The Battus philenor have been out in amazing numbers in North TX for the past several weeks, especially following the first heavy spring rain here, earlier this month. I can't recall ever having seen such an impressively large number of philenor in past years. We had two unusually hard freezes in Nov / Dec, but it doesn't appear to affected their population.







A great memory from my younger days was seeing the blooming mimosa trees full of philenor, cresphontes and glaucus. Those particular trees are now long gone, but I can still witness the same spectacle every summer, from the new mimosas that have grown up on my own property and in neighbor's yards. I can see from YouTube, that others have had the same experience -

Trehopr1 wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 4:22 pm VERY nice find's Dave. I've always liked this species.
I have 3 or 4 of the typical ones but, no aberrations.

This is the first abberation I can remember seeing offered Trehopr.
I am currently rearing caterpillars of this species. It is a real favourite of mine. Sadly there are none in my locality. This species favours chalk or limestone soils. The soil is too acidic where I live unfortunately.

VERY nice find's Dave. I've always liked this species.
I have 3 or 4 of the typical ones but, no aberrations.

Wow, that is amazing and quite innovative at the same time !

Thank you for showing us Adam !

Thank you very much Dave for your thoughts and expertise on these !

S. fruhstoferi or these forms of it represent a species I have not had until now. You were very gracious and kind in passing along a couple for me to always enjoy.

They are indeed smaller and different looking than anything else I recently acquired. Perhaps, sometime I may run across something different or unusual in these and I will be sure to pass it along to you.

I have never understood how unit trays can be more practical than a classic drawer... I know they are popular in the USA and nearly not used at all in Europe or in Japan...
Must be a Farenheit-use brain disease !

Except for micro-moths or micro-coleoptera, I would not bother with unit trays.

Here's a photo of a Russian field collected 'flat'.
As you can see it is made from a single sheet of (in this case) newspaper, with the corners cut out and a thin layer of cotton wool on which the specimens are placed.

Adam.

Chuck wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 2:02 pm Each envelope is number, which is entered into a log book.

Strikes me as a great way to field pack specimens for later relaxing and setting.

Great, until the log book accidentally gets lost. It's best to write the data on one of the flaps. You can reuse the same packet another trip just by crossing out the old data and writing the new data below it.

Adam.

adamcotton wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 12:56 pm Here is my listing of Papilio syfanius and P. maackii:

Papilio syfanius Oberthür, 1886
ssp. kitawakii Shimogôri & Fujioka, 1997 (23km N. of Zayu, East Thibet)
= pavonis Chou, Zhang & Xie, 2000 (Yunnan)
ssp. syfanius Oberthür, 1886 (TL: Tâ-Tsien-Loû)
= syphanius Verity, 1907 [Incorrect Subsequent Spelling]
= superans Draeseke, 1923 (TL: )
= kongaensis (Yoshino, 1997) (TL: Mt. Kongashan, Luting county, near Kanting, Sichuan prov., China)
= sichuanica (Schäffler, 2004) (TL: West of Leshan, ‘Red Basin’, East Sichuan, China)
f. albomaculata Verity, 1907 (TL: Ta-tong-kiao, N. W. China)
f. pseudomaackii (Schäffler, 2004) (TL: West of Leshan, ‘Red Basin’, East Sichuan, China)
ssp. albosyfanius Shimogôri & Fujioka, 1997 (TL: Likiang, Yunnan, China)

Papilio maackii Ménétriés, 1858
ssp. han (Yoshino, 1997) (TL: Mt. Wuyishan, Fujiang prov., China)
= shimogorii Fujioka, 1997 (TL: Mt. Omeishan, Sichuan, China)
ssp. maackii Ménétriés, 1858 (TL: à l'embouchure de l'Oussouri dans l'Amour ... depuis les montagnes de Chingan,
jusqu'à Khangar)
= raddei Bremer, 1861 (TL: Bureja)
= jutanus Fenton in Ishikawa, 1882 (TL: not only in Hokkaido, but also in the mountains of the main island)
= tutanus Fenton, 1882 (TL: Toshima and Iburi, Hokkaido)
= satakei Matsumura, 1919 (TL: Honshu (Gifu))
= maaki Draeseke, 1923 [Incorrect Subsequent Spelling]
= jezoensis Matsumura, 1927 (TL: Atsubetsu near Sapporo, Hokkaido)
= mandshurica Matsumura, 1927 (TL: Koshurei, Manchuria)
= kurilensis Matsumura, 1928 (TL: Shakotan, Kuriles)
= kaiensis Masuda, 1929 ()
= masuokai Kato, 1937 ()
= koraiveris Bryk, 1946 ()
= mirus Korshunov, 1998 ()
= nariensis Kim & Park, 1991 (TL: Ullungdo, Kyŏngpuk Prov, Korea)

Note that here I treat jutanus/tutanus Fenton, 1882 as a synonym of ssp. maackii. The name jutanus was published one month before tutanus and the former has priority, but nowadays everyone uses the latter name.

