My personal observations is that the adult moths dig their way out. I could understand a pupa wiggling itself to the surface ACCIDENTALLY in loose surroundings, but I know of none that work their way to the earth's surface.

Vernon, I won't say you're wrong about peer review, but my peers are killing me on our paper.

"The MacArthur Fellowship is an $800,000, "no strings attached" grant awarded to individuals"


Dayum. I'd need a new, red Ferrari to study evolutionary science in insects.

https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/joe- ... &utm_term=

As Christof said, I mount wasps upside down. You can put all antennae, legs, and wings of a wasp on one plane surface. All you need is a piece of styrofoam with a shallow groove.

1st picture
Vespa dybowskii Worker

2nd picture
Vespa mandarinia Queen
Vespa analis Queen
Vespa dybowskii Queens and Workers
Vespa crabro Worker

Lamprima2..... You use the phrase 'peer-reviewed publication' as if this means something. I can show you thousands of 'peer-reviewed publications' that are complete crap. 'Peer-review' can be helpful to capture basic things such as spelling and grammar, but even these corrections are few. I always try to pass on my unpublished manuscripts to knowledgeable fellow entomologist, and I am always glad I did because others reading what you write can point out foibles that you gloss over. What do I base this upon? I have spent the last 55 years daily reviewing past entomological publications for use as references and literature cited in my own hundreds of past and future publications, and 90% of the published entomological literature out there has BS presented as a premise for publishing them. These most always involve PhD's and are most always funded by a University. Also, you will find blatant plagiarisms in just about anything you look over. Most 'peer-reviewed publications' are not actually reviewed by actual peers of the subject or materials presented, for the details stated, nor the outcomes of such publications. At this moment, I could provide you with examples of hundreds of manuscripts I have done actual in-depth studies of publications in our N.A. entomological scientific literature.

Tell me a bit about you, who, what, where, when, how..... in an E-mail to: vabrou@bellsouth.net -- and I can send you a few examples via E-mail. Some of the foolishness I come across published by PhD's and university professors is mind-boggling. Major works here in the USA published in the last couple of decades have 1-2 errors on every page among hundreds of pages, some pages have 4-5 boo-boos and even hundreds of misquotes and plagiarisms, and plain stupidity throughout; other very detailed highly polished studies can have boo-boos in every paragraph, page after page after page. I have reviewed some (thousands) entomological publications going back to the late 1700s, the 1800s, the 1900s into present days. I don't claim to be all-knowing and wise, but I do claim to have done the work begun in my late teens; I am 75 presently.

One example of many I point out in a long term study I plan on soon submitting within upcoming months involves a N.A. moth originally described in 1973 (51 years ago), the two authors of this species description had 5 different species in their original describing corrupted TYPE series, just this fact would be a major boo-boo. But over the past half century these same authors placed thousands more labels misdeterming thousands of other specimens using this one species name, currently stored in major entomological collections across N.A. Sound amazing doesn't it? But these thousands of mis-determined adult moths actually involved 13 different species all labeled as being this one species they personally described in our scientific literature back in 1973. I don't know a single person (ever or anywhere) that peer-reviews any manuscripts or publications to this extent. I have found several other authors that changed (falsified) published photos to meet their published false data claims. In fact, some noted authors have been found to have falsified all of their scientific publications, sometime involving hundreds of their published research. They were caught when they submitted the names and handwritten signatures of 5 PhD peer-reviewers, none of which was aware, nor had ever seen any of this manuscript.

What peer- review does prevent are the newbies that make a 1-2 day field trips and want to publish a meaningful useful and accurate polished scientific study. When their submitted manuscript actually appears like something written by a schoolchild, and has more holes than a block of Swiss-cheese. These types of individuals need to perform and attack the premise of their planned studies for5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50.... years, gain actual meaningful knowledge, and then publish their results. I have used the phrase 'floccinaucinihilipilification of seriously flawed research literature' to describe some of these examples of (complete BS) published literature. Why so much BS? Well nearly all university professors are required to publish often annually in order to keep their jobs. In effect, this forced publication usually has a publication deadline, and therein lies the cause of seriously flawed literature - a rush to a publishing deadline regardless of viability of information presented. Vernon Antoine Brou Jr., Abita Springs, Louisiana, USA

kevinkk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 6:33 pm Well, so my last attempt was probably amusing, misspelling antiopa for the last 40+ years.

You're not alone. Just two years ago I read here "antiopa" and thought someone misspelled it. Now, I'd read this name repeatedly for the past fifty years, but had been spelling and speaking it "antopia".

Trehopr1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 9:08 pm For perspective, our
1st catocala species (C. epione) was named by Dru Drury
(a british entomologist) in 1773. So, it took 79 long years
to finally name (C. cara) which seems extraordinarily
long

That IS amazing! What a neat bit of trivia.

Paul K wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 2:03 pm This applies to almost all moth species as most are pupate underground. As Chuck said they are definitely dig them self out. The pupa waits until rain or morning mist is loosening the dirt to make the journey to the surface easier.

