 2025 5:54 pm is it best to store them horizontally, or vertically?

I suppose it depends on the size and shape of the envelopes (dreadful rectangles vs openable triangles) and the size of the box you plan to store them in. The less excess space there is in the box the more efficient is the use of space.

Adam.

I store them vertically, but that gives me the most space in the container I use. Sealed "tupperware" in the freezer.
Seems easier to sort them or pick envelopes out.
I try to thin out deadstock once a year or so, the frozen ones sell every time.

mothman55 < Ornithoptera are stunning and marvellous butterflies for sure !
I will remember all my life the first Ornithoptera I saw flying (priamus teucrus) and having such beast in your net is a real thrill. It was one of my goal in life to see them flying in the wild.

Collecting them is a bit boring though, to my mind, as they don't vary much and are easy to find / reared.

Chuck wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 5:51 pm I blame Tennent, who told me Ornithoptera were (I forgot, either "stupid" or "rubbish", probably the latter) and common. He suggested Lycaenidae. While I did not go that route, he forever ruined Ornithoptera for me.

wollastoni wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 7:56 pm I have to agree with Tennent. Ornitho are big common lowland species… easy to breed… boring.

Wow, we have really reached a low point when a beautiful genus such as Ornithoptera is referred to as "rubbish" and "boring". Granted they do take up a lot of space compared to lycaenidae ( a family I love as well), but they are one of our most spectacular groups of butterflies. Would anyone call the beautiful and rare O.alexandrae boring, common, rubbish? How about O. paradisea or chimaera or meridionalis or allottii. Even the more common priamus species are beautiful, especially when you see them flying in the wild. I will never forget the first time I saw priamus euphorion flying about and nectaring freely, a beautiful sight. And the first time I reared them, the sight of a beautiful male drying his wings, exceptional.

So I guess I get a little miffed when I see others dismiss these beautiful creatures as rubbish or boring.

JVCalhoun wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 4:34 pm the human population will have to shift inland.

Funny you mention that, we bought just west of 41. The town is fully built (albeit nicely) and there's not much space west of 75. Our realtor had suggested we look at a new development. We drove out there- 20 minutes east of 75, in the middle of nowhere, and there's this massive development of probably 4000 cookie cutter homes on barren lawns that used to be sand pine scrub.

Here in NY, the suburbs are pushing ever outward. My Fritillary field has been a Kmart (now, an empty Kmart) for 20 years. The fields where we chased butterflies after school have been a housing track for 30 years. To the residents, it's their nice neighborhood, to me it's a shadow of memories amongst boring suburban houses.

When we're gone (the race, not you and me) it will mostly come back. Jungle, in particular, comes back very fast. I like reading about all the archeological finds in mesoAmerica, how now they know about numerous human sites. I was watching a show about clear cutting Brazil for cattle, when they found some stone foundations; the archies came out and put LIDAR up and found out the whole area- for dozens of miles- had once been a massive civilized area, and completely nude. It all came back within 500 years. Throughout the Pacific islands there are numerous archeological sites, though most you'd never see...they've been overgrown by jungle.

I admire your optimism, but I tend to be more cynical. Granted, there is a fair amount of land being preserved in Florida, but I remember what the state looked like 45 years ago, and it was much different than it is today. What you see as an abundance of habitat, I see as only a fraction of what once was. There used to be a fire tower not far from where I live. It was built when this area was still sandhills and pine flatwoods. The tower was still standing when houses took over the surrounding land, and a mall was built just down the road. The tower was finally taken down about 20 years ago, when people asked why a fire tower was standing in a housing community.

How long will those lands be preserved, and do they include the best habitats to support the most species? It also takes constant maintenance of those lands to control invasive species of plants and animals, which is a growing problem here. This requires a lot of money, yet budgets and staff are being cut at an alarming rate. They are being forced to do more with less every year. Who knows how long that can be sustained. Remember that invasive iguanas are responsible for wiping out one of the last populations the Miami Blue in the Florida Keys, which was located within a state park.

