britishleps
New Aurelian
Posts: 8
Country: United Kingdom
|
Post by britishleps on Dec 9, 2018 11:17:40 GMT
Trehopr1 and Nomad, you make a lot of valid points, all of which make perfect sense. However, we have all wandered a bit from the original purpose of this thread. For the avoidance of all doubt: the aberration I figured was sold to me as a specimen created from temperature shock experimentation (assumed foreign stock), and I accepted it on those terms. Perhaps I should have mentioned this in my original post, but it didn’t seem very relevant to the question I was asking. To sum up other matters, I don’t think there is any suggestion that Mr Bailey or anyone else has faked anything, nor can I see any real advantage in doing so. When I posted I didn’t know anything about Karl Bailey, but since then more information has emerged (see links in above posts) and as you have noted, a friend has attested to his temperature experiments, especially with the Nymphalidae. For me, at least, the situation is clear. Like I said, we seem to have wandered a bit, but in a cold, dark British winter there’s not much to do, and I’ve enjoyed reading the replies.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 9, 2018 11:21:21 GMT
Is this fair to say or am I missing something? Just trying to get my thoughts around this topic... Sometimes aberrations can come out from breeding without any unnatural treatent at all. This can often happen when stock is so inbred that combinations of recessive genes are expressed, but in normal circumstances with regular genetic exchange between unrelated individuals in the population these aberrant genes would never appear. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 9, 2018 11:32:24 GMT
Yes, it would have been good if you mentioned you knew your ab was from cold shock. I believe that is the way threads go, a mention of cold shock temperature experiment often brings out emotive responses in those that have studied British Lepidoptera or those like dunc who collects them. There is a huge array of cold shock abs, so if its man made in a fridge, can you see a point in naming them? especially as many today believe its pointless naming new wild or bred aberrations today (which I do not agree with), even the BMNH policy is not now to name new infraspecific aberrations that they receive, so in light of this I do not agree with naming cold shock abs, is there a point to such endeavour.
|
|
britishleps
New Aurelian
Posts: 8
Country: United Kingdom
|
Post by britishleps on Dec 9, 2018 12:41:11 GMT
There is a huge array of cold shock abs, so if its man made in a fridge, can you see a point in naming them? That’s a very interesting question. My answer, as a layman whose knowledge of genetics is limited to what I learnt at school, is that it depends on the temperature of the fridge. If the pupa is subjected to a change in temperature within the normal range it would experience in the wild, and if that leads to genetic expression visible in wing colouration (for example), then I don’t see why it’s automatically wrong to name it. If, on the other hand, the pupa is subjected to a temperature which it would never encounter in the wild (something huge like -70°C, for example) then I can see why naming might be inappropriate. As I said, I am not a geneticist and can only offer a personal opinion. I’m sure there are others here who are better qualified to answer, in which case I defer to their superior knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Dec 9, 2018 14:01:04 GMT
Karl tended not to put labels on his artificially produced specimens as he didn't want them confused with natural aberrations, which he also collected. I would suggest that the label on this specimen was added by somebody else after they got it from Karl. There were certainly no labels on any of the specimens he gave me.
From what I remember of what Karl told me many years ago he experimented with both cold and heat shock, but much more with heat as it was easier to control. He had some very sophisticated equipment and used very precise temperatures, evidently (as seems obvious) the more extreme the temperature the more pupae were killed but the survivors were much more extreme. The timing was also critical as the shock (or more often series of shocks) had to be given a certain amount of time after the larval skin was shed but before the pupa was fully hardened. Surprisingly, heat and cold shocks produced fairly similar results. He also found that the effect was enhanced by giving final instar larvae a 24 hour daylength. He experimented with many more things such as infrared v ultraviolet light etc. I don't really remember much more as it wasn't something that particularly interested me.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 9, 2018 14:11:03 GMT
Cold shock treatment only works if the pupa is put in the fridge very soon after shedding the pre-pupal skin, basically during the first day afterwards. Cold shock has no effect on the colour pattern if the pupa is more than 2 days old, although it can turn them into cripples. It is not actually the temperature of the fridge that matters as much as the sudden large change in temperature. In tropical habitats wild cold shock natural aberrations occur from time to time, and these can be caused by a very fast large temperature drop that doesn't reach anywhere near 0C.
