|
Post by wollastoni on Apr 7, 2016 19:04:35 GMT
the biggest default is that the eBay.be seems not include Scroll down the Top Auction Page and you will find the TOP AUCTIONS of EBAY.BE, of course there are less specimens, but sometimes some nice African rarities at good prices.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 8, 2016 8:48:11 GMT
"unbelievable that it has been confused with a Thyrididae"
Thierry,
You would be surprised how similar some SE Asian Thyrididae can look to Sphingids. Probably one day more of these will appear, especially after the very high price that the first one sold for, and we may find out more then.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by louisianacurmudgeon on Apr 10, 2016 15:32:52 GMT
Several decades back I sold a single female specimen of a new species of sphingidae from Mexico for $500.00 This specimen was part of a much larger quantity of Sphingidae I sold to this same person, including numerous paratypes of another sphingid I described from Mexico back in the mid 80's, Manduca wellingi Brou, and numerous paratypes and topotypes of another US sphingid I described Lapara phaeobrachycerous Brou, and hundreds of additional sphingidae specimens. Though I didn't expect it, the buyer was so pleased getting the new undescribed sphingid, he named it after me, Isoparce broui Eitschberger, 2001. Actually, that $500.00 was a low price, but was part of the much larger purchase at that time.
If a serious collector is in need of species they don't have, money is no object. And if it is a new species that someone can describe, again money is no object. And buy the way, I have a small series of another undescribed species of sphingidae I have been sitting on for nearly 30 years.
There are currently 5-6 undescribed species of the Erebidae moth genus Eudocima across the world. I would pay hundreds to obtain any of those species. I have the largest collection of Eudocima in the world today, so my reasons are very similar to the sphingid collector above I mentioned. He too, was most eager to be able to describe a new species and purchase normally unobtainable specimens for his large collection.
I have sold 98% of all the sphingids and saturnids, and 90% of the catocala I have captured for the past 47 years. If one has something large and flashy or most wanted by collectors, e.g. Saturnids, Sphingids, Catocala, large and/or colorful beetles, potential buyers are legion.
The collectors selling moths and beetles from Vietnam on numerous sites for the last several years, have no idea what they are selling. Their purpose is simply to get your money in their pockets. If they have names on the specimens, it is because ignorant buyers advised them what the identity is. Even then, these amateur buyers are not seasoned taxonomist, and often they provide misinformation. Then the seller finds out he has something most wanted and raises his prices for those particular specimens. I wont even begin commenting on quality of the Vietnam specimens, as the photos are self evident in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 11, 2016 10:07:29 GMT
If a serious collector is in need of species they don't have, money is no object. And if it is a new species that someone can describe, again money is no object. I only wish that money was no object to many collectors including me. Do you agree that holotype specimens of new species such sphingids should be presented to a major museum so that they can be studied by other specialists or do you believe that a individual private collectors if they obtain these scientific valuable specimens are justified in keeping them?
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Apr 11, 2016 11:09:42 GMT
Do you agree that holotype specimens of new species such sphingids should be presented to a major museum so that they can be studied by other specialists or do you believe that a individual private collectors if they obtain these scientific valuable specimens are justified in keeping them?
All holotypes should be in Museums, to be visible by the whole scientific community. There is no reason for keeping holotypes in a private collection. And Museum should make them easily accessible to the scientific community.
Then of course, choose well your Museum, because some of them won't take care of it as you would have done.
Museums must also accept to take those holotypes and the new Nagoya legislation may not help on this. If you collect a new Delias species in PNG without official permits, European Museums should not be able anymore to accept the holotype... so the species is described but you cannot give the specimen to the MNHN or BMNH or Smithsonian... you can of course send it to a PNG Museum, but will they keep it, or will they sell it to a Japanese/Western collector who will propose 5000€ for it Once again, a legislation thought to fight against art/antiquity traffic, to fight against "scientific colonialism" but stupidly applied to entomology research. We should invest to develop local entomologists (the Papua Insect Foundation is a great example) instead of creating difficulties for "western entomology".
