InsectNet forum

nikiahloch · by nikiahloch » Mon Apr 22, 2024 1:45 am

kevinkk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:18 pm It may be safe, but it's not legal to send insect material of any sort through the mail without a permit, especially from overseas. That includes sending
material to other countries from the USA. I've already had that argument at the post office.
I've thought that using the mail would be a good option while out of the USA, but it's still smuggling.
The few exceptions are papered natives, or non-native deadstock already here, or the few native ubiquitous
species as living material.

Well, I do know that there are no permits required for the impost of dead insects in the US. I've seen this information on the USDA website

nikiahloch · by nikiahloch » Mon Apr 22, 2024 1:44 am

Cassidinae wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 7:26 pm
nikiahloch wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:55 am is it safe to just send the speciems I collect back to the U.S in the mail? Instead of going through the hassle of bringing them in luggage and dealing with customs
Officially, the export of insects from Vietnam is banned.

-edited by admin- "Be careful with what you write on a public forum".

I know export from Vietnam isn't banned. I purchase insects from private dealers all the time over there and they always show up

lamprima2 · by lamprima2 » Mon Apr 22, 2024 12:39 am

Thank you both!

Trehopr1 · by Trehopr1 » Sun Apr 21, 2024 8:13 pm

The concept of doing Mona fascicles these days is "bewildering" to me. It seems a concept of a different time --- when people's lives were less impacted by fewer things pulling them in all sorted directions, fewer species were known, and when the "human nature" of people was more considerate.

When you think about it having multiple authors part of such a project is a conundrum to begin with. Everyone has different schedules, family issues, work responsibilities etc. For each individual it would be much like allowing "only hobby time" for it.

As an individual author it would require the borrowing of specimens, the viewing of specimens if you cannot borrow, all sorts of past literature by previous authors, and modern colleagues with a similar strong knowledge who could serve as sounding boards of opinion.

None of this is easily done. There is a lot of mistrust out there from many different angles. Also, I think it would take one's unfettered and concentrated effort to bring it all together in a sensible time frame.

Perhaps NOT PERFECT in everyone's eyes but, at least further enough along to say I've gotten this far and at this point "things make a little more sense now" and someone else can take up the baton from here someday.....

Just my thoughts.

whatisthis · by whatisthis » Sun Apr 21, 2024 6:09 pm

livingplanet3 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 5:53 pm
whatisthis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:35 pm Hi All,

Found these insects in the wood pile (ash) and am curious to know what they are; they don't look much like a wood-boring insect but perhaps they are? They seem to look almost like an ant...

There are 2 types that have appeared in abundance; some have wings and some don't; are these perhaps a male and female or 2 entirely different insects?

Thanks in advance.
They are insects in the order Psocodea -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psocoptera

The example in your 1st photo may possibly be in the genus Amphigerontia -

https://bugguide.net/node/view/149401

That's perfect, thanks very much for sharing your knowledge.

livingplanet3 · by livingplanet3 » Sun Apr 21, 2024 5:53 pm

whatisthis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:35 pm Hi All,

Found these insects in the wood pile (ash) and am curious to know what they are; they don't look much like a wood-boring insect but perhaps they are? They seem to look almost like an ant...

There are 2 types that have appeared in abundance; some have wings and some don't; are these perhaps a male and female or 2 entirely different insects?

Thanks in advance.

They are insects in the order Psocodea -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psocoptera

The example in your 1st photo may possibly be in the genus Amphigerontia -

https://bugguide.net/node/view/149401

Trehopr1 · by Trehopr1 » Sun Apr 21, 2024 5:49 pm

Here is a lovely medium-sized species which is
found in our upper northeast region of the US.
Some western records exist as well and are
associated mostly with the Rocky mountains
and nearby ranges.

The Ribbed or Briseis underwing (Catocala briseis)
is a very nice boldly marked/patterned species.

