|
Post by bobw on Mar 13, 2024 16:33:51 GMT
I also collected around Prudhoe Bay, but it's difficult to chase them. It's much easier to collect along the pipeline (with permission!) as the foodplants grow in profusion on the disturbed ground and the bugs like to fly along it. The locality just south of the Brooks range was around mile 227.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Mar 13, 2024 16:28:27 GMT
Yep, the Ice Cut's a great collecting locality. I did see one or two P. eversmanni there.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Mar 13, 2024 13:13:35 GMT
Colias tyche is a very variable species, and ssp. thula especially so, even within the same locality, possibly due to hybridisation with sspp. kolosovae and boothii. These are all specimens of it. Here are the series I collected in Alaska, both are from the Dalton Highway, those on the left from the North Slope, those on the right from just south of the Brooks range, the bottom few were captive bred.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Mar 13, 2024 13:09:07 GMT
Colias hecla is a very variable species, even within the same locality, so these are both specimens of it. Here are the series I collected in Alaska, both are from the Dalton Highway, those on the left from the North Slope, those on the right from just south of the Brooks range.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Jun 18, 2022 6:54:10 GMT
This is the Insect Collectors' Forum, which has not changed so is the same as it always was. The InsectNet forum does have a new, better version which can be accessed here: forum.insectnet.com/. It does seem to have more traffic than this one, but it's entirely up to you which one you want to use.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Feb 9, 2022 8:13:25 GMT
Does anyone know if excel has the male and female symbols? If so how do you find them? Select the "Insert" menu option, then then press the "Symbol" button and they should be there under miscellaneous symbols. The Unicode character codes are 2642 and 2640.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Jan 17, 2022 9:02:06 GMT
Yep, they're all philodice.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Jan 16, 2022 9:32:36 GMT
It's a female C. nastes aliaska.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Jan 16, 2022 9:27:40 GMT
They're almost certainly philodice, but a photo of the underside would confirm it. They are quite variable.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Sept 6, 2021 12:39:03 GMT
Yes, it works now.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Sept 6, 2021 9:16:18 GMT
I get an error 404 - Page not found from that link.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Sept 3, 2021 8:06:20 GMT
Peer reviews are instigated not by the authors but by the editors of the journal to which the paper is submitted. Authors will often suggest suitable reviewers well-versed in the subject under discussion, as editors can't be expected to know specialists in every field. Authors will generally get the opinions of other specialists before submission as nobody wants to submit a paper that will be rejected. In theory they could suggest reviewers that will accept the paper without comment, but again, why would they risk their reputation by publishing something that is not up-to-standard. There are, of course, journals that are not peer-reviewed but researchers that aspire to serious work would not generally publish in these, even though any taxonomic acts in these are just as valid. I am regularly asked to review papers and when I recommended that one should be rejected a while ago, the editor agreed with me but told me that it would probably be published in a non peer-reviewed journal; sure enough, this happened a few months later, and several superfluous new names found their way into the system.
Our paper was not intended to be a personal attack on Korb, but to point out the dangers of people who want to publish nomenclatural acts who are not sufficiently well-versed in The Code and do not get the correct advice pre-publication, and, as Hauser and Nekrutenko pointed out, this is not the first time he has done this. There is also a big problem with people introducing new taxonomic acts without listening to anybody else, being absolutely convinced of their own infallibility, and Chuck's two examples are good ones.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Aug 18, 2021 12:35:54 GMT
I guess that's far enough for conditions to be very different, if not it would be found down near you.
That female's a beauty!
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Aug 18, 2021 11:29:37 GMT
Well done! I've tried to rear several arctic Colias, including hecla hecla from Alaska but failed miserably with all of them, losing them as 2nd or 3rd instar larvae, I put that down to changes in air pressure or daylength between the arctic and southern England; I've had the same problems with high altitude species from Central Asia, presumably for the same reasons. I'm surprised you got some through the same year as I thought they generally had a two-year life cycle with a few going through in one year. I guess it's possible that your hatching problems could be due to the same thing - differences in air pressure, temperature and/or daylength. How far north are you compared to where they fly in the arctic? I have heard, although I've no personal experience, that these arctic species have been reared further south by reversing day and night, i.e. keeping the larvae dark in a fridge during the day and putting them under constant light at night, this means the mean day and night temperatures are lowered and the daylength can be controlled.
Do you have a photo of the upperside of the aberrant female?
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Aug 17, 2021 18:31:13 GMT
Thanks Adam.
If anybody wants a copy, just send me a pm with your email address.
|
|