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Apr 11, 2016 12:16:53 GMT
Museums must also accept to take those holotypes and the new Nagoya legislation may not help on this. If you collect a new Delias species in PNG without official permits, European Museums should not be able anymore to accept the holotype... so the species is described but you cannot give the specimen to the MNHN or BMNH or Smithsonian... you can of course send it to a PNG Museum, but will they keep it, or will they sell it to a Japanese/Western collector who will propose 5000€ for it Once again, a legislation thought to fight against art/antiquity traffic, to fight against "scientific colonialism" but stupidly applied to entomology research. We should invest to develop local entomologists (the Papua Insect Foundation is a great example) instead of creating difficulties for "western entomology". Once again Nagoya, I have seen so many people talking about it, even professionals from Museums, but nobody able to point out the exact passage that states that any entomological work WILL be obstructed. Nagoya gives the possibility to a country to defend it's genetic resources IF patented and on a GENE LEVEL. So please tell me where my understanding is wrong and where the respective legislative passages are. I would be more than interested. If my understanding is not wrong, then we should please stop spreading rumours.
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Apr 11, 2016 12:25:01 GMT
One simple example : BMNH doesn't accept you to give them a holotype anymore, if you cannot prove it has been collected with all proper permits in its origin country, "because of new Nagoya legislation". So what do you do, you keep your holotype in private collection ? You don't describe it until you get the permit, within 100 years ?
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Apr 11, 2016 12:42:25 GMT
One simple example : BMNH doesn't accept you to give them a holotype anymore, if you cannot prove it has been collected with all proper permits in its origin country, "because of new Nagoya legislation". If I find the time I will write them and ask about that, but please note that the BMNH is run by biologists, not lawyers. It could be that they too interpret the text wrongly. It could also be that I am wrong on it, I'm not a lawyer either. But so far nobody could give me a precise answer when asked, just rumours or referring me to another person. I do think that the Nagoya protocol is a good thing as it can set the basis for a greener economy in developing countries within the tropics. So far I have not seen a legislative text that would indicate a problem for entomologists.
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Apr 11, 2016 16:46:09 GMT
I too have heard a lot of rumors, most of them false, on the French Forum I manage.
Maybe bobw could tell us more as he works closely with BMNH staff. I will drop an email to my friends in MNHN too to see if they face the same issue than BMNH.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 11, 2016 17:04:13 GMT
Do you agree that holotype specimens of new species such sphingids should be presented to a major museum so that they can be studied by other specialists or do you believe that a individual private collectors if they obtain these scientific valuable specimens are justified in keeping them?
All holotypes should be in Museums, to be visible by the whole scientific community. There is no reason for keeping holotypes in a private collection. And Museum should make them easily accessible to the scientific community.
The ICZN Code actually states: 16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection (see Recommendation 16C). Recommendation 16C. Preservation and deposition of type specimens. Recognizing that name-bearing types are international standards of reference (see Article 72.10) authors should deposit type specimens in an institution that maintains a research collection, with proper facilities for preserving them and making them accessible for study (i.e. one which meets the criteria in Recommendation 72F). Note that name-bearing types can be a *holotype or syntypes* - yes it is still acceptable to designate a series of syntypes rather than a single holotype! So, under the Code, for a name to be validly described the name and location of the collection it is housed in must be stated. However, there is no sanction on any taxon name where the name-bearing types are not subsequently placed in that collection, or in a proposed institutional collection mentioned in the original description. Failure to deposit the specimen does not invalidate the name. Of course name-bearing types should be available for scientific study, and preferably deposited in an institutional museum collection, rather than in a private collection, but the Code does not actually mandate that should happen. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Apr 11, 2016 17:38:22 GMT
I too have heard a lot of rumors, most of them false, on the French Forum I manage.