This particular specimen hails from Michigan and
was acquired from an old collection. I have never
encountered it here in northern Illinois and I'm
unaware of any collector friends having found it
here.

whatisthis · by whatisthis » Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:35 pm

Hi All,

Found these insects in the wood pile (ash) and am curious to know what they are; they don't look much like a wood-boring insect but perhaps they are? They seem to look almost like an ant...

There are 2 types that have appeared in abundance; some have wings and some don't; are these perhaps a male and female or 2 entirely different insects?

Thanks in advance.

58chevy · by 58chevy » Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:23 pm

Are those Cow-tocalas?

kevinkk · by kevinkk » Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:15 pm

The cutest cows I've seen here.

Paul K · by Paul K » Sat Apr 20, 2024 7:50 pm

I will be travelling in mid June (peak season) to Alberta’s Rocky Mountains from Banff to Waterton Lakes NP.
Does anyone know reliable location for Anthocharis julia sulphuris ?

livingplanet3 · by livingplanet3 » Sat Apr 20, 2024 5:13 pm

Superb!

vabrou · by vabrou » Sat Apr 20, 2024 4:18 pm

I first submitted Catocala adults for use in the MONA Catocala Fascicle in the early 1970s, That is over a half century ago. Gall (the 3rd author for the Catocala fascicle) took over around 40 years ago. Over this half century, I have personally discovered about 12 species of Catocala new to science here in Louisiana. In fact more species of Catocala are documented by me than are known for any other location worldwide. Early on, I described three of these new underwing species, and stopped there. A real difficult thing to do, because apparently there are more self-proclaimed Catocala experts than there are ants on earth. I moved on to working on some of the other 400+ moths new to science I have discovered here in Louisiana. Several persons who viewed my collection to look at my new species of Catocala, and I allowed them to sleep in my home for days and fed them. Later these mf's stabbed me in the back by describing a few of my new species, never mentioning me or that I possessed the first known specimens, or even acknowledging my involvement, nor including my material as part of the original TYPE series. There are quite a few MONA authors who have done these types of dastardly deeds. There are MONA authors that have worked on Fascicles for 10-20 years that have given up, and quite a few have died before, during, and after working on MONA Fascicles. The very first advertisement about 55 years ago announcing the MONA project was accompanied by a single color plate of N.A. Arctiidae. Yet not a single Arctiidae MONA fascicle has made an appearance now over 55 years later, but it probably will be produced by someone considered one of the most dishonest and corrupt persons involved in entomology over the past century. A common theme with many of the past MONA volumes is ramped plagiarism, and I make note, the majority of them have one or more acronyms behind their name. Obviously having advanced degrees does not mean these individual are decent and honest peoples. And while I am on this distasteful subject, there are a few well known entomologist in N.A. that will pester others to obtain new undescribed species in order to send these new species to other persons that agree to name the new sp after them, not necessarily after the person who provided the material, or who may have first discovered it 40 years before. Others MONA authors I have sent new species of lepidoptera to for inclusion in MONA have gone on to claim that new species I first discovered 40-50 years ago, suddenly announce they were the first to discover these new species. When I was the person who first told these dishonest MONA authors, that they were undescribed species new to science. There are several MONA authors who have borrowed thousands of specimens for use in MONA, only to refuse to send them back to me and other collectors for a decades and longer. Other MONA authors have been responsible for the total destruction of thousands of borrowed specimens. Because of these bastards, I no longer offer my materials and knowledge to just anyone. They want something from me, they can read about it in one of my hundreds of entomological publications. The last dishonest person who refused to return my loaned lepidoptera materials was at the Canadian National Collection and refused to return my materials for nearly 11 years. This was only partly resolved after I filed a formal complaint with the Minister of Agriculture in the Canadian Government. I don't need this crap.

