|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 19, 2017 20:21:26 GMT
By the way you have bred some pretty special Papilionidae specimens. Thank you. The whole object is to try to find out how easy it is to produce different forms by selective breeding in the case of an extremely variable species. The main point is that natural selection has produced mimetic forms and nature continues to select for the mimics, so I wanted to find out if I could produce different genetic forms by selection that was not based on mimicry. As a result of only a few years breeding it is easy to understand how mimicry has such a profound effect on colour pattern over millenia. Adam.
|
|
jhyatt
Aurelian
Posts: 224
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jhyatt on Nov 20, 2017 0:32:53 GMT
Well said, Jan --
The first paragraph of your post indicates we have similar views and tastes in collecting. My wife says that I have a collection of very exotic labels with scraps of butterflies attached!
Your 2nd paragraph makes a good point that I didn't think about when I posted my earlier note. There certainly can be legitimate research purposes for doing selective breeding. Something about Mendel and peas comes to mind...
Cheers, jh
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Nov 20, 2017 9:55:02 GMT
I couldn't agree more. Quality is of no importance to me, as long as the specimen is recognisable. What's more important is detailed data and having a good series from as many different localities as possible in order to judge the variation. I don't have a problem with purchasing/exchanging specimens as long as the data can be trusted, it's impossible to build up a good representative collection through self-caught specimens alone.
I have no problem either with selectively bred material as it can give real insights into genetics. Even temperature experiments can give useful information about how the pupa works and especially about melanin production. Aberrations generally are not my cup of tea but all of these things are fine as long as people don't try to pass them off as something they're not.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 20, 2017 11:21:29 GMT
I couldn't agree more. Quality is of no importance to me, as long as the specimen is recognisable. What's more important is detailed data and having a good series from as many different localities as possible in order to judge the variation. Totally agree with Bob and John, I have a number of rags on pins with data labels below them in my collection too. The data is AS important as the specimen from a scientific point of view. Adam.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 12:22:42 GMT
There are a couple of problems with only wanting A1+ perfect specimens with scant data in your collection to my mind. I have a friend who is constantly scanning his collection for even the most minute imperfections in his specimens, should he find one whether its real or only in his mind, which it usually is, he cannot relax until the "dud"specimen is replaced before moving on to the next imperfection, not only can he never enjoy his hobby he is reaching for the unobtainable, constantly, secondly if a collection is to have any scientific importance at all then data must play just as important part as condition if not more so, it's s pet hate of mine when, through nothing but laziness concise data is an afterthought by many people who really ought to know better.
|
|
billg
New Aurelian
Posts: 29
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by billg on Nov 20, 2017 15:33:45 GMT
Interesting topic and thoughts.j First, bear in mind that I used to own a pair of the Goldens mentioned and the intermediates when I focused on the birdwings. In fact they can still be seen at Nagypal's website. So I have also been drawn into this arena....admittedly. I got rid of them a ways back and got, in trade, bugs I really did go nuts after like my Morpho cypris female..form cyanites.... among others. Since then, I've come to prefer only the natural aberrations. Several of my friends are big into forced matings and creative crosses and the results are indeed cool. While the results are interesting and all, I no longer desire such specimens in my collection. They enjoy doing it and I'm happy for them....it's just not my cup of tea. Being totally honest, I am going to be rearing stock of a rare, but naturally occurring strain..form this spring. I have paid to receive the genetic stock of the melanistic Antheraea polyphemus which I find incredible. I paid for this male specimen a ways back, but do desire to rear up some more. I also did catch in the wild my polyphemus gynandromorph which I consider a treasure. Field collected aberrations are much desired. It it boils down to personal taste and collection preferences. The oddballs created are neat to look at and can be gorgeous like some of the Actias jobs. The UV treatment so common today with the birdwings makes what was once a treasure (form niclasi) almost non-existent and that is a shame. Many years ago, I was lined up to get a O. rubianus form niclasi, but nowadays, I wouldn't even consider buying one after the goofy UV alterations so commonly done these days have virtually ruined the possibility of getting a genuine form niclasi.
