Moths of North America (MONA) Catocala

[mothman55]

Does anyone know if the MONA series of publications has yet covered the catocala species of moths? I have seen various references to such a publication due to come out in the past few years, but have not yet seen it, or heard that it is out.

[ColoradEO]

I think Larry Gall has been working on it for a long-time and it does not yet appear to be finished (not yet listed on Wedge's site). Maybe you know all of this.

http://www.wedgefoundation.org/order.asp

[bobw]

Yep, Larry told me that he's been working on it for a lomg time, but things keep changing. I don't think it's imminent.

[mothman55]

Appreciate the updates, thanks. So we will be patient. There are so many species and changes, it will be worth the wait if it is as good as the other MONA publications.

[vabrou]

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).

[kevinkk]

The cutest cows I've seen here.

[58chevy]

Are those Cow-tocalas?

[Trehopr1]

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.

[Chuck]

Ironically, the technology that has made production of MONA-type publications much easier has also killed hardcopy. Imagine when MONA first came out- expensive cameras and lights, expensive film, having to pay for publications, collaboration via snail mail. THEN to make a book- scissors to cut images, collate per page and photograph, TYPEWRITERS!, waiting for proof copies, and finally have to order 500 copies in order to even break even.

Now, ring lights are $30, 15Mpix images, photoshop, and MS Word; publications search and retrieval in seconds online; email collaboration and proofing. Instead of loaning specimens, in many cases photos work. Ranges and such are quickly established with iNaturalist and BOLD. Stick the images into publishing software, upload the text, hit "print" and get one copy to proof. OMG.

Of course, the taxonomy isn't so easy now. It's generally expected that genetic analysis is done; arguably no more "opinion." Plus getting access to genetic analysis is expensive, particularly for those without institutional support/ grants.

The dedicated few, no matter what field of study, manage to pull off reference books- or, now, websites. Sharing of knowledge is critical, it's your legacy; so much knowledge dies with the owner, never recorded.

Human nature being considerate? Shakleton wouldn't agree. As Vernon pointed out and solely about MONA, the inconsiderate and unethical activities by professionals isn't new. I too have had my issues with those types in Entomology (to be fair, I've also been overjoyed with others.) Backstabbing and politicing in entomology is NOTHING- I think the Paleontologists make the worst entomologists look like amateurs.

There was a period, say 1950s-1990s when entomology was "more polite." All part of the "everyone gets an opinion" movement. The first published all-out assault that I can think of was Tennent's against D'Abrera, and was wholly justified. Since then, and as of late, I find relief when knowledgeable authorities publish brutal (not polite) reviews of others' works- it's about time. Quit dancing around the bush. Everyone may be entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts.

Is there a place for new MONA? Who's going to pay for them, and how many? And, while it's true that every reference book has errors and is outdated on the day of publication, the rate of change now is outrageous. Plus, there's the internet for now, which is fast, easy, and free. However one gets the information out, and clearly despite the sometimes caustic entomological ecosystem, at least some- John, Vernon, Adam- actually do it, and to them we are forever indebted.

[jhyatt]

As Vernon pointed out and solely about MONA, the inconsiderate and unethical activities by professionals isn't new. I too have had my issues with those types in Entomology (to be fair, I've also been overjoyed with others.) Backstabbing and politicing in entomology is NOTHING- I think the Paleontologists make the worst entomologists look like amateurs.

There was a period, say 1950s-1990s when entomology was "more polite."

Chuck, for some illustration of how bad things can occasionally get, see Chapter 1 of T. Sargent's "Legion of Night: The Underwing Moths" (U. Mass Press, 1976). His quotes from the fights involving Grote, Strecker, Hulst, and others in the 1870's are a real hoot to read!

Cheers,
jh

[Chuck]

As Vernon pointed out and solely about MONA, the inconsiderate and unethical activities by professionals isn't new. I too have had my issues with those types in Entomology (to be fair, I've also been overjoyed with others.) Backstabbing and politicing in entomology is NOTHING- I think the Paleontologists make the worst entomologists look like amateurs.

There was a period, say 1950s-1990s when entomology was "more polite."

Chuck, for some illustration of how bad things can occasionally get, see Chapter 1 of T. Sargent's "Legion of Night: The Underwing Moths" (U. Mass Press, 1976). His quotes from the fights involving Grote, Strecker, Hulst, and others in the 1870's are a real hoot to read!

Cheers,
jh

John, thanks for flagging that. I was sadly unable to find it online and available to read.

[jhyatt]

Chuck,

Nope, you gotta have the actual book to read Legion of Night.... which I heartily recommend one do. It's a very good read, but sadly the cost has about tripled since I bought my copy - it's now $30 used (from abebooks.com). Personally, I hate trying to read anything longer than a paragraph on a computer anyway!

jh

[Trehopr1]

I read an article a while back that said academics generally have a "window" of intellectual productivity. The article mentioned that between the ages of our mid-20s (fresh out of schooling) and up to and including our early 50s most people are at the peak of their personal intellectual capabilities. After the early 50s health issues, administrative responsibilities, and a certain "feeling" that "I don't have to work that hard anymore" overcomes most individuals. Also, many that have made a name for themselves tend to step back and revel on the laurels of their past glory. A future retirement is looking like it's not that much farther down the road so, why not coast....

For all these reasons it made a lot of sense to me. While there may still be some OUTSTANDING individuals who buck this trend; most do not.

This is why any large time consuming projects like Mona fascicles need to be addressed earlier in life (not later) during our intellectual productivity window.

Otherwise, it may well remain a project very much unfinished.