Thanks to everyone who answered my post!
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.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Spe ... _303313082

This is a newly and recently described species.

Thank you livingplanet3 for your kind remarks !

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 !

Hello Adam,
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.

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.

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.

Besides which, it’s obviously not Edwardsi, and actually more impressive, but I couldn’t name it.

I have occasionally seen this species being raised by members of a FB moth group.

What’s the status of Archaeoattacus malayanus?

Sorry to 'disappoint' but this is not edwardsi but Archaeoattacus vietnamensis Naumann, Rougerie & Naessig, 2016.

Adam.

Chuck wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 7:03 pm At this point I'm thinking run a couple copies spiral bound.

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.

Spectacular specimen!

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.

A very recent and particularly gorgeous saturniid
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.

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.

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.

Acetone can cause curling of the wing tips because it also dries the specimen. It’s not the oil, it’s the additional moisture. Other agents that can be used include toluene, xylene, carbon tetrachloride.

There are a number of degreasing threads, and experiments, on this forum (maybe in Archives?) Would make a nice summary and sticky.

I have read here in the past on the forum that acetone is not necessarily ideal on its own for degreasing. Perhaps when mixed with something else the results are better but, it has been said that acetone alone leeches out the natural oils (present in a butterfly's wing) so badly that the wings then curl upwards -- particularly at the forewing apex.

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.....

I have spent a life time with Morphos and so I know them fairly well. A large percent of set males with abdomens left on will eventually grease usually within the first few weeks. Females are very much less frequent to grease and so abdomens are not usually removed. Fortunately most Morpho helenors do not grease at all and so abdomens can be left on both sexes. I usually give abdomens two separate acetone baths of about 24 hours each, let them dry, and then glue them back on. A greased set specimen can usually have the grease removed fairly easily within just a few minutes when set in a wide container of acetone; you may have to slide the pin up a bit so that it can fit in a shallow acetone bath container. You can adjust the pin after the bath. When setting the Morphos without abdomens use pins to hold down anal flaps so that when dry the degreased abdomen can easily be inserted into that space and glued on without much obstruction. Sometimes after degreasing and setting, the specimen may still grease which requires an additional bath. Relaxing and papering specimens that have already been degreased can sometimes allow more grease to again spoil the wings which may require another bath when reset. Some Morphos are worse than others and I have found Morpho amphityron attali to be by far the worst requiring multiple baths. If grease stains are left too long on the wings they may be nearly impossible to remove later so a quick bath after setting usually is enough. I hope this helps. Thank for reading.

eurytides wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 10:52 pm . Are you trying to publish every single detail, like a day by day journal?

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.

Thanks! That seems right.
https://www.afromoths.net/species/28613

Edit: Anyone know what the correct nomenclature is for the species?

Having collected perhaps 100 or so morphos, representing a half dozen species or so, I can say that I've never seen a specimen grease up with attached abdomens. Perhaps with reared females - this could be a problem. But as long as you take care of the bugs once they are dead, I've never had a problem.

John

The problem is that most of the big colourful common species are sold to the framing trade, and they couldn't give a toss aboiut abdomens.