|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 30, 2020 17:35:44 GMT
I would almost certainly wager here that you have collected an aberration of whatever species have here. Hopefully, someone else who has taken an interest in this genus and has specimens to compare will have a more advanced knowledge --- beyond my own casual observation.
Funny, how many natural occurring aberrations tend to look "washed out" somewhat in color as well as in the "detail" of their wing markings.
A wonderful and unique example of butterfly. Most certainly a memorable one !
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Sept 28, 2020 21:44:08 GMT
Thank you jhyatt; that's probably right!
I didn't think of that...😨
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Sept 28, 2020 19:04:30 GMT
Does anyone know the history of approximately when or how N. antiopa arrived here in North America ? Was it accidentally introduced with European settlers in the late 1700s or early 1800s ? I have never read anything regarding it's introduction to North America. Could it have arrived in Canada first and then gradually migrated southward into the US?
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 22, 2020 22:29:12 GMT
I do feel that when Rikers are used in an educational context they work well as excellent visual tools with informative description. The example which dunes started off the thread with was pretty cool, well done, and informative.
As for them being used for a collection they are just fine for novices and those with a limited interest in insects. However, if in time you become a more "serious" minded enthusiast; then I think as your experiance and knowledge evolves you need to "step-up" your means of storing your hard won specimens to better equipment.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 21, 2020 23:29:33 GMT
For those European collectors/enthusiasts unfamiliar with "Schmitt boxes" I provide below a couple of pictures. These are very similar to the insect "Storeboxes" offered by Watkins/Doncaster, Paradox, and so on... The dimensions are not quite as long or wide as those made in Europe however, they are very tight fitting and suit pinned specimens admirably. Many a "serious" collector/enthusiast utilized these for the proper protection, curation, and compact storage of their treasured insect captures. These were a bit "pricier" than what you would pay for Riker mounts but, really for just "a few dollars more" the overall return outweighed the glass "exposure" rikers provided as well as the lack of a truly good closure which rikers never had. Again, these spanned the gulf between low end cost Riker mounts and quite expensive (if you could get them) insect drawers. As I mentioned, serious minded enthusiasts preferred these if drawers were financially unaffordable. A case in point exists here in these photographs. The pictures which you see here are of a Schmitt box (I have 10 like this) which once belonged to Professor Josef N. Knull (1891-1975). Professor Knull was, and is, an icon among North American beetle collectors. To students of North American Buprestidae, (as well as other groups he worked on -- Cerambycidae for example) the name Josef Knull is as familiar as Carl Linnaeus, or Charles Darwin. A Professor of Entomology at Ohio State University from 1934-1962, Knull published nearly 200 papers on the taxonomy, biology, and distribution of these and other families of beetles. He personally housed his private collection in over 200 boxes (as pictured). And the handwritten labels which you see on the outside and inside of the box are HIS handwriting. The arrangement within the box is all ORIGINAL to his desired separations of species/subspecies... These were fully curated, organized, and stacked in cabinets in Professor Knull's study. The man had incredibly "symmetrical" handwriting ! Red labels within indicate either new species or subspecies added to Professor Knull's collection. The fumigant box is of his choosing and is painted red all around the sides. This box remains original and absolutely intact as he arranged it so many moons ago ! Of coarse, the priceless specimens found their new home at the museum where I once worked for 8 years. Professor Knull's collection was bequeathed upon his passing to Field Museum (Chicago). He described 233 species and subspecies of beetles in his time here. My point is that even a legendary entomologist like Professor Knull found these affordable and completely practical for his collection which spanned over 40 years. I acquired 10 of his empty boxes while at the museum when it was decided our division would likely never use them; so they were eventually handed out to kids as "storeboxes for things" over a couple of our member nights. I placed an Inachis io in this one to show that indeed these would comfortably hold Lepidoptera as well as any other insects.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 21, 2020 17:12:52 GMT
Well, that is a "strange" sort of humor (if that's what one calls it). Once you get past the absurd approach of the article the rest is informative...
