The other advantage is a pdf is searchable, so someone can easily find a particular word such as 'glaucus' or 'MST' without having to read the whole text if it's a huge 'tome'.

Adam.

Chuck wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 10:21 pm Don’t forget member Eurytides is also a co author and actually got me involved in this.

Ah, I didn't associate member 'eurytides' with a co-author as I don't know his real name. Congratulations to eurytides, and thanks for involving Chuck too!

eurytides wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 11:14 pm Adam, you must read every article that comes out every day lol. I thought for sure Chuck would post about it first.

Actually I found out about it because ResearchGate flagged the citation of one of my papers in my feed so I clicked on the notification and found out about the new paper, otherwise I wouldn't have known about it.

Adam.

Thank you very kindly 58chevy for your kind sentiments !

You are a gentleman and a scholar....

10 days. Sort of. We returned to the gate and have been at the airport 8 hours. Spirit Air sucks

I agree with Adam. PDF is the way to go.

Trehopr,
Regardless of its true taxonomy, your specimen is a gem!

I use acetone for degreasing. It works quickly, it's easy, & it seldom causes the wingtips to curl up. Occasionally it does, but weighing down the wingtips with a glass strip will prevent this. I have never had a problem with the glass sticking to the wings. If you wait until the degreased specimen is completely dry, this shouldn't be a problem. I have never degreased a Morpho, but it works on most other families. I have removed & degreased silkmoth & sphinx moth abdomens without any problems.

Is this just a quick trip or is this the big move?

Adam, you must read every article that comes out every day lol. I thought for sure Chuck would post about it first.

Don’t forget member Eurytides is also a co author and actually got me involved in this. It was a long journey though collaborating with the professionals Julian and Chris was an amazing learning experience.

Thanks Adam!

Congratulations to Chuck!

https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/142202/ (open access)

A cryptic new species of tiger swallowtail (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae) from eastern North America
Charles J. DeRoller, Xi Wang, Julian R. Dupuis, B. Christian Schmidt

Abstract
In the eastern Great Lakes region of North America, two tiger swallowtail species have previously been recognized, Papilio glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 and Papilio canadensis Rothschild & Jordan, 1906. A third entity, the Midsummer Tiger Swallowtail, has been treated as a P. glaucus × canadensis hybrid, and exhibits a mosaic of both intermediate and unique morphological and biological traits. Here we demonstrate that rather than being a localized, historically recent hybrid phenomenon, the Midsummer Tiger Swallowtail maintains its morphological and physiological distinctness over a large geographic region in the absence of one or both putative parental species, and was first documented in the literature nearly 150 years ago. Papilio solstitius sp. nov. is physiologically unique in delaying post-diapause development, which results in allochronic isolation between the spring flights of P. glaucus and P. canadensis, and the late summer flight of P. glaucus. Similarly, the geographic range of Papilio solstitius spans the region between the northern terminus of P. glaucus and southern limits of P. canadensis, remaining distinct in areas of sympatry. Defining the taxonomic identity of this unique evolutionary lineage provides an important baseline for further inquiry into what has served as an exemplary species group in evolutionary study.

livingplanet3 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 10:58 pm ometime soon, I should scan their front covers, as I'm sure that others here would be familiar with them, and it would probably make for some interesting discussion and nostalgia.

I'd like to see that. I have a number of old and outdated books as well. How and Why, All About. Yes, my favorite library books had only my name in the back. Old stuff is fun to look at, times have changed and continue to do so.

Yes, and the original thread is interesting as well Archeoattacus and Attacus have always been confusing to me, in any event, probably not something
I'll need to worry about anytime soon.

livingplanet3 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 10:58 pm Over the past 25 years or so, mostly via the internet, I've been able to obtain nearly all of the old insect books that I used to have on almost continuous loan from my area libraries, in my younger days. Many of these, were published between the mid-1960s through the late 1970s. S

I had the ssame experience, with the difference that in our local case, the librarians turned out to hate books and went through a period of selling a huge number of library volumes for pennies on the dollar. (Apparently they wanted the space to put in more computer terminals or something. Ugh.) That's how I got my copy of d'Abrera's birdwing book (1st ed.) for about $20. I got a bunch of good books through their sales, whiich went on for a year or so.

jh

Regarding degreasing:
I use a procedure based in general on Le Moult's book
"Mes chasses aux papillons". It's a shame this book has still not been translated into English. His recipe: "Put the specimen in well-refined benzene, then the wings are covered with Sepiolite (Mg4Si6O15(OH)2·6H2O). I did this a few times in a simplified way: I sprayed the specimens with lighter fuel, such as "Ronsonol lighter fuel," and powdered the wings and abdomen with a "Toothpaste powder " (A finely-grained Sodium bicarbonate, NaHCO3). The powder absorbs the fat from the solvent and becomes yellowish-brown. Then, it is washed away with another spray of the lighter fuel. The procedure can be repeated until the fat and powder are gone. There was no damage/curling to the wings, at least in large Saturniidae and Sphingidae.

Wife’s packing for Florida. We’re using the standard 22” “spinner” carry ons. She’s pushing and stuffing to get that sucker closed.

I’ll pack tomorrow. Left side: net, net fanny pack, field field clothing, boots. Right side: whatever clothing fits.

Odorless mineral spirits (not the junk that is sold in California) is much superior to acetone or EA for degreasing bugs. The latter two can cause warping and even partial un-setting of the mount.

Trehopr1 wrote: ↑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...

Indeed, I've seen the "World of Butterflies" book, but do not recall having yet encountered the one on moths. Perhaps I will get a copy. I really appreciate these older books. Even if many have become rather out of date in regard to taxonomy, etc., they are still great to look at.

Over the past 25 years or so, mostly via the internet, I've been able to obtain nearly all of the old insect books that I used to have on almost continuous loan from my area libraries, in my younger days. Many of these, were published between the mid-1960s through the late 1970s. Sometime soon, I should scan their front covers, as I'm sure that others here would be familiar with them, and it would probably make for some interesting discussion and nostalgia.

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.

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

I should also note that Wikipedia is outdated too. It lists two species in Archaeoattacus when there are 4!