The general public is totally unaware that the first MONA fascicle (N.A. Sphingidae) left out 8 different species known at that time captured in the USA. And that didn't include the several handfuls of taxonomical errors and misidentifications that were also published. Also, there are hundreds if not thousands of errors in all of these half century of MONA fascicles, all of these kept a complete secret by the governing board of MONA (past and present). I have some of these secret lists of errors in MONA. All of the entomologists who were instrumental in starting MONA are no longer with the living.

Keep in mind, no one person can be an all-knowing expert for even a single state, much less for worldwide knowledge as there are hundreds to thousands of now documented new invasive species from throughout the world into N.A.. I know as I have published about dozens of these lepidoptera species. Every person makes mistakes, the only persons who do not make mistakes are those that do not do anything.

If one wants to discover new species, start collecting microlepidoptera. There are probably 500-1000 undescribed new species right outside your home at this moment.

Photo for attention: Petunia the bull, and Nancy the cow. My entire vast heard of cattle, numbering as many as (2).

wollastoni · by wollastoni » Sat Apr 20, 2024 2:51 pm

As perfectly said by Manfred, females of ssp mauensis vary a lot, with some wonderful forms : see on the Agrias website : https://agrias-butterflies.com/agrias-p ... -mauensis/

There are less variations in female aurantiaca : https://agrias-butterflies.com/agrias-p ... urantiaca/

kevinkk · by kevinkk » Sat Apr 20, 2024 2:46 pm

Chuck wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:15 pm Foreign languages may present a challenge, but for the open minded they are not insurmountable.
Top

Easy. After a week in Naples, I was told by my sister's husband I was speaking better than people who had been at the base for more than a year.
It's a sign of respect. Without a "smartphone".
Same with access, private property is that way for a reason.

Trehopr1 · by Trehopr1 » Sat Apr 20, 2024 8:45 am

Outstanding specimen !

Very nicely done on the spreading !

lamprima2 · by lamprima2 » Sat Apr 20, 2024 4:34 am

Found a huge greenish pupa on a willow branch back in January. The female eclosed in mid-April. This is a common butterfly in California, however, the size of that specimen is above my expectations: about 99-100 mm wingspan in the "standard" spread position.

: DSC_6213 IN.jpg (375.8 KiB) Viewed 178 times

Panacanthus · by Panacanthus » Sat Apr 20, 2024 12:14 am

Really gorgeous images! Thanks for sharing.

Trehopr1 · by Trehopr1 » Fri Apr 19, 2024 6:00 pm

Thank you Bill for the comparison photograph.

I zoomed in on the lower specimens forewing "wing pattern" and I can see many points where certain markings, line squiggles, blank cells are all pretty much in the same place except that it is a VERY melanic appearing individual.

It could be that perhaps it's diet as a larvae was on something a bit different for the species or the nutrient contents were richer thus producing this dark one.

Marvelously different for the species.

I imagine that trying to put together a Mona fascicle on these moths (just for the eastern half of the US) could prove to be very daunting for anyone because of variations within species, notable forms, and even possible hybridization of some species.

A tough subject indeed....

Chuck · by Chuck » Fri Apr 19, 2024 5:32 pm

Yes, as 58chevy said, it's related to rubicunda. More here too viewtopic.php?p=8763&hilit=rubicunda#p8763

InsectNet forum

InsectNet forum

Re: Collecting in Vietnam

Re: Collecting in Vietnam

Re: Papilio rutulus

Re: Moths of North America (MONA) Catocala

Re: Can anyone identify these insects?

Re: Can anyone identify these insects?

Re: A parade of Catocala moths

Can anyone identify these insects?

Re: Moths of North America (MONA) Catocala

Re: Moths of North America (MONA) Catocala

Re: Anthocharis sara, stella, julia

Re: Papilio rutulus

Re: Moths of North America (MONA) Catocala

Re: Agrias butterflies

Re: Global travel collecting

Re: Papilio rutulus

Papilio rutulus

Re: Chien Lee

Re: A parade of Catocala moths

Re: Anisota virginiensis