The Citrus Wildlife Management Area, within the Withlacoochee State Forest, is 50,000 acres of sand pine scrub and sandhills. I've been conducting a state-sanctioned butterfly survey there for the past five years (now up to 82 species; not bad for central Florida). Upland sand pine scrub and sandhill habitats are prime development lands here in Florida. In fact, my own neighborhood is located on old sandhills, which were developed for citrus groves before homes were built. There's not much sand pine scrub left in Florida, and more is being lost every year. When the sea rises, or hurricanes make coastal development uninsurable, the human population will have to shift inland. How long will it take a state administration to decide to settle all those people in places like the Withlacoochee State Forest? And how much tax money would be generated by hundreds of homes in that forest alone? It's worth billions of dollars in revenue. It's only a matter of time. Unlike the restoration of clearcut and agricultural land, urban development will not return to native habitat. When its gone, its gone.

Anyway, let's hope we can preserve what we can, whether it's land or books. It can be gone in a flash.

I don't think it makes any difference.
Just seal them in a hermetic tupperware to avoid pest infestation. And freese the tupperwares from time to time.

JVCalhoun wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 9:51 pm I don't think I'd want to see all the remaining natural areas be developed. I've seen enough of it that already, and more is disappearing every day.

Don't give up hope so fast.

In our area, there are several organizations- Finger Lakes Land Trust is the largest- that have proven highly successful to preserving land. And not just some rubbish old former bean field; they've done very well getting thousands of acres of prime (home & cottage) lands on lakeshores- MILES of lakeshore- DONATED by the wealthy ecology-minded. I can't impress enough that dozens of wealthy families, and also the power company, have DONATED commercially desirable land that developers would love to get their hands on to build "cottages" (that's $2M "cottages").

There is a bit of a down side, their model after obtaining the land is to turn it over to NYS for public use; of course, this being the corrupt cesspool of NY, they have all sorts of bureaucracy to jump through in order to get FREE PRIME LAND. But that's New York, and a different story. Fact is, thousands upon thousands of acres of land have, at least for our lifetime, been preserved.

Remember, circa 1905 the entirety of Upstate New York had been clear cut. I have plenty of period photos- whole swaths of land, bare. Then it was used for agriculture. But by the time I was born the agriculture was moving elsewhere, and the forests returned, to the point that now one would hardly think that it had, at one time, been totally bare. The post-industrial age actually saved (or, reverted) millions of acres throughout the US NE.

And in SW FL, remember that those thousands of acres of famed 1970s planned communities on swamp land have turned into state lands. Plus, it's only a few more hurricanes until waterfront is either uninsurable or un-restorable. Look at Estero Island- after the last two hurricanes one can see that the forest of mangrove survived, while the other forest trees are dead; everyone now knows mangrove is critical. And as homes become uninsurable, they will be reverted (with state and federal "help") to mangrove.

Stick around, John, and keep those books handy.

Agriculture- the #1 threat destroying ecology, yet largely ignored by the world powers.

https://www.sciencealert.com/largest-in ... -chocolate

JVCalhoun wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 7:46 pm

Chuck wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 5:14 pm We need to keep Mr. Calhoun alive forever

Ha! Thanks for the offer, but I'll have to pass. I don't think I'd want to see all the remaining natural areas be developed. I've seen enough of it that already, and more is disappearing every day.

Chuck wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 5:14 pm We need to keep Mr. Calhoun alive forever

Ha! Thanks for the offer, but I'll have to pass. I don't think I'd want to see all the remaining natural areas disappear. I've seen enough of it that already, and more is happening every day.

We need to keep Mr. Calhoun alive forever so that collection is always cared for and available. I'll go start an online donation.

joopes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 3:20 pm
What do you plan to do with the specimens if moving them to Florida isn't your wish? (Asking because I've found it very difficult to obtain birdwings in the US).

The heydays of both breeding various forms and ssp of Ornithoptera, as well as the volume retail in USA, is over. At they heyday circa 1990-2000 there were commercial breeding operations all over, and they weren't too expensive at retail from Ianni or Derosa or others. But the market got swamped, the prices dropped, and it wasn't worth breeding them anymore. Plus, Indonesia got greedy and wanted bigger payoffs and narrowed the distributor market to one; everything had to go through Jakarta through one wholesaler. Poof. Trade over. So it is rather amazing that some of the forms and ssp of Priamus, which used to cost $25, are no longer available at all.

Anyway, I'm in discussions with two big and reputable US retailers about their buying the (arguably) not-scientifically-significant specimens, including Ornithoptera. If someone wants to show up at the door with $10,000 it's theirs. The scientifically valuable part of the collection- and perhaps the Ornithoptera too- is going to Cornell.