Enough already, with the fake aberrations

[mothman55]

A couple of eBay sellers have been flooding the market with aberrant specimens created by injecting chemicals (tungstate I believe) into fresh pupa. Although this may seem a harmless method of making money, it waters down the thrill of finding an aberrant in the field. I for one have always kept a sharp eye out for anything that was "different" from the typical, and have a number of "natural aberrations" that I have managed to collect over the years. But I have to say that now that a few people have figured out how to "create" these aberrants in the lab with chemical injection, it has somewhat taken the thrill out of finding these rarities in the field, as you see aberrants advertised every day on eBay. At first I saw that the sellers were getting big bucks for these "fakes", but as they have somewhat flooded the market with more and more of the same, the prices have dropped substantially. And no doubt as more people figure out how to create these in the lab, the market for these will dry up, and the damage will have been done in that aberrants will cease to be of interest as the line between fakes and natural will fade. Who will know whether a spectacular aberrant was created or was the result of an incredible find in the field, I guess only those that had the thrill of finding one themselves.

[wollastoni]

I see your point. But as soon as they are clearly advertised as "man-made", I can't see how you could stop them. If some collectors are happy to buy them, and sellers happy to raise specimen to produce their aberrations, it is hard to condemn them.
Many aberration collectors feel like you.

It is the same for Agrias collectors now that some rare species are raised and have lost 80% of their value.

[kevinkk]

I've noticed some ebay listings for different aberrations, I wasn't aware they were man made animals. Sounds worthless to me. I have enough
of a hurdle with hybrids.
When money comes into play, all bets are off. Just like the ready made "collectibles".

[Chuck]

Fraud is probably the second oldest profession. It is not going away. And, so long as the offered specimens are not described as natural aberrations the ad is not fraudulent. "Let the buyer beware."

Some pretty amazing aberrations have been made by scientists with gene editing CRISPR. How long until that's available on Amazon for under $100? Then wait to see what happens.

If you must have a collectible which is at risk for fraud, the only things you can do are (1) become an expert or (2) have a reliable source. If it's too cheap to be true, it probably is.

[Trehopr1]

I personally MARVEL at the one-of-a-kind aberrations produced by the very few capable sellers out there. The swallowtails that I have seen are absolutely "out of this world" and REALLY cannot be mistaken for anything natural occurring.

With the lone exception of the genus Agrias most singular species produced of Nymphalidae are also pretty incredible and yet, are readily discernible from anything natural occurring.

All of these "specialty pieces" still tend to sell on the high side of pricing because they are a one-of-a-kind's and only a niche market of collectors out there can afford them.

However, I humbly believe that Agrias aberrations are the one subject group that is truly oversaturated in this regard....
The lines have truly become blurred between what is a hybridization of two species and what has been produced via chemical alteration. One now finds that even amongst some of the standard hybridized stock there are (singular) individuals which will stand out from all the others.

Are these singular one-off variations of a hybridized species (just that) or are a few select pupae pulled and treated chemically so as to produce a small assortment to garner higher pricing ?

It's really become challenging with Agrias to know what it is you're getting with these altered specimens but, under MOST circumstances they are obviously not natural occurring.

So, I don't necessarily see the harm in anyone producing these incredible creatures because I do believe that most of us who are informed and intelligent about this hobby would never mistake 98% of these butterflies as anything from the NATURAL world.

As with any other hobby or passion one must stay informed, be wise, be questioning, and above all else NEVER allow yourself to be gullible about something which just doesn't seem right.

Natural occurring aberrations will always be held in high regard because of what they are and by way of those who collected them. If you make such a unique discovery yourself try to tell some fellow collectors about it and if nothing else at least place a special note of data alongside it or with it to indicate pertinent information.

[wollastoni]

Trehopr1 < the "strange" Agrias you see on the market are not aberrations or man-made aberration. They are man-made hybrids from the Peruvian Agrias farms.

I highly recommend the new book of Philippe Floquet who illustrates all Agrias natural forms and all known Agrias hybrids : https://marketplace.insectnet.com/item/ ... embre-2023

[Chuck]

Trehopr1 < the "strange" Agrias you see on the market are not aberrations or man-made aberration. They are man-made hybrids from the Peruvian Agrias farms.

I highly recommend the new book of Philippe Floquet who illustrates all Agrias natural forms and all know Agrias hybrids : https://marketplace.insectnet.com/item/ ... embre-2023

Interesting. With so many potential crosses, the possibilities are almost endless.

I wonder if it will go the way of freshwater Amazon Anglelfish (Scalare)- so much crossing and thousands of generations later, the standard fish is a sad comparison to the wild fish; oddball morphs have come and gone, some because the resulting crosses produced fish that had too many problems. Now, the real enthusiasts are after what was imported 50 years ago- wild caught fish. I see this too in Papilio ulysses and other flashy species that have been bred on farms now for 30 years: generic, look-alike specimens that don't have the size nor variation of the wild butterflies.

[teinopalpus]

Interesting topic. And not easy one .... abberants catched in nature and "created" by chemical injections or gene manipulation are far ends of whole spectrum. I personally never tried doing aberrants by use of chemicals ( although know process ), but several times "created" abberants "old way" by use of changed humidity or temperature. For some species it is easier way than chemical because some species are very negatively responsive to chemical agents. On other side some species are almost impossible to change without chemicals. But .... artifical use of natural factors is something in between far ends. Then we have also simple rearing specimens in different conditions. In my case usually valid for mountain species reared in my home at 400m atitude. Some species did not change, but some species are more plastic and little changes are visible.
And then .. sorry I cant skip that ... climatic change. Species are moving to new places , also on same place weather is changing and dramatic weather anomalies are present frequently and surely phenotype will react to changed conditions.

So as for me - as long as specimen has correct label information with all relevant data, it is OK. And it is only decision of collector if he find value of such specimen for his study/collection.

Jan

[EdTomologist]

Just commenting on the first reference to “tungstate injections”

As someone who wrote their thesis on the topic of wing development signaling, tungstate is mainly effective for nymphalids and certain groups of butterflies. It’s less toxic than other compounds and easily accessible. This makes it a good and easy option for producing aberrations.

There are in reality numerous compounds that induce aberrations through different mechanisms. Some of them mimic stress responses that result in darker wings. It’s a common immune response in insects to produce melanin.

There are also variable patterns that can be induced depending on the stage of injection.

I have been working with a new compound that can actually lighten the wings instead of darken them.

Given that my work is still to be published I don’t want to reveal too much. I also do have a concern regarding individuals using my work to sell man made aberrations but I believe it’s more important to have knowledge freely accessible.

I should also note that unlike tungstate where the mechanism of action (how it works) is unknown, a lot of other compounds we know exactly how they act. The main difference between compounds is their toxicity, the cost, and the difficulty in acquiring the compounds (must have scientific institutional purchase accounts).

Below is an artificial aberration from my research a while back plus link to other pictures.





[media] https://x.com/edtomologist/status/17270 ... UjOYW-YQdw[/media]