Paul K,
Thank you for your reply.
Nothing is definite until you prove it.
Is your opinion based on a personal observation or a peer-reviewed publication?
Please share the source.

jwa121,
Thank you for sharing your observations.
They suggest that the pupa, at least in some cases,
can move to the surface from its underground pupating
chamber. I suspect the coconut coir is much less dense
than average soil, which is far from natural.
Moreover, the way of emergence may depend on the
type of soil and the species of the moth.
As I previously said, I am raising a bunch of M. sexta,
hoping to find out how this species can emerge intact
from their underground burrows.
Best regards

I enjoy rearing the caterpillars of Saturniid moths, especially African species, many of which burrow into the soil to pupate. I typically let the mature caterpillars pupate individually, in separate containers in which I have put some cut-up damp paper towel.

But once the resulting pupae have appeared and suitably hardened, I will often bury multiple pupae together in damp coconut coir, in preparation for the emergence of the moths.

I can attest to the fact that the resulting moths always emerge unscathed, leaving their empty pupal shells behind, buried, in situ, in the coconut coir.

Occasionally, pupae buried in coconut coir will migrate upwards through the coir until they break the surface of the coconut coir and become just visible. It has been my experience, though, that most of the time the moths emerge underground and make their way to the surface, leaving their empty pupal shells buried, in situ.

John

A wonderful species account Vernon !

Thank you for your interest and participation.

The first underwing I ever captured was C. cara (later determined to be carissima). It was on a tree at my grandparents' house in Houma, LA. I was about 10 years old. I ran & told my grandfather, who grabbed a cyanide killing jar that he had made for my uncle's 4-H insect collection project. I quickly placed it over the moth. It lasted about 2 seconds in the cyanide fumes and was not damaged. I remember being very impressed with the intense red of the hindwings. I still have the specimen.

Here in Louisiana we have Catocala carissima which is easily distinguished from C. cara by the apical forewing patches and deeper red color on the hindwings in C carissima. Here is my species account published 16 years ago on C carissima in Louisiana. You can see the differences in male and female compared to C. cara.

Probably one of the (most) striking species of Catocala
found in mostly the eastern (half) of the U.S is the
Darling Underwing (Catocala cara). The species was first
described by Achille Guenee in 1852. For perspective, our
1st catocala species (C. epione) was named by Dru Drury
(a british entomologist) in 1773. So, it took 79 long years
to finally name (C. cara) which seems extraordinarily
long for such a rather (large) and yet boldly colored
species of underwing.

Darling Underwing (C.cara) (Male-top / Female-bottom)


The larvae of this fabulously deep scarlet-pink species
are said to feed upon popular and cottonwood with a
particular fondness for black willow. I have all of these
trees present in my area yet, I have checked several
times for larvae and have never run across one.

I have had very minimal luck over the years finding
adults of the species in my general region although, they
are there. It has certainly (for me) remained one of THE
more difficult species to encounter despite having run
across some 30 species by my last count. I have never had
it show up at any lights (unlike many other species); so I
have come to believe that it is a species largely attracted
to baits. Thus, sugaring is probably the best method of
possibly getting any....

Having only collected 4 specimens these last 20+ years
I didn't exactly have enough of a series to notice subtle
differences between the sexes. However, through a very
kind and helpful member (here) I was able to secure a
larger sampling of (cara) via some trading (for which I
am eternally grateful) !

Looking at the above photograph one will notice that
(males) have very much "blacker" forewings and bolder
almost (intense) scarlet-pink hindwings. Relatively, fresh
examples also exhibit a "purplish" sheen over those truly
black forewings. Females, though still beautiful in their
more somber pink shades offer a much more bark-like
forewing pattern on more brownish forewings.

It was not until I was able to acquire additional specimens
for a larger series (comparison) that I noticed these subtle
and yet obvious differences between the sexes of this moth.

While it can be said that a look at the genitalia or the
frenulum will settle most issues; neither is (always)
necessarily easy to see on dried specimens. Size differences
are also not exactly a sure thing either as there are
large examples of both sexes amongst catocala.

I hope this helps those who might have few examples
of this splendid species in their collection. Finally, having
an acceptable series (for comparison) has certainly opened
my eyes.

I am no expert, and have had the same dilemma separating these two similar species. But if I had to guess, I would say all 8 of yours are mira. The way I attempt to differentiate these two species is that the am and pm lines on the forewings meet at the inner margin in blandula, while there is some seperation of am and pm lines at the inner margin in mira. In my photo, the top specimen you can see clear separation of am and pm lines at inner margin, thus mira. The bottom one I believe to be blandula as the lines appear to come together. I could be wrong, but this is how I attempt to label them.

Cheers! I will delete the post soon. Just thought it would be helpful to share the good news before deleting.

Well, so my last attempt was probably amusing, misspelling antiopa for the last 40+ years. An undiagnosed reading disorder.
Anyway, now that all the butterflies are hatched, believe it or not, there's 21 in the cage, I still am unsure how to overwinter
them.
Without more information, I'm going to keep them for a few days in the cage, try to feed them, and then they'll have to
go into storage. The worst that could happen I suppose is I have a bunch of deadstock in the spring.

While we have much going on in the fall, I am concerned for our friends in the Southeast. I have family in NC, luckily for them, out of the
path of destruction, but few are out of the path of consequences. Best wishes for the affected.

I have these 8 specimens which I've collected over the past few years. I've gone back and forth thinking they were C. mira or C. blandula. Currently I am of the opinion that the majority are C. mira and at least the darkest one (bottom left in first photo) is C. blandula. Looking for input from others, what do you think?

That's a good news. We are happy for you (and for her).

Thanks for the update.