I check Insectnet several times daily and strangely this evening Thai time the home page was unusually sluggish loading, first giving this error but loaded on refresh. When it did load correctly I tried to open the sections with new posts, but each gave me this error. When I have had this problem before, refreshing the page always led to it loading properly but this evening one repeated the error and the other gave me another error which I copied and sent to wollastoni. Perhaps that will help his hosting company find the source of the problem.

Adam.

PS. Most of the time Insectnet loads normally, but every so often this error recurs.

Hi, yes we have often this issue.
It seems to affect the whole insectnet website, but we haven’t found the reason behind with Inmotion team…

The inspector might have identified it for you, but as a former contractor I never put much faith in home inspectors to begin with.
Before you move in, try some bug bombs, or traps, professional pest control is dubious.

Just curious.
Does anyone else get a message like this " resource limit reached" this happens from time to time, and the page simply won't load ?
Conjecture is welcome, but our internet connection is a good one with faster than typical speed, and the computer I use is 6 months old.

We found this roach during our new house pre purchase inspection. Very concerned it’s a roach that can be hard to remove once inside. What type?

I agree with all the above. For me, a physical scientific collection is priceless and cannot be replicated with photographs of live individuals.

Here are a couple more of my Tearful Underwing
(Catocala lacrymosa) captures featuring that
"marbled" appearance which only shows itself
periodically here and there. Quite noticeable
against the general torrent of "typical" ones
that I've encountered.

Our Youthful Underwing (Catocala subnata) is a
large (80-90mm) species with a yellow/orange
appearance to its hindwings. In my general area
it remains an infrequent visitor to light or bait.
Been a few years since I've encountered one....



The similarly sized yet, much more common
Catocala neogama is easily confused with this one.

Photos of wild insects are just pretty pictures, even in some of my guide books, by well known persons have less than stellar photos, and I take pictures as well, they go in the digital photo frame.
Next time use a better acronym.

One major problem with "butterfly watching", whether it be by NABA members or unaffiliated individuals, is that many species cannot reliably be identified from photos alone, some need at least examination of genitalia for accurate identification.

Recently a colleague and I were asked to review a paper on butterflies of a SE Asian country based solely on photographic records of living specimens. Particularly for Lycaenidae and Hesperiidae but also in some other groups (such as Satyrinae) a single photo is often not diagnostic (e.g. both upperside and underside need to be seen), and many specimens could not be accurately identified to individual species even from photos where both sides were at least partially visible. Some species cannot be identified beyond 'species-group' from photos at all, even from superb photos of pinned specimens. That is why scientific collections are invaluable, and private collections also contain specimen data which may be important in future.

Adam.

You could state 'very rarely' to indicate less often than 'rarely', or if you have only seen a single specimen with these blue scales you could state 'blue scales were present on the forewing of a single individual among xxx specimens examined'.

Adam.

OK, so how does one say "they don't have this blue on the FW" without acknowledging this one friggin' specimen? "rarely" seems to be imply perhaps it's more common.

Bunch of tree huggers with big hearts and few brains.

"we are shifting the paradigm from collectors with nets, capturing and killing butterflies, to enthusiasts with cameras and binoculars, capturing beautiful images of live butterflies in nature." That's nice. We need more photos of misidentified Viceroys.



"NABA has amassed the largest database of butterfly sightings and population abundances in the world." Rubbish, pure rubbish.

"NABA envisions a future where wild butterflies thrive in healthy habitats, none are threatened or endangered, and all people can enjoy observing them in nature." Impossible. Many taxa are threatened and endangered from elements other than man. Thousands of butterfly taxa have gone extinct before man, some will after. It is impossible to have "all people" observe them in nature.

In order to save butterfly taxa we have to know them. That requires dissection, grinding up for DNA, and collections. NABA's trumpet is based on the hard work of those the seek to put out of operation.

kevinkk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 4:09 pm
What I typically do from time to time, is rearrange things, and put them in "better" places.

I broke down and spent a weekend doing that last year. What a nightmare. I'd been sticking specimens wherever they fit physically, and I had taxa spread all over in the wrong places. If you want to talk about "can't find" god I had it. But I have the same problems w/ institutional collections- a taxa spread between the primary collection, a donated personally collection, pro tem, and "wherever" so it's not just me.

I'm glad you sorted it out Chuck.
What I typically do from time to time, is rearrange things, and put them in "better" places. That's when they go missing.

Thanks guys for your compassion.

This all started actually a couple days ago when I couldn't find them.

Yesterday I made a concerted effort to find them. I went through all my NA Papilio drawers (minus the machaon-types) looking. Four times. Studied each drawer. Nothing.

As you probably observed, I was frustrated.

I've learned when something doesn't make sense, and you can't make sense of it, walk away and give it time. Last year I was re-mating two mechanical assemblies and suddenly they wouldn't go together. I pushed, I tried again, I tried and tried. I used a rubber mallet- no go. I pulled out the steel hammer and thought- wait, I'd better put this down. The next day they inexplicably slid together.

And so today. I pulled out suspect drawer #1 and looked again. No go based on chronological date. I was was looking at unique morphological characteristics when I noticed one specimen had an extra pink label. Ah hah. There must be another one- and sure there was. As it turns out, in writing the description paper I had recorded the wrong day one one specimen, and was exactly one year off on the other! There was no error in my collating- it was the human error in transcribing label to keyboard.

So I'm good. Now just have to take new photos (after all that.)

Check the drawer dates. Maybe you mixed up the chronological order.