Maybe bobw could tell us more as he works closely with BMNH staff. I will drop an email to my friends in MNHN too to see if they face the same issue than BMNH. I'll be there tomorrow so I'll ask them about it. Bob
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Apr 11, 2016 18:04:37 GMT
Ideally all primary types should be in institutional collections, although as so many of these are neglected these days, the institutions should be carefully selected. However, Adam is perfectly correct to say that this is not a requirement of The Code, except in the case of neotypes (75.3.7). Here's what we had to say about types in private possession in the Colias book:
"A significant number of Colias type specimens are in private collections. Most of these are the types of taxa described in recent decades by collector-lepidopterists. Private collections also hold syntypes of taxa described by Oberthür, Staudinger, O. Bang-Haas, Kotzsch etc. Other type specimens preserved in private collections originate from some of the great collectors such as Elwes, Leech, and even Grum-Grshimailo. Several historic Colias types have been found by the authors at entomological fairs after the death of their owner; such types often have no type labels but can be identified from their locality labels. An example is the only known syntype of C. eogene ericae which was found by Grieshuber at an insect fair in Prague.
We have traced as many of these types as possible, this was not an easy task so we may have missed a few. We have, however, made every effort to follow that recommendation of The Code which concerns the responsibility of institutions to make their holdings publicly known, by publishing lists of name-bearing types. Many collectors venture forth into the unknown and often bring back specimens which they promptly describe as new, and sometimes proceed to sell at a premium. The market mechanisms of the trade were discussed from the point of view of an economist by Rose (1985). In a subsequent paper discussing “subspecies-inflation”, Rose (1985) introduced the aptly coined term “commercial subspecies”, i.e. a “subspecies” given a name and described as new by a commercial operator with the major if not sole purpose of obtaining better prices for such material.
We have accordingly listed type material in private collections wherever relevant. We have done this on behalf of the collectors with their full consent, except for a few, mostly minor, previously published or assumed depositories in private collections, the owners of which we have been unable to locate or contact. Most collectors have willingly supplied such information when requested, and have consented to provide photographs or specimens on loan."
This would seem to satisfy the requirements of The Code.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Apr 12, 2016 19:13:19 GMT
I too have heard a lot of rumors, most of them false, on the French Forum I manage.
Maybe bobw could tell us more as he works closely with BMNH staff. I will drop an email to my friends in MNHN too to see if they face the same issue than BMNH. I'll be there tomorrow so I'll ask them about it. Bob I asked the staff there today and basically they are as much in the dark about it as the rest of us. Until or unless clarification is forth coming they're just ignoring it. It seems to be yet another useless piece of legislation that keeps the lawyers rich but does nothing for real people. Bob
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 12, 2016 19:14:53 GMT
All holotypes should be in Museums, to be visible by the whole scientific community. There is no reason for keeping holotypes in a private collection. I believe that there are some, that might not share you view. It may be science against money. While the more scientific of the entomological community might present such valuable specimens to a museum, there are many others that would see a great potential in making money out of such a specimen. As Bob pointed out there are some types in large private Colias collections but these may find there way into museums eventually. I guess for those specialists that write books or papers on their chosen fields the whereabouts of the holotypes of the species they study is the most important single factor.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 13, 2016 6:08:35 GMT
The debate is not closed ... Private collection have disadvantes but also advantages. This last décades, Museum collection were not the priority of Power Public and many falled in quality and maintenance. that bring in the mind of many private a bad image. And many of them prefer to keep the types in their collection to see how the situation will evolve and choose in the last minutes where to deposit them. Also some prefer to keep (it is not illegal) the types in their collection to increase the value of the collectiion and negociate with more argments in hand where to deposit the collection for a final travel. The case of BM is typical as it not so obvious today to find a collaboration with them espacially for "small" collectors and not well known amateurs. I heared their refused very large collection recently. In Belgium one of the biggest collection (MRAC) have no more means for maintenance despite a few years ago, all Belgian (African fauna) intended to deposit their collection there (the confidence is today badly affected). the debate is also on "what is a private collection" ? Today many private collection are better (in many POV) than public ones
|
|