Adam.

Thank you for your kind reply , I ve read your previous post and illustrated a picture accordingly, so it should be separated

jhyatt wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 2:02 pm I place a determination label in each tray, but not on individual specimens -- specimen pins hold only collecting data.

Cheers,
jh

Doesn't that mean a unit pinning tray for one singular specimen of a species? Or ssp? I wish I had that amount of space!

bobw wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 2:15 pm When I've been on collecting trips with Russians in the past, they've usually used this method of storage, usually for butterflies with wings folded. It works very well!

A considerable volume of the specimens I have received from Ukraine and Russia have been packaged in this manner. The ones I received used one larger cut paper rather than 5 sheets taped. They also have a loose glassine paper on top of the specimens. It works remarkably well!

When I've been on collecting trips with Russians in the past, they've usually used this method of storage, usually for butterflies with wings folded. It works very well!

Cornell recently received a huge lot of "papered" specimens, field stored as shown:



These are made from five pieces of semi-glossy paper, with tape for hinges, and batting. Cheap, and easy. And, many of these small envelopes will fit into a drawer or tupperware. Another plus, as opposed to standard envelopes is that the body isn't squished, and the wings are already horizontal.

Yes, there are some drawbacks, but those I looked at hadn't removed much from the upper surface of the wings- it was negligible.

Each envelope is number, which is entered into a log book.

Strikes me as a great way to field pack specimens for later relaxing and setting.

I'm with Chuck. I use unit trays for all my smaller things (Lycaenids, skippers, smaller Nymphalids, satyrs, Pierids, Parnassians, most moths) and open drawers for the big ones (Papilios, Morphos, Brassolids, Saturnids, etc.)

I started using unit trays ages ago (late '70's) when I bought a bunch of drawers and cabinets from the Carnegie Museum (They were rehousing some of their collection and sold the old unwanted storage equipment). The ancient drawers were decent-looking, tight, and had terrible pinning bottoms. Rather then install new pinning bottoms, I started using unit trays in those drawers. I found that I liked them, and have kept on using them for probably 75% of my collection. I place a determination label in each tray, but not on individual specimens -- specimen pins hold only collecting data. If I trade or donate a specimen, I do add a determination label to it, though. Works for me. And J.F.G. Clarke, famous microlepedopterist from the Smithsonian once told me when I apologized for not having all my material in phylogenetic order, "Hyatt, these are your specimens. You caught and prepared them, and you are perfectly free to arrange them any darn way you want!"

Cheers,
jh

Here is my listing of Papilio syfanius and P. maackii:

Papilio syfanius Oberthür, 1886
ssp. kitawakii Shimogôri & Fujioka, 1997 (23km N. of Zayu, East Thibet)
= pavonis Chou, Zhang & Xie, 2000 (Yunnan)
ssp. syfanius Oberthür, 1886 (TL: Tâ-Tsien-Loû)
= syphanius Verity, 1907 [Incorrect Subsequent Spelling]
= superans Draeseke, 1923 (TL: )
= kongaensis (Yoshino, 1997) (TL: Mt. Kongashan, Luting county, near Kanting, Sichuan prov., China)
= sichuanica (Schäffler, 2004) (TL: West of Leshan, ‘Red Basin’, East Sichuan, China)
f. albomaculata Verity, 1907 (TL: Ta-tong-kiao, N. W. China)
f. pseudomaackii (Schäffler, 2004) (TL: West of Leshan, ‘Red Basin’, East Sichuan, China)
ssp. albosyfanius Shimogôri & Fujioka, 1997 (TL: Likiang, Yunnan, China)

