Recent posts
Topic: Morpho abdomens | Author: lamprima2 | Replies: 15 | Views: 182
User avatar
lamprima2
Premium Member - 2025
Premium Member - 2025
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 8:16 pm

Re: Morpho abdomens

by lamprima2 » Fri Feb 14, 2025 3:48 am

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.
Topic: Packing for a trip | Author: Chuck | Replies: 1 | Views: 6
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1290
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Packing for a trip

by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 11:56 pm

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.
Topic: Morpho abdomens | Author: lamprima2 | Replies: 15 | Views: 182
User avatar
papiliotheona
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:27 pm

Re: Morpho abdomens

by papiliotheona » Thu Feb 13, 2025 10:58 pm

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.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
User avatar
livingplanet3
Premium Member - 2025
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

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.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by adamcotton » Thu Feb 13, 2025 6:30 pm

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.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1290
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:57 pm

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
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
AVATAR
eurytides
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by eurytides » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:54 pm

I should also note that Wikipedia is outdated too. It lists two species in Archaeoattacus when there are 4!
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
User avatar
Trehopr1
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Trehopr1 » 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 ! 🙏
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1290
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:49 pm

(more on taxonomy and subspecies)

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.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1290
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:11 pm

Trehopr1 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:34 am 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.
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.

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 !
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.

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.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by adamcotton » Thu Feb 13, 2025 8:35 am

Chuck wrote: 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.

Besides which, it’s obviously not Edwardsi, and actually more impressive, but I couldn’t name it.
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!
Trehopr1 wrote: 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....
A. edwardsi was restricted to the Himalayan region by Naessig et al. 2010, available here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... aturniidae?

Adam.
Topic: Morpho abdomens | Author: lamprima2 | Replies: 15 | Views: 182
User avatar
lamprima2
Premium Member - 2025
Premium Member - 2025
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 8:16 pm

Re: Morpho abdomens

by lamprima2 » Thu Feb 13, 2025 4:09 am

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.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
AVATAR
eurytides
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by eurytides » Thu Feb 13, 2025 4:01 am

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

This is a newly and recently described species.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
User avatar
Trehopr1
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Trehopr1 » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:48 am

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 !
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
User avatar
Trehopr1
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:48 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Trehopr1 » Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:34 am

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.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1290
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by Chuck » Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:30 am

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.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
AVATAR
eurytides
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by eurytides » Wed Feb 12, 2025 11:13 pm

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

What’s the status of Archaeoattacus malayanus?
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: Archeoattacus edwardsii

by adamcotton » Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:38 pm

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

Adam.
Topic: Publishing field notes? | Author: Chuck | Replies: 7 | Views: 97
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
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

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.
Topic: Archeoattacus edwardsii | Author: Trehopr1 | Replies: 16 | Views: 193
User avatar
livingplanet3
Premium Member - 2025
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

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. :)

Image