|
Post by hypanartia on Jan 8, 2016 21:09:38 GMT -8
Hi nomihoudai No, I will no change my mind. Yes, the fossil of Podryas persephone is a really well known fossil. This is another one of which is considered to be Vanessa/Hypanartia amerindica . Both of them show what you could see and what you cannot see of a wing pattern. What you will see is the same as if you put a wing of a butterfly in diluted bleach. Pigments will be destroyed, and only structural colors will be left (in very well preserved specimens). I never show the fossil pictured (they are very few of them), and it must be quite well known. On the other hand, it is wrong for too many things. The detail of the white and black (completely round) spots is just one. The detail of the hindwing is just incredible, having almost a translucent showing of both wings patterns. The specimen is A1 (hard to get one specimen like this, kill a couple of years ago, from one reputed store these days), have the two wings perfectly folded, but it has no body. Even the stone in which it is, seems somehow imaginary. As you say, it is just an inflated recreation, of a fossil that may or may not be real. And what is an, inflated, idealized recreation if not a fake?. to illustrate the point, check the picture. Both the farmer and the locust are real, but one of them have been enlarged to prove the point. Which one?
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Jan 9, 2016 14:54:46 GMT -8
I collect a few fossils, insects have always been my main passion. I have a fossil water beetle (described as Cybister explanavus but looks to me like a Hydrophilus species because of the elytra shape and size of the scutellum). The beetle specimen itself is 39mm long and 18mm at widest point. It most probably came from the McKittrick tar sands USA and is thought to be around 35,000- 50,000 years old. The tar sand matrix the beetle is in smells like asphalt and there are bits of other beetles embedded in the matrix. It is a nice combination of two collecting hobbies. Johnny
|
|