-
- 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
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.
-
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by eurytides » Thu Feb 13, 2025 4:01 am
This is a newly and recently described species.
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 1114
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by Trehopr1 » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:48 am
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 !
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 1114
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by Trehopr1 » 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....
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.
-
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by Chuck » 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.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.
Besides which, it’s obviously not Edwardsi, and actually more impressive, but I couldn’t name it.
-
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by eurytides » Wed Feb 12, 2025 11:13 pm
What’s the status of Archaeoattacus malayanus?
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by adamcotton » Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:38 pm
Adam.
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm
Re: Publishing field notes?
by adamcotton » Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:30 pm
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.
-
- 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
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.

-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 1114
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am
Archeoattacus edwardsii
by Trehopr1 » Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:19 pm
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.

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.
-
- Posts: 1286
- 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.
-
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am
Re: Publishing field notes?
by eurytides » Wed Feb 12, 2025 4:48 pm
-
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am
Re: Morpho abdomens
by eurytides » Wed Feb 12, 2025 4:45 pm
-
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm
Re: Morpho abdomens
by Chuck » Wed Feb 12, 2025 4:28 pm
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 1114
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am
Re: Morpho abdomens
by Trehopr1 » Wed Feb 12, 2025 4:01 pm
I've never degreased anything myself so I have no personal experiences to fall back on. I've only had a few things over the years grease up on me and they have nearly always been moths. I just toss them out and have replaced most of them. However, I cannot imagine the dismay of having this occur on morpho's or birdwing butterflies which can be pricey most of the time.....
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2022 7:51 pm
Re: Morpho abdomens
by morpho4me » Wed Feb 12, 2025 2:04 pm
-
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm
Re: Publishing field notes?
by Chuck » Wed Feb 12, 2025 1:36 pm
In fact, yes. Daily counts, daily observations. These could be summarized while retaining potentially important content (e.g., Clark & Clark) but there's always the risk that some small- yet later important- detail is lost.
Case in point, the initial study on Late Flight by Hagen & Lederhouse ("Polymodal Emergence..., 1984): they report captures of the Early Flight tigers in numbers to me that are astronomical. They recorded daily captures that far exceed all of my Early Flight/ Spring Form captures over 40 years. And absolutely no mention of their methods, no hints as to how this could possibly be.
Worse, Hagen & Lederhouse leave no hint as to what Early Flight might be. In 1990 Scriber published on Spring Form, and in 1991 Scriber, Hagen & Lederhouse published the description of canadensis. It was widely known by 1984 that Early Flight/ Spring Form and canadensis were likely different polymorphs, if not different taxa. Clark & Clark hit on this in the 1950s even, and it goes back before that, to Jordan, 1906. Yet, there are no notes, no records, nothing, that might indicate what this Early Flight in Ithaca, NY might be. In the description of canadensis they reflect on the difference between Spring Form and canadensis with "Scriber 1982, R. Hagen, unpubl. data." Great. Where is this data? What's in it? What it comes down to is that an incredibly significant effort and subsequent publication failed to provide critical information that was readily observed/ known.
There's a lot of unpublished data. Beyond the recent Pavulaan bjorkae description, other researchers have noted similar to what Harry P reports. Aside from a relatively brief mention of polymorphs in Pavulaan, none of these field observations are published. One is pending, but I doubt it will be a daily report.
My hope is that by publishing everything I'm providing the most detailed, comprehensive data package I can.
-
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2022 1:54 pm
Re: Saturniidae: Nudaurelia/Gonimbrasia
by Cabintom » Wed Feb 12, 2025 1:06 pm
https://www.afromoths.net/species/28613
Edit: Anyone know what the correct nomenclature is for the species?
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 2:27 pm
Re: Morpho abdomens
by Jshuey » Wed Feb 12, 2025 11:49 am
John
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 2:53 pm
Re: Morpho abdomens
by bobw » Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:45 am