Papilio maackii Ménétriés, 1858
ssp. han (Yoshino, 1997) (TL: Mt. Wuyishan, Fujiang prov., China)
= shimogorii Fujioka, 1997 (TL: Mt. Omeishan, Sichuan, China)
ssp. maackii Ménétriés, 1858 (TL: à l'embouchure de l'Oussouri dans l'Amour ... depuis les montagnes de Chingan,
jusqu'à Khangar)
= raddei Bremer, 1861 (TL: Bureja)
= jutanus Fenton in Ishikawa, 1882 (TL: not only in Hokkaido, but also in the mountains of the main island)
= tutanus Fenton, 1882 (TL: Toshima and Iburi, Hokkaido)
= satakei Matsumura, 1919 (TL: Honshu (Gifu))
= maaki Draeseke, 1923 [Incorrect Subsequent Spelling]
= jezoensis Matsumura, 1927 (TL: Atsubetsu near Sapporo, Hokkaido)
= mandshurica Matsumura, 1927 (TL: Koshurei, Manchuria)
= kurilensis Matsumura, 1928 (TL: Shakotan, Kuriles)
= kaiensis Masuda, 1929 ()
= masuokai Kato, 1937 ()
= koraiveris Bryk, 1946 ()
= mirus Korshunov, 1998 ()
= nariensis Kim & Park, 1991 (TL: Ullungdo, Kyŏngpuk Prov, Korea)

Note that here I treat jutanus/tutanus Fenton, 1882 as a synonym of ssp. maackii. The name jutanus was published one month before tutanus and the former has priority, but nowadays everyone uses the latter name.

Adam.

The Marbled White.
Two recent acquisitions.
Top is a typical male from Hampshire, England.
Bottom is a male abberation valentini from the South Downs, Sussex England captured in July 1986.
Wild caught abberations of this species are rare.

Benefits of Unit Pinning Trays:
1. Easily separate taxa
2. Easily view data (e.g., name) on a label on the tray w/o removing specimens
3. Move en masse to avoid breakage
4. Expedite re-collation (reformatting of collection)
5. Reserve space for easy insertion of a newly introduced specimen

For example, some of my reference collection is collated by location. Ecuador is one cabinet; each drawer is dedicated to related taxa (e.g., drawer 5 is Papilio), then unit trays by genus. When I decide to re-collate and move the Ecuador Papilio to all Papilio, it's as easy as moving unit trays.

The line-em-up-without-trays method makes it a bear to insert a new specimen where it goes; often requiring moving a bunch of specimens, and moving is potential for breakage. If you look at the photo Ed posted above, if this is a growing reference collection, good luck inserting another specimen; and in research it stinks to have to hunt for all of a series.

Noting the wasted empty space of unit trays, once I finish with a project, and will introduce no further specimens, I can move the specimens and tile them w/o unit trays. I've done this for some of my non-North America Sphingidae and have packed three drawers w/ trays into one drawer without trays.

I don't use trays for very large taxa like Goliathus. I could only fit eight pair into one drawer w/ trays, but packed almost a dozen pairs into one drawer w/o trays.

The "one more" situation is the real killer with trays. That is, the tray is full, and you have "one more" that needs to go into that tray. It means another tray, which in my case invariably means another drawer, for what? One specimen? In this case, I do two things (1) keep specimens in Pro Tem (temporary storage boxes) until I'm done (e.g., end of season) THEN I see where they will fit, and (2) tile them anyway in the tray; it's not attractive, but it beats dedicating another tray due to one specimen.

I find that the smaller the taxa are, the more important it is to use trays, for all reasons listed above. Who wants to move 100 Cicindellidae, and risk breaking those spindly antennae and legs?

So I think it's not a question of IF to use unit trays, it's WHEN to use unit trays.

It works well here.
Are you in Congo now ? His server may decline connections from Central Africa to avoid spamming... I will let Andrew know.

Thanks for your sharing. As described in this paper, P.syfanius is treated as a separate species now, so albosyfanius from Yunnan is ssp？What about kitawaki from Tibet？

Trehopr1 wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 3:14 am Alas, my final specimen of (4) from DaveUK
is now posted below. A diffrent and (singular)
location. It is likely the same species as my
above specimen from HUE yet, it has a wide
bluish-purple sheen along the outer margins
of the hindwings. This is not present at all
in the specimen from Hue. Both are males.

This species/form is offered very rarely in my experience Trehopr. I think both this one & the previous specimen you posted are forms of Stichophthalma fruhstorferi. As you will know the specimen from Hue is quite a bit smaller than this one. It's a puzzle & one that is unlikely to be solved soon due to the genitalia of all Vietnamese Stichophalma being very similar. As was outlined by Adam Cotton in earlier posts relating to this genus.
When I bid on these specimens last year I missed out on a truly unique form of this one. I kept a picture for reference. From the colouration I think this may possibly even be a hybrid between Stichophthalma howqua & Stichophthalna fruhstorferi. Whoever now owns this specimen has something very special indeed in my opinion.