Recent posts
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by adamcotton » Thu Feb 13, 2025 6:30 pm

Chuck wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:49 pm Part of the problem with the whole taxonomic model of genus and species is based on flawed, and generally (perhaps grudgingly) accepted, ability for an entity's ability to produce offspring. The problem has long been that there are too many exceptions. Using the "offspring" rule only, there is no difference between O victoriae and O priamus urvilleanus (which, given that urvilleanus is a ssp, suposedly means the species designation of victoriae and urvilleanus are inappropriate.
It is worth expanding here, for those who are not familiar with this version of the 'species concept', that it is not just the ability of two different populations to produce offspring that decides whether or not they are conspecific, but also the offspring themselves must be fully fertile and able to produce fertile offspring of their own.

Hybrids between species are usually either completely infertile or have reduced fertility, particularly if mating with another hybrid from the same parent populations. It is worth noting that often hybrids between closely related species are able to mate successfully with either parent species (known as a 'backcross') and produce fertile offspring, whereas a mating between two of the hybrids produces very few or absolutely no offspring at all. This is the mechanism whereby gene exchange can occur between different species. A good example most people will have heard about is the presence of genes from Neanderthal man in humans, averaging about 5% of the genome. Doubtless this is a result of 'hybrid' offspring then mating with humans and passing on Neanderthal genes to modern humanity.

Adam.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1289
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:57 pm

Trehopr1 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:37 pm I stand corrected....
Science has moved forward.
I was very much unaware of the changes.
Thank you eurytides and Adam for the appropriate links ! 🙏
You're welcome
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
AVATAR
eurytides
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by eurytides » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:54 pm

I should also note that Wikipedia is outdated too. It lists two species in Archaeoattacus when there are 4!
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
User avatar
Trehopr1
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Trehopr1 » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:37 pm

I stand corrected....
Science has moved forward.
I was very much unaware of the changes.
Thank you eurytides and Adam for the appropriate links ! 🙏
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1289
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:49 pm

(more on taxonomy and subspecies)

In the past, a subspecies might be assigned to a group / race based on morphology, food plant, organs, etc. Typically, a newly recognized subspecies was lumped under the previously recognized species, though it was generally impossible to tell which may have been the parental unit.

In order to have a valid subspecies, the parental species must still exist. In most cases though, the parental species is extinct; this is shown in the genetic trees. There was an ancestor, but that ancestor is extinct. So you can't have a subspecies; it must be elevated to species. Well, not really, the concept of "complexes" has been widely used though I think there is no taxonomic box for these.

Part of the problem with the whole taxonomic model of genus and species is based on flawed, and generally (perhaps grudgingly) accepted, ability for an entity's ability to produce offspring. The problem has long been that there are too many exceptions. Using the "offspring" rule only, there is no difference between O victoriae and O priamus urvilleanus (which, given that urvilleanus is a ssp, suposedly means the species designation of victoriae and urvilleanus are inappropriate.

Of course, the "offspring" rule is not, and perhaps never has been, the sole determination. What is the problem is the model of genus, species, subspecies, which does not truly reflect the natural world. The model is very important to those who like to say they "have every species of Papilio" and it is a great general guideline for collaboration and communication; but it's not the end-all.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1289
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:11 pm

Trehopr1 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:34 am Even Richard Peigler's "Attacus" book produced in 1999 (?) only lists edwardsii and staudingeri as legitimate species.

As far as I know, that book still remains THE most comprehensive up-to-date work on these large moths.
I love books. They're all we are going to have when the internet hiccups. However, they are outdated, as is reliance on morphology alone.

Don't get me wrong. I love my LeMaire books. But I never open my D'Abrera books, nor The Butterflies of North America Scott, nor The Butterflies of North America Howe, nor Butterflies East of the Great Plains Opler & Krizek, all of which I'd sell very reasonably.

The rate of changes in taxonomy is astonishing. Just look at what is published on ZooKeys in one day! https://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles That's ONE publishing venue. Add them all up, and just Leps alone experience dozens if not hundreds of taxonomic changes every month.

Trehopr1 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:34 am Perhaps this "vietnamensis" is more so a subspecies name....

Though I am merely a general passionate collector of mostly lepidoptera this moth looks every bit to be edwardsii despite anyone's attempt to name it something else.

