Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 12:29:46 GMT
Hello, Can anyone help me identify this species? Photo was found on the internet, so I don't know where it was taken.
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Aug 9, 2018 13:15:21 GMT
It's a Photoshop fake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 13:21:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Aug 9, 2018 15:17:34 GMT
Strange that the person who posted this deleted his membership straight after Danny's reply. I wonder if he only joined in order to post the photo here and start us talking about it.
Whoever did this must be rather good at photo editing, the body looks like Papilio xuthus, and the forewing cell looks like it came from a P. lormieri group species. Of course the tails came from a Graphium, and the hindwing margin looks similar to G. androcles, but there are no Leptocircini with postdiscal eyespots on the hindwing underside. Those probably also originated with a P. lormieri group species or perhaps [demoleus.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Aug 9, 2018 15:27:14 GMT
You guys are just too good for the likes of Mr euptera, this is certainly the wrong place to post fake papilio pictures.
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Aug 9, 2018 17:07:13 GMT
That is odd indeed that he/she has already disappeared. Perhaps this was an attempt to fool someone here into becoming excited and think that a new species had been discovered, but it would take a better try than that. I agree with Adam's comments concerning both the components of this "species", and the Photoshop work. The latter is very well done technically and doesn't show obvious manipulation. When I first found the photo, I did a "Google image search" and the photo showed up in a couple of locations. I've never seen it previously.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Aug 10, 2018 11:18:32 GMT
I know almost nothing about photo editing, and was wondering whether there are any tell tale clues that can tell us that an image like this has been photoshopped and is actually a fake?
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Aug 10, 2018 13:21:32 GMT
Yes, as africaone says, it was probably done at high resolution, then when downsized for the web, small flaws are hidden.
My definition of "good Photoshop work" is that it cannot be detected in the finished result. One looks for flaws such as lines or edges that don't quite match, colours that don't match or look otherwise wrong, small joins that are blurred in the area of manipulation, and other artifacts that simply don't look right. Other things to watch include the surrounding parts of the background and not only the main subject, mismatched colour balance between these elements, and shadows whose direction doesn't match.
My guess is that the "artist" found photos of these different species positioned similarly at a flower, chose one as the base photo, then began cloning elements from the other photos onto the base.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Oct 24, 2018 6:15:15 GMT
Due the authority of Adam in Papilio, everybody believed him .... and now how to believe an authority if he supported or inspired or suggested a fake for something he knew to be real ? or may be the description of the new species is well a fake and / or a monster build by breeders ? Now what to believe ?
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 24, 2018 8:39:49 GMT
I will repeat my apology here but I am sure everyone will understand why my deception was necessary, especially since the rather mysterious euptera joined the ICF just to post the photo and unsubscribed as soon as deliasfanatic replied that it is a photoshop fake. I suspect that whoever he was he knew that was not true. We were worried that someone would publish a description based on this photo alone. On collector-secret.proboards.com/thread/2608/new-papilio-species-fiji I wrote: "I must apologise to all ICF members for having to pretend that the photo of a wild specimen of Papilio natewa was a photoshop fake. I knew it was real well over a year ago, and had to keep it a secret until publication." As a matter of fact, when I first received a confidential copy of the photo my immediate reaction was exactly the same as my first reply in this thread, a butterfly that looked like a composite of Papilio xuthus, lormieri and Graphium androcles couldn't possibly be real. Hopefully in the near future we will be able to find out which species groups it really is related to. Adam.
|
|
steve
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 53
Country: Australia
|
Post by steve on Oct 24, 2018 9:56:48 GMT
Thank you Adam for that reply. So have actual specimens been collected?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2018 10:53:31 GMT
I can fully understand Adams reasoms, he must have been bursting with excitement at such a find but had the self control to stay silent until the appropriate time
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 24, 2018 11:23:03 GMT
Thank you Adam for that reply. So have actual specimens been collected? Yes, specimens were collected in July as well as one from 2017 which was stored on the Op Wallacea site, and yesterday the description was published as Papilio natewa, hence my ability to admit the truth now. I can provide private pdf copies of the description for personal use only, but cannot post photos of the holotype here. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Oct 24, 2018 12:37:51 GMT
Haha this ICF topic will remain in the history ! :-)
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Oct 24, 2018 13:07:29 GMT
Well, this explains why the Photoshop work was so well done.
|
|