I've seen Troides and O. priamus at Butterfly Wonderland in Scottsdale AZ before, but not commonly. They always seem to have Morphos and Caligos though along with the more common Pierids and Nymphalids. It's worth checking out if you are in the area.

wollastoni wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 5:46 pm I guess seeing them in a flight house removes the "surprise" effect + their metallic blue colour is more impressive under real sun and on the forest background.

I always felt a bit ashamed taking the family to a butterfly zoo or aquarium. Both pale so much as compared to the real environment, it seems so fake, so bare. But of course, for most people that's the only opportunity to see such beautiful butterflies alive. And, I've come to appreciate watching their flights and habits, even if the colors don't do anything for me. I still laugh at Morphos and their flight paths, like highways, and how they chase around. And watching an Ornithoptera nectaring is still impressive.

Maybe seven or eight years ago they had priamus at Niagara Falls, Canada. I've seen them in US, but I'd have to search up photos to say where.

Note too, the pupae are not available constantly, so even if a butterfly zoo does favor them, it doesn't mean they will have them "today." The curators (or whatever they're called) have told me that the government people make it not worth having Ornithoptera- too much bureaucracy.

Some pictures from the flight house :

I am afraid the CITES Convention make that financially impossible. The cost of the CITES permits and the Indonesian/PNG bureaucracy make such idea impossible.
+ birdwing farmers will not want you to open a "competitive" farm abroad by selling you some chrysalids.

Chrysalids are easy to buy in Papuan villages who breed them (Manokwari, Biak...).
A Japanese friend has his own flight house with birdwings inside. Very nice to see.

This said, and I don't really know why, I have seen tons of Morpho in flight housse and they never really impressed me. But I was very impressed the first time I see some live ones in French Guiana. I guess seeing them in a flight house removes the "surprise" effect + their metallic blue colour is more impressive under real sun and on the forest background.

I have once or twice seen a Troides sp. in the flight cage at the McGuire Center, Gainesville, FL... but not every time I've visited. Never noticed an Ornithoptera sp. there, though.
jh

I enjoy visiting zoos and natural history gardens that have large greenhouse environments that feature free flying exotic butterflies. Most of the flight houses that I have visited to date showcase species primarily from central and south America (Morphos, Owls, etc.). While those species are enjoyable to observe up close, does anyone know of any flight houses in the United States where one can see living Ornithoptera? I would go out of my way quite a distance to be able to see birdwings in flight. Thanks for any suggestions.

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.