Yes, Riker mounts served their purpose well for novices and folks of limited monetary means. However, there were other affordable options (as mentioned: Schmitt boxes); which filled the vast void between the cost of rikers and the far more expensive and (largely out of reach) insect drawers utilized by wealthy collectors and museums.
Way back in the 30's and up to the end of the 60's rikers might have only cost you 1 to 3 bucks a piece in "relative" monetary terms; however, for just a few " bucks" more (probably 6 to 9 bucks) one could purchase a tight-fitting durable wooden Schmitt box (sold by various outfits). These would hold your pinned treasures, would accept a very small box to hold a moth ball, and were compact enough for easy storage in a fumigated cabinet.
Maybe, still not as cheap as rikers overall but, far more advisable if you were a TRUE collector/ enthusiast of limited monetary means.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 21, 2020 9:35:37 GMT
I appreciate the photo and the corresponding educational explanation involving its topic. The explanation regarding the nature of the photomechanical print is also interesting and appreciated.
However, the condescending manner in which you chose to start off the history of the GREAT ol'e Riker mount is honestly "insulting" to the intelligence of every one here ! You are not speaking to children AND you are not telling us some "bedtime story" like some old Uncle Joe.
Riker mounts may have (in their day) served as able educational platforms on myriad subjects. They were acceptable if all you needed them for was to show your 5th grade or 8th grade class a grouping of local self caught butterflies or some purchased Ward mount of "Eastern U.S. butterflies". Again, they were still a poor but, affordable option for those without the means to purchase better equipment or those who did not feel the need for proper housing of that which they worked so hard at accumulating.
Unless stored in a good sealing cabinet which could be fumigated with naphthalene regularly your (Lepidoptera) treasures if left out in the open would succumb to dermestid beetles in time, or the glass might get broken, or if exposed to light your leps would be "blank pages void of color" in no time !
By the way, Schmitt boxes and museum drawers were in use by museums and major big name collectors like W. J. Holland; LONG ...... before the Riker mount was even conceived --- much less sold as a cheap educational/ housing commodity.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 21, 2020 6:49:25 GMT
Riker mounts were a very economical means for those lepidopterists who either:
A. Could not afford drawers (back in the day).
B. Could not find a GOOD builder for drawers.
C. Lacked sufficient space for a proper Schmitt box OR Drawer type collection.
D. Found the collecting, preparation, and subsequent data important BUT, storage was of cursory importance...
Those who made riker mount collections still enjoyed them and found preservation important. So, more often than not they would put the data on the back and kept the rikers stacked usually in some dark cabinet(s) which would close tightly so they could place napthalene in for protection of the specimens.
Rikers were comparatively cheap when compared with the cost of drawers or Schmitt boxes (even back in the day)! Heck, some would buy a couple of big boxes worth in a couple of sizes and have room for several years...
I have seen two such collections in my time created by lepidopterists who had passed on. One was a splendid Papilionid collection which my retired dealer friend purchased in the mid-1980's. He said he spent 6 or 7 months putting all the specimens back on pins as any serious collectors had to have them that way. Of coarse, some of the common material stayed in rikers and was sold as wall mounts for offices or homes.
The bother I see with collections stored in such a way are several.
A. You cannot see the (verso) side of a specimen.
B. You really can't place a verso specimen in without either breaking it in some way (due to the compression of closing the glass top together with the bottom).
C. Large saturniid moths don't generally do well for long as they are not in a space (like a drawer) with air; they are in a confined space where they soon grease-up and look just plain awful and then the body oils eventually leach into the cotton turning it yellow or brown.
D. Labels can fall off the back if taped and legible handwriting can sometimes be wanting...
E. Most credible museums or universities with a collection lack any staff/time/money to transfer the specimens onto pins to view them properly or scientifically.
So, unfortunately if kept they only wind up in some cabinet largely unlooked at until someone decides one day WHAT do we do with this ? There are certainly some descent specimens here and there to be found (if the collection has been properly stored -- not displayed). However, making the specimens useful is another thing especially if there are hundreds or a few thousand...