|
|
billg
New Aurelian
Posts: 29
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by billg on Nov 20, 2017 15:37:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Nov 21, 2017 6:48:12 GMT
Paul, I do respect all those who do make their collections largely based upon what they (themselves) can singularly collect. Speaking for myself, my collection is only about 50% based upon what I alone have collected. The other 50% is based upon exotics which I have had to purchase or trade for over all these years.... Ever since I cracked open Paul Smart's book back in High school; I have always had a desire to own at least SOME of the most desirable or distinctive butterflies known. I will never acquire them all as my "bucket list" is long however, I do enjoy each of them every bit (and quite often more) than anything I have collected. The data on exotics is arguably somewhat limited but, the species themselves simply outshine anything I have ever caught OR ever will collect ! You know, catching Tiger swallowtails, common Colias, various repeat Nymphalids/Lycaenids/Satyrids year after year gets pretty old in no time ! Trips anywhere else outside of where you live are usually expensive, fraught with uncertainty (that you will arrive at a "plum" time), and are a gamble/risk that you will even be able to keep your hard won items due to the authorities at either end of your trip. Also, unlike some people who have job responsibilities or family in foreign lands; there are a great many of us without such options. I find that each and every time I look upon my Phoebis avelleneda, Teinopalpus imperialis, Papilio homerus, Bhutanitis lidderdali, Morpho absoloni, or what have you; my eyes still "boggle" at their magnificence and I am proud to have them (over any of my other things) !
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Nov 21, 2017 7:18:25 GMT
I believe many would agree that catching an extreme wild caught aberration would remain long in the memory, while many would have no qualms about purchasing such an insect. If, you are only interested in collecting the Lepidoptera in the country where you live or are able to collect in other countries, then there is really no need to purchase anything unless you live in the UK. I see this thread has turned towards the quality of specimens. I suspect it would be true to say that those that purchase them would want the best they can get and would rather not have less than A1 quality, which has many definitions in the ebay world of insects. I know the purists only wish to have only A1 specimens in their collection and will not countenance a lesser quality, they are in the happy medium in that the groups they collect are available in this quality. Many other groups are not, being caught with a net, the butterflies having been on the wing a day or two, it does not take long for such a butterfly to show wear and tear.
|
|
billg
New Aurelian
Posts: 29
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by billg on Nov 21, 2017 13:54:14 GMT
"I find that each and every time I look upon my Phoebis avelleneda, Teinopalpus imperialis, Papilio homerus, Bhutanitis lidderdali, Morpho absoloni, or what have you; my eyes still "boggle" at their magnificence and I am proud to have them (over any of my other things) !"
Trehopr1,
I agree completely with you on this. I, too, have to purchase bugs in order to have those gems from afar. I have greatly reduced this purchased part section of my collection to perhaps 20%. Having a representation of some of the insect worlds finest is good enough for me. I used to have many thousands of such insects, but sold off the bulk keeping the ones I so like to drool over in both Leps and Coleops. I'll also say that A1 is not a must for me, but I like A1 when I can afford it. If some special bug is only available in less than A1, I'll usually go for it......if it has data. Some of my rarest coolest stuff is in good shape, looks really nice, but is not technically A1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 15:45:58 GMT
I would rather save up, not being in any way rich, for 3 or 4 specimens a year that are super desirable, usually expensive, usually not A1, but treasured forever. A case in point will be in about a month when I post pictures of my next haul, such treasures are more valuable to me than any material possession be it a car, electronic gadget, fancy clothes, a big showy house, and I will spend the rest of the year buying from the bargain bins at fairs looking for cheap, obscure bugs that few others are interested in and catching breeding and curating my own material until the next time I can afford another splurge.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Nov 25, 2017 4:01:28 GMT
This picture is for Steve who requested it. This is a photo of my friends fabulous "color-washed" Chrysiridia madagascariensis which he once owned for a time. It became his via an old collection which was being parted out. He owned it for several years before tough times hit and he was forced to give it up out of other concerns. It was bred in 1928 (as I saw that much of the label) but, I cannot recall where. He said only a very few viable adults were produced (less than 20 I think) and nothing like them has ever been seen since. Surely, the most extreme example of this species of day flying moth. The specimen was unfortunately lost in a home fire within a year of the new owner purchasing it.
|
|
steve
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 53
Country: Australia
|
Post by steve on Nov 25, 2017 4:57:47 GMT
WOW, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by hewi on Nov 25, 2017 12:06:09 GMT
In the 40's larger quantities of these temperature forms of C. madagascariensis were cultivated. And they are still coming onto the market today. There is a very detailed publication about these experiments from 1940: CATALA, Renè: "Variations expérimentales de Chrysiridia madagascariensis"
|
|
|
Post by mcheki on Nov 25, 2017 14:28:42 GMT
I understand the point that some collectors do not want to include man-made specimens in their collection, as they have no real scientific value, individually. However, if such man-made specimens are done with the purpose of understanding genetics in selective breeding, and a collection is kept for the documentation of the same, then it is absolutely a invaluable collection in its own right! Jan
This is a photo of the pupa of a male Papilio nandina. This picture was taken this morning in my dining room at home in England, UK. It is one of several pupae and the whole rearing project will be recorded and retained with the specimens. Yes, it is a hybrid but the original Papilio nandina was caught in the wild and hence was given a scientific name.
|
|