-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:27 pm
Re: Morpho abdomens
by papiliotheona » Thu Feb 13, 2025 10:58 pm
-
- Premium Member - 2025
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 4:55 pm
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by livingplanet3 » Thu Feb 13, 2025 10:58 pm
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 Even if many have become rather out of date in regard to taxonomy, etc., they are still great to look at.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.
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by adamcotton » Thu Feb 13, 2025 6:30 pm
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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1289
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:57 pm
-
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by eurytides » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:54 pm
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by Trehopr1 » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:37 pm
Science has moved forward.
I was very much unaware of the changes.
Thank you eurytides and Adam for the appropriate links !
-
- Posts: 1289
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:49 pm
In the past, a subspecies might be assigned to a group / race based on morphology, food plant, organs, etc. Typically, a newly recognized subspecies was lumped under the previously recognized species, though it was generally impossible to tell which may have been the parental unit.
In order to have a valid subspecies, the parental species must still exist. In most cases though, the parental species is extinct; this is shown in the genetic trees. There was an ancestor, but that ancestor is extinct. So you can't have a subspecies; it must be elevated to species. Well, not really, the concept of "complexes" has been widely used though I think there is no taxonomic box for these.
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.
Of course, the "offspring" rule is not, and perhaps never has been, the sole determination. What is the problem is the model of genus, species, subspecies, which does not truly reflect the natural world. The model is very important to those who like to say they "have every species of Papilio" and it is a great general guideline for collaboration and communication; but it's not the end-all.
-
- Posts: 1289
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:11 pm
I love books. They're all we are going to have when the internet hiccups. However, they are outdated, as is reliance on morphology alone.
Don't get me wrong. I love my LeMaire books. But I never open my D'Abrera books, nor The Butterflies of North America Scott, nor The Butterflies of North America Howe, nor Butterflies East of the Great Plains Opler & Krizek, all of which I'd sell very reasonably.
The rate of changes in taxonomy is astonishing. Just look at what is published on ZooKeys in one day! https://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles That's ONE publishing venue. Add them all up, and just Leps alone experience dozens if not hundreds of taxonomic changes every month.
Well you know what opinions are like. But there's a difference between "anyone's" opinion and a well researched, genetically-supported recognition of a taxonomically distinct entity. And while surely I would not relegate an generally unknown researcher ("anyone") to ineptitude, in the case of this moth the authors have credentialed publications- Rougherie (179), Nassig (75) and are recognized authorities.Trehopr1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:34 am 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 !
Genetics have changed everything. Scientists argued for centuries about what was a subspecies, what was a species, what was a morph. Now with genetics we now know the hierarchy and relationships. Remember, Adam flagged that an (what was it?) Atrophaneura wasn't even in the correct genus box, but is a Pterourus!
It's easy enough to see for the moth in question, follow eurytides link and look at the NJ tree.
Clearly, vietnamensis and edwardsii are not synonyms. And of subspecies, the tree infers (because trees always need scientific confirmation) that edwardsii alone could have subspecies. But neither edwardsii nor vietnamensis are subspecies of the other.
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by adamcotton » Thu Feb 13, 2025 8:35 am
It happens that I am helping a Thai Saturniid researcher who told me about this issue. I have copies of several recent papers here and looked it up there. I certainly didn't remember the correct name!
A. edwardsi was restricted to the Himalayan region by Naessig et al. 2010, available here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... aturniidae?
Adam.
-
- 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: 256
- 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: 1115
- 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: 1115
- 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: 1289
- 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: 256
- 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: 1001
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm
Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii
by adamcotton » Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:38 pm
Adam.
-
- Global Moderators
- Posts: 1001
- 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: 677
- 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: 1115
- 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: 1289
- 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.