These days, I would NEVER recommend anyone put any specimen (worth its scientific salt) into a Riker mount for storage. At least buy schmitt style boxes or other foam bottom type pinning cases to pin your treasures into... There are affordable and yet practical storage means out there which won't cost you what a drawer will.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 20, 2020 18:53:49 GMT
I noticed a while back in an article posted by our member (Nomad) on some of Oxfords catocala holdings; a certain preparation style which was popular for a time. English collectors seemed to favor pulling the front legs of their moths out in front of them... Though the "pinning style" may no longer be in vogue I found it aesthetically pleasing and have incorporated it (whenever possible) with my fresh caught Catocala specimens. I rarely do this with my rehydrated specimens unless they are especially pliable. I find this a "nifty" change-up from the typical manner that most spread their specimens. Below, I present the "English style" of catocala preparation. These fellows have dried now for 35 days so they are ready for the collection. You will notice that I use a spreading board with just a little wider gap than the width of the moths body. This allows one the ability to easily preen out the forelegs. Once they hook onto the edge of the gap they pretty much stay in place however, as a precaution I still brace pin them each with 2 or 3 "minuten" pins or fine #1 or smaller size insect pins. Since the forelegs look so good (to me) splayed out in front of the moth; well, why not pull out that pair of long hind legs as well... (sort of trailing in the wind). I think the effect is great! As you can see, I don't treat my preparation work as a job --- its a "fun" exercise. About those antennae... I really never have a "standard" for how I want them to look. I look to see more so "what are they willing to do" ! You see these threadlike antennae don't necessarily have a lot of "give" (this way) or (that way). So, one has to exercise skill and good judgement in their placement and/or arrangement. A little too much bend or force applied will snap them. So, if you are an aesthetic collector like myself that can be VERY disheartening... Anyway, I just thought I would let others know that you can have some measure of "fun" working up your things and the results can be personally rewarding when the end product is viewed. These are really great moths to collect.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 18, 2020 22:43:02 GMT
Hey bobw, would you have any interesting insights to tell us of these Catocala species which you have bred this year? Was any particular species more difficult to deal with than the others? I noticed you only have a few select specimens of semirelicta.
What kind of food plants do you use to feed these various species? Many kinds are said to feed on different kinds of oak. Did you have to substitute oak for something else?
My compliments really because it is no small feat getting these through to the adult from eggs...
Anything, that you can relate would be interesting to enthusiasts of these (in general).
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 18, 2020 18:16:14 GMT
Wow, well done indeed bobw !
Beautiful specimens and indeed hard won. I find it extraordinary that you breed these fellows. I cannot imagine there are many enthusiasts over here that even breed these much anymore... I'm sure the talent has been lost as older lepidopterists have passed on.
There are several regular enthusiasts on the other thread (as you know) who regularly report their findings for the summer. However, to the best of my knowledge NONE of them breed Catocala; they merely collect them at light or via bait methods.
Its very nice to see that there are others elsewhere who likewise have an appreciation and passion for these wonderful moths.
Thank you again for posting us some of your self bred beautiful Catocala.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 17, 2020 18:51:16 GMT
No discussion about Morpho's would be complete without at least a worthy mention of one of THE most desirable (female) forms; that one of coarse is Morpho cypris cypris f. cyanites. It is the much lesser seen and perhaps occurring "blue" form of the species. Typical females are a rich yellow in color with some brown present all along the wing margins including two main cells of the forewings. There are also a series of yellow "somewhat" angular spots within those brown wing margins. *Note: A photo of a male and (both forms) of the female may be seen on my 1st post of this thread. I will further discuss Morpho cypris in an upcoming post for more specifics but, the real purpose of this brief discussion was to show all of you what I regard as the "finest" printed rendition of this glorious female form ever to be seen in any book. This is an artistic rendering present (again) in an older book titled: Butterflies and Moths by Alfred Werner/Josef Bijok (1965)+ (1970). The rendering is not only accurate in its dimensions but, in its details as well. What further ENHANCES it is the unknown manner in which the (I assume) printing company was able to somehow apply an almost "airbrushed" iridescence to the rendering; giving it a lifelike look. Absolutely astonishing... To be honest I think even this posted picture of the rendering loses some of its iridescence ! However, you get my point that its a great artistic piece for an age old "coffee-table"book. The real deal females are seldom offered on the market. However, when they do show up specimens in top condition are heavily contested by buyers for ownership. Over these last 5 years the CHEAPEST that I've ever seen a female of this form sold for was $1000.00 USD. At the HIGH END I have seen one fetch $2100.00 USD. I suppose pricing could even go higher if two collectors really "arm wrestle" over one ! An absolutely fantastic species and form of butterfly. You have to be on another collecting "level" these days to afford one of these honeys...