I think if we're going to go about naming subspecies after every country that a species is found in then things in science are getting out of hand !
Well you know what opinions are like. But there's a difference between "anyone's" opinion and a well researched, genetically-supported recognition of a taxonomically distinct entity. And while surely I would not relegate an generally unknown researcher ("anyone") to ineptitude, in the case of this moth the authors have credentialed publications- Rougherie (179), Nassig (75) and are recognized authorities.

Genetics have changed everything. Scientists argued for centuries about what was a subspecies, what was a species, what was a morph. Now with genetics we now know the hierarchy and relationships. Remember, Adam flagged that an (what was it?) Atrophaneura wasn't even in the correct genus box, but is a Pterourus!

It's easy enough to see for the moth in question, follow eurytides link and look at the NJ tree.

Clearly, vietnamensis and edwardsii are not synonyms. And of subspecies, the tree infers (because trees always need scientific confirmation) that edwardsii alone could have subspecies. But neither edwardsii nor vietnamensis are subspecies of the other.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by adamcotton » Thu Feb 13, 2025 8:35 am

Chuck wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:30 am I must say, Mr WikiCottoni, this is a moth. And I am astonished you know this too. I wish I had a quarter the memory capacity.

Besides which, it’s obviously not Edwardsi, and actually more impressive, but I couldn’t name it.
It happens that I am helping a Thai Saturniid researcher who told me about this issue. I have copies of several recent papers here and looked it up there. I certainly didn't remember the correct name!
Trehopr1 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:34 am A. edwardsii does have a widespread distribution. It is known to occur in India, Bhutan, Myanmar, Vietnam, Peninsular Malaysia, and Borneo (incl. Sabah). Perhaps this "vietnamensis" is more so a subspecies name....
A. edwardsi was restricted to the Himalayan region by Naessig et al. 2010, available here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... aturniidae?

Adam.
Topic: Morpho abdomens | Author: lamprima2 | Replies: 13 | Views: 171
User avatar
lamprima2
Premium Member - 2025
Premium Member - 2025
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 8:16 pm

Re: Morpho abdomens

by lamprima2 » Thu Feb 13, 2025 4:09 am

Thanks to everyone who answered my post!
I seldom deal with Morphinae. I purchased a few Morpho sulkowskyi
from Chuck Ianny about 15 years ago. He sent me a bag of abdomens.
I glued them w/o degreasing. With all due respect to Chuck, I would not
use these specimens in a genetic study.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
AVATAR
eurytides
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by eurytides » Thu Feb 13, 2025 4:01 am

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Spe ... _303313082

This is a newly and recently described species.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
User avatar
Trehopr1
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Trehopr1 » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:48 am

Thank you livingplanet3 for your kind remarks !

The book that I first saw this species in is called "The world of Moths" by authors Dickens & Storey (1974). Perhaps you have this book. It was produced on the heels of another book prior called "The world of Butterflies" also by the same authors.

The moth book is harder to find generally but, not impossible. It's listing right now in the price range of 35 to $40 US.

Still a lot of good information on some of the worlds great moth species !
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
User avatar
Trehopr1
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Trehopr1 » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:34 am

Hello Adam,
A. edwardsii does have a widespread distribution. It is known to occur in India, Bhutan, Myanmar, Vietnam, Peninsular Malaysia, and Borneo (incl. Sabah). Perhaps this "vietnamensis" is more so a subspecies name....

Though I am merely a general passionate collector of mostly lepidoptera this moth looks every bit to be edwardsii despite anyone's attempt to name it something else.

I think if we're going to go about naming subspecies after every country that a species is found in then things in science are getting out of hand !

Archeoattacus staudingeri certainly looks a bit different and has been a long established species. Even Richard Peigler's "Attacus" book produced in 1999 (?) only lists edwardsii and staudingeri as legitimate species.

As far as I know, that book still remains THE most comprehensive up-to-date work on these large moths.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1289
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:30 am

adamcotton wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:38 pm Sorry to 'disappoint' but this is not edwardsi but Archaeoattacus vietnamensis Naumann, Rougerie & Naessig, 2016.

Adam.
I must say, Mr WikiCottoni, this is a moth. And I am astonished you know this too. I wish I had a quarter the memory capacity.

Besides which, it’s obviously not Edwardsi, and actually more impressive, but I couldn’t name it.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
AVATAR
eurytides
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by eurytides » Wed Feb 12, 2025 11:13 pm

I have occasionally seen this species being raised by members of a FB moth group.

