jedgar
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 73
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jedgar on Sept 13, 2016 3:22:48 GMT
A fine Orthoptera specimen in the May Museum collection. Mounted and stuffed by J.F. May. Tag reads "Lophacris olfersii brin ♀ Colombia, S.A. June, 17, 1937." I find it on the web with the scientific name Titanacris olfersii. Either way it is a beautiful specimen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 8:56:04 GMT
Jim, if you are into old famous specimens you should have a read of the "old specimens by famous collectors" post in the show your insects section, some goodies in there.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Sept 13, 2016 10:18:37 GMT
Yes, I would like to see Mr May at work, plus that image of Janson's when you can get it. Must have been wonderful visiting that Naturalist's shop. Meek discovered the female at the Head of the Mambare River during 1906 and a year later went up the Kumusi River where he discovered the male in roughly the same area as the female, the latter type specimen he shot. I have never seen until now any other specimens taken from those two rivers or heard as yet of any other collector capturing O. alexandrae from that remote area. Most of the later specimens came from the Popondetta area. Soon after arriving at the O. alexandrae location, Meek found many larvae and set about breeding them. A pair of Meek alexandrae was given by Rothschild to the Oxford Museum but someone I expect tried to squeeze them in a narrow draw and seriously damaged them. Here is a Meek male from the Manchester Museum. If you are certain that May prepared his O. alexandrae is there any clue from who he obtained it from. You can see the similarities to the specimen your museum has.
|
|
jedgar
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 73
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jedgar on Sept 13, 2016 22:11:49 GMT
Update: While at work today I decided to have another look at that tag underneath the male O. alexandrae. Using an appropriate pair of tweezers I carefully scooted it down on the pin without removing the specimen from the case. The tag had been so close to the body of the butterfly I had been unwilling to move it before. But I had to see what was on top of that tag now that forum members had shared their knowledge. In tiny, 4 point script print "E.M. Janson" is on the top of the tag. The locale the specimen was caught, Mambere River, New Guinea is hand written neatly underneath. So then it looks like y`all were quite correct. It is a specimen mounted, and most likely collected, by Albert Stewart Meek. Mr. May obtained it from the grandfather of the Janson I knew. If we can find the original correspondence I will share any pertinent information. The 1930 date on the tag in the case most likely is the date Mr. May obtained the specimen.
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Sept 13, 2016 22:59:48 GMT
You're most likely right. Finding a "lost" Meek alexandrae is akin to finding a lost Faberge egg
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Sept 14, 2016 6:07:49 GMT
I do not think you should ever be afraid to remove data, that is what makes the specimen scientifically and historically valuable in the first place. Otherwise although valuable, it remains just a pretty object.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Sept 14, 2016 7:37:45 GMT
You know the thought came to mind today that specimens which are prepared in this unique manner need to be fresh and pliable for them to turn out well. I have purchased 4 large phasmids over the past year via EBay and they all arrived with fresh vibrant color and all had cleverly stuffed abdomens obviously done after their dispatch but, before packaging. None has greased or discolored. On another note, I purchased about 30 specimens of some remarkably prepared tarantulas from a collection of a spider breeder several years ago. I was told the breeder would on occasion pick out a choice specimen for his collection and dispatch it with a hypodermic. He would then make a small incision on the underside of the abdomen, remove the contents, then quickly fill the void with cotton. As the specimen dried the abdomen retained it's shape as the cotton lent it support. This fellow did get better at it in time as evidenced by his first few specimens which seemed to lack the right amount of cotton fill. Practice makes perfect !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 10:01:27 GMT
Love seeing pics of Alexandrae.
|
|
jedgar
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 73
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jedgar on Sept 14, 2016 13:52:38 GMT
I do not think you should ever be afraid to remove data, that is what makes the specimen scientifically and historically valuable in the first place. Otherwise although valuable, it remains just a pretty object. Normally I have no qualms whatsoever about checking data on a specimen's pin. Quite a few of the specimens in the May collection have strips of info from the original glassine triangle cut, folded and pressed onto the pin the specimen is on. I always carefully remove data on pins beneath such specimens to see what info is there. In the case of the O. alexandrae it is such a perfect specimen, all six legs are there, and the tiny data card was so tight up against them I was hesitant to try and pull on it initially. Questions raised by the knowledgeable members on this forum made the effort imperative and indeed it was well worth the care and effort. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Sept 14, 2016 16:08:16 GMT
In the case of the O. alexandrae it is such a perfect specimen, all six legs are there, and the tiny data card was so tight up against them I was hesitant to try and pull on it initially. The thing is, what 100 years old? and it still has all of its 6 legs? ... I've got a thing or 2 to learn about setting material. Some of the specimens I just pulled off the boards have less than 2 legs left on them.
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Sept 14, 2016 16:57:33 GMT
Well, these would be pretty sturdy legs compared to most butterflies
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Sept 14, 2016 17:58:30 GMT
In the case of the O. alexandrae it is such a perfect specimen, all six legs are there, and the tiny data card was so tight up against them I was hesitant to try and pull on it initially. The thing is, what 100 years old? and it still has all of its 6 legs? ... I've got a thing or 2 to learn about setting material. Some of the specimens I just pulled off the boards have less than 2 legs left on them. Legs are always a problem. I always try to glue them back after remove specimen from the board, but for some reason some still missing somewhere in the process. I always wonder should I do it? Specially in case of small Lycaenidae. What do you do with detached legs ? Paul
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Sept 14, 2016 17:59:53 GMT
Maybe being lazy, but I just throw them out
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Sept 14, 2016 18:05:39 GMT
alright then , next time I get frustrated by trying attached them I won't fill guilty by throwing them away. I did it few times.
|
|
jedgar
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 73
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jedgar on Sept 15, 2016 1:00:00 GMT
Well, these would be pretty sturdy legs compared to most butterflies Yep, they're sturdy legs for a butterfly, and they're large and easy to reattach correctly. I just didn't want to be the guy who busted a leg or even a tarsus off this specimen. I excersized extreme care. The last time I had seen pair of O. alexandrae was in 1964 at Janson and Son's London shop. These were the first I've handled.
|
|