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 17, 2020 6:06:51 GMT
Another Morpho species of notoriety is the Anaxibia Morpho (Morpho anaxibia) (Esper, 1801). This species is unique for two reasons in particular. Firstly, the species is endemic to Brazil; actually southern Brazil more specifically ! Secondly, the species stands quite alone in having the abdomen blue above. In 1913, Hans Fruhstorfer wrote: that anaxibia forms a transition from the rhetenor to the menelaus group, anaxibia, however, lacks the wonderful gloss of the rhetenor series, the blue is duller, although it has its own particular beauty, and the dazzling iridescence is wanting. Here, I post a fantastic photograph from the web of this gorgeous species. The species is said to fly at the end of January and beginning of February for a period of between 15-30 days in its native haunts. Males fly singly, sailing quietly along however, they may be seen congregating in number around rainforest seepage spots, the periphery of waterfalls, as well as sandy banks along rivers to imbibe the moisture. Females, are loners and are rarely ever seen or encountered. On particularly hot days a few have been observed at rest in the morning hours in wet places on forest paths getting their drink... Below, I offer up a splendid photo of a "choice" female specimen which I simply ran short of cash to afford recently !! *Just broke my heart... And the next photo shows a couple of nice pairs of this lovely species. So, the other surprising caveat about this species (from the viewpoint of a collector) is its apparent availability. Now, those of us in the know are well aware that Brazil for a long time now does not allow trade or export of its fauna. Yet, anaxibia males are not really hard to find out there in the market. In fact, it could be said they are downright cheap ! I bought one myself last year for $22.00 USD Of coarse, that's hardly the case for the much sought after and seldom offered females. In these last 4 years I have seen females price out anywhere between $175.00 USD (on the low end) on up to $400.00 USD (on the high end). Quality and cleanliness of the specimen is always paramount. Females are hopelessly popular so if you have been really longing for a female pull out the wallet and "grin and bear it". Hope you have enjoyed my overview of yet another one of those spectacular Morpho species. There still remains a fair number more to talk about...
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 17, 2020 4:46:29 GMT
A few hours ago a member of our community (larrycurlymoe) asked if he could submit a picture of a Morpho painting which he personally did using his artistic skills. So, without further hesitation I present his work for your viewing pleasure... Well done indeed ! Those little Riodinids are mighty nice too. Thanks for your input larrycurlymoe !
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 16, 2020 18:36:17 GMT
Jhyatt, below are close-ups of the two augustinae pictured (not mine, both were sold). Have posted their associated data... Morpho augustinae f. semicypris Venezuela, Orinoco Delta, Tucupita April 1931/ex. LeMoult Sold for: $2100.00 USD (2013)(male 5") Morpho augustinae f. dickseei Venezuela, Orinoco Delta, Tucupita Sept.1938 Sold for:$1850.00 USD (2013)(male 4.5") I certainly cannot speak for the validity of those form (names) as I have none of the Patrick Blandin books on "The Genus Morpho". However, the data as you see it is what I photographed (verbatim) of what was on the respective labels. Both specimens were simply awesome in their very light blue color with an overall "pearlessence" overlay. Stunning !
|
|