As for naming aberrations, there is a good reason for not bothering - names described at a rank below subspecies are not available under the ICZN Code of nomenclature, so have no scientific status. Of course they can be useful for people who want to put a name on particular forms, but I think it is pretty pointless to name each small variation on a theme.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by mothylator on Dec 10, 2018 10:43:54 GMT
I see your ab is from Karl Bailey. Karl E. J. Bailey is a highly regarded and still active British entomologist breeder and experimenter. I met him last year and again last week, at The Dukeries, annual Entomological Fair. He is still performing meticulous experiments such as minimum cool duration requirements before breaking diapause in certain species of British moth etc. His work is frequently referenced, there are multiple references to him in Alec Harmer's outstanding book "Variations in British Butterflies" (1999) ISBN 0953723607, Illustrated by A.D.A. (Don) Russwurm, both were supporters and collaborators in their later years with the younger Karl Bailey. Don was however a purist who could never fully accept that temperature-shock experimental specimens had a place in a natural history collection, and affectionately called Karl's specimens "those beastly fakes". But acknowledged that Karl has progressed understanding of the precise environmental conditions for phenotypic change, and advanced many other areas of knowledge besides. As others have alluded, I have no doubt whatsoever that his work is sincere and genuine. The specimen in the picture is a species Karl has definitely bred and experimented with. He sometimes would cross breed British with European stock for his experiments, which is what they were. He would NEVER claim a specimen to be pure British stock unless it was. His temperature shock work was always sold by him as experimental output. If he said the stock is pure British (unlikely [sic] in this case as per Nomad's conclusion), then it is. If he makes no comment, then assume it may include interbreeding from European stock. The point was always the experiment and output. It is always a moot question when buying a specimen from an intermediary, whether a label belongs to the specimen to which it is attached. Also whether the label accurately describes the specimen. I agree with the comments about Karl's lack of labelling. Sometimes he would, sometimes not. All the specimens I own which I believe were Karl's progeny, were obtained from a friend with high reputation for accurate authenticity, who has known Karl for a long time. In every case, the labelling is secondary, not Karl's. At one time Karl would sell papered material in bulk to a dealer who would set them and apply a label, sometimes a bit overstating the material. Karl no longer deals with that individual. In this case, the label is one of David Kenningdale's, you can see his personal signature showing through the characteristically shaped label. Karl has not AFAIK had any trade dealings with Kenningdale, though Kenningdale has in the past bought material from the above-mentioned intermediary dealer. I refer to comments earlier in the thread about authenticity issues from certain dealer(s). Tingewick is where Karl lives and continues to experiment. He is a private person, not currently in the best of health, though his brain and recall remains exceptional. It is high time someone wrote a book of his life and work, and his exceptional raconteur ability. Copyright issues: I am posting a single paragraph for purely education purposes. This paragraph is taken from Alec Harmer's book as above, please cite the reference if you wish to use it in any future publication or reproduction. I would strongly recommend buying it. Since publication I believe he has succeeded with the Dark Green also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 16:28:54 GMT
If the specimens experimented on are openly stated to be such and their original origin also stated then I see no harm in it, it's all a question of honesty and openness which as I have previously stated is sorely lacking with certain individuals. On the naming of abberants I don't think that lathonia differs that much in its appearance naturally as far as I'm aware so as comprehensive as Clives excellent site is this is probably the reason he hasn't bothered as only naturally occurring forms are on there.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 10, 2018 18:46:32 GMT
Thank you mothtaylor for your very informative reply. I never supposed that Karl Bailey had ever said his Issoria lathonia were of British stock and would certainly believe that anybody experimenting with this species was using continental stock in the "very" unlikely event that he was able to obtain a gravid wild caught immigrant British female or did suppose that when he passed/sold specimens they were anything other that what he said they was.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Dec 11, 2018 11:19:37 GMT
Tingewick is where Karl lives and continues to experiment. He is a private person, not currently in the best of health, though his brain and recall remains exceptional. It is high time someone wrote a book of his life and work, and his exceptional raconteur ability. I can certainly attest to Karl's ability as a raconteur. He came on a field trip to France with a couple of us for a week about 20 years ago and he kept us amused for hours of an evening over dinner and a few drinks.
|
|