What’s the status of Archaeoattacus malayanus?
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by adamcotton » Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:38 pm

Sorry to 'disappoint' but this is not edwardsi but Archaeoattacus vietnamensis Naumann, Rougerie & Naessig, 2016.

Adam.
Topic: Publishing field notes? | Author: Chuck | Replies: 7 | Views: 96
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: Publishing field notes?

by adamcotton » Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:30 pm

Chuck wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2025 7:03 pm At this point I'm thinking run a couple copies spiral bound.
Maybe scan it all to pdf, then anyone who wants one can have a copy on request sent by file transfer website. No cost other than your time to scan it all. Once it's out there it will be passed around.

Adam.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
User avatar
livingplanet3
Premium Member - 2025
Premium Member - 2025
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 4:55 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by livingplanet3 » Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:01 pm

Spectacular specimen!

The book you mentioned - did it happen to be "All Color Book of Insects" by Michael Tweedie, 1973? That was the first in which I ever saw Archeoattacus edwardsii depicted, and is one of the much treasured books from my youth. :)

Image
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 15 | Views: 124
User avatar
Trehopr1
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am

Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Trehopr1 » Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:19 pm

A very recent and particularly gorgeous saturniid
species which I have now acquired through a very
kind friend (here on the forum) is this male of
Archeoattacus edwardsii. Of all the "atlas species"
of giant moths this one I feel is the most elegantly
colorful of them all. This long desired fine example
was a long time coming....

I was first made aware of the species via a moth book
published in the mid-70's. The book was seen at my town's
library during a visit. I was only in my mid-teens at the
time and was "awestruck" by its elegance. I could only
think to myself that I've got to get one of those someday !

While Attacus atlas and Attacus lorquini have long been
staples in the insect trade (here in the U.S.); this species
for a long time was not even offered. It was not really
until the late 90's that specimens started showing up here
and only sporadically thereafter.

Image

Commonly known as Edward's Atlas moth it has been
mistakenly called Attacus edwardsii in several books
and publications through the years. Its proper GENUS
name Archeoattacus was first described by Watson in
1914 although, the SPECIES name edwardsii would not
be given it by Francis Buchanan White until 1859.

There are only 2 recognised species within the genus
Archeoattacus with edwardsii being the far more wide-
spread in geographic range. The other species which is
endemic to Borneo (so far as I know) is A. staudingeri
and it is rarely seen in private collections although, that
does not make it rare in nature necessarily. Perhaps, just
localised....

Anyway, the deep, rich, colors and beautiful wing shape
of this species surely make it a standout amongst the
many beautiful moths of the family Saturniidae.
Topic: Publishing field notes? | Author: Chuck | Replies: 7 | Views: 96
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1289
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: Publishing field notes?

by Chuck » Wed Feb 12, 2025 7:03 pm

eurytides wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2025 4:48 pm I see where you are coming from Chuck. Usually, detailed data like that are put into a supplementary table along with a shorter publication so that if anyone wants to examine the raw data on which conclusions were based, they can. It’s typically not published in the main paper.

Personally, for a new species description or similar topic, I like the Shuey approach- short and sweet. But some background info should be publicly available somewhere. One of my favorite books is Clark & Clark "Butterflies of Virginia" because they do delve into what could be considered minutiae; and yet this information is still proving useful.

I fully expect that upon making my field notes available they might be read end-to-end by nobody, but who knows, maybe there are some observations that interest two or three people. At this point I'm thinking run a couple copies spiral bound.
Topic: Publishing field notes? | Author: Chuck | Replies: 7 | Views: 96
AVATAR
eurytides
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am

Re: Publishing field notes?

by eurytides » Wed Feb 12, 2025 4:48 pm

I see where you are coming from Chuck. Usually, detailed data like that are put into a supplementary table along with a shorter publication so that if anyone wants to examine the raw data on which conclusions were based, they can. It’s typically not published in the main paper.
Topic: Morpho abdomens | Author: lamprima2 | Replies: 13 | Views: 171
AVATAR
eurytides
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am

Re: Morpho abdomens

by eurytides » Wed Feb 12, 2025 4:45 pm

Acetone can cause curling of the wing tips because it also dries the specimen. It’s not the oil, it’s the additional moisture. Other agents that can be used include toluene, xylene, carbon tetrachloride.