Excessive specimens of same sp.

[nomihoudai]

To check intraspecific variations, to check them from different places, or just to show that there is NO intraspecific variation.

Butterflies ain't stamps overall, nature does not produce them the same way every time.

See this picture, it is out of just a series of 4 specimen but I could have done a much better pic with a larger series of specimen.

A friend of mine that is worldwide Zygaenidae specialist breed two species over 20 years and has huge series of them, he was then able to propose a way how the two species both evolved to show the yellow form ( the species are red, I think one of them was Zygaena ephialtes ).

Furthermore having a series of them is the only real way fro me to show it is a species, if I look at collections that only have 1 pair I think to myself, ok he got a blue pair, a red pair and a yellow one, but if I see a series of those I think wow there is a palce in the world where there is a whole population of these blue butterflies and the red ones right next to it and the yellow one, what might they feed, what might they eat not to get in struggle one with the other etc. etc.

Attachments:

[Khalid Fadil]

Mar 6, 2011 2:47:25 GMT -8 jamesd said:

Why is it that I see large collections of the same species? Wouldn't people just take 1... why do they need so many?

I've always wondered the same thing, James. Its pretty shocking how many specimens of the same species some collectors have. I've seen like three to four drawers of the same species. I wonder if it affects their populations... It definitely seems that way...

[Entomofou]

Entomologists can't be considered as insects species destructors. For instance, Carabus species are very hunt by collectors, but studies show that there is no variation in populations density.

BUT destruction of large parts of forests, wet zones, etc... make lots of species disappeared.

Stéphane

[Deleted]

jamesd and nomidhoudai,

Before I begin addressing this, you should know that I appreciate your comments and the respectful way you addressed them. I also appreciate the honesty-guts it took to bring up such a topic in an insect collector Forum.

First, if a huge number of a given species is collected in a whole-sale-slaughter fashion by a particular collector, you'd be correct and the person doing it would be in the wrong as I see it.

Secondly, the attached pic of Catocala cara and C. amatrix (so many of the same species) is just that. But.....these have been collected over a forty+ year period of time and from all over the eastern US. On the left is C. amatrix with 3 forms, varying mounted presentations, and a representative of the species from numerous locations. Thus, the need for 'decent' levels of repetition of the same species. Also, the variation may not be easy to see and what appears to be all w/o variation is in fact full of variation. Both C. cara and C. amatrix look the same generally, but upon closer examination....there are notable differences among them.

When I find a spot with rare material, I am very happy to collect just a couple and leave the rest to proliferate.

Thirdly, I recently took part in a DNA research project with another species and having the DNA available from different parts of the US helped this researcher catalog and record the DNA from various regions. Had I not collected that same species from different areas, the DNA data collected for that species would have been shallower.

I am merely illustrating the reasons for why one would have so many of the same species and am not being argumentative.

My second pic will further illustrate the variation issue.

Respectfully,

Attachments:

[Deleted]

With the second drawer (all Catocala ilia), it may look largely the same, but the following forms are evident upon closer inspection.
Upper Right----form 'conspicua'
Far Right----form 'osculata'
Bottom Center---form 'satanas'
Left half---varying forms of the 'norm'.....but even they have different phenotypic expressions.

Again, this is just to show the why of what you asked about. If someone like me cannot justify my hobby, then I have no business doing it. I may justify it and you still may disagree...and that is fine. All are intitled to their own opinions. I'd just request that (no matter your final take on it) that you consider what I've tried to convey.

Also, sometimes people like me rear and get larger numbers of the same species via having so many ova. Remember, too, that in nature a much smaller percentage of the ova will make it adulthood. And, sometimes we let go the extras that were reared if they are indigeonus.

Oh---before I go, also realize that having extras allows for trading among collectors or even donations to museums....both of which I've done through the years.

Again...respectfully,

Attachments:

[Deleted]

First of all there is no case of collectors being responsible for the extermination of ANY butterfly species, such assumptions are based on ignorance of how butterflies breed and are usually expressed in emotional terms rather than sound scientific reasoning. That is not to say that the overcollecting the same species or subspecies of any taxa is morally right and just gives the butterfly huggers amunition to fire at the collector so that they can preen in self righteousness at how they have told us off. Moderation and common sense is the best way forward, it is neressary to collect a repesentative sample of a given species in all its forms to make a proper and scientifically valuable collection of insects, each one being properly prepared and mounted with as much collection data as possible, not for greed or monetary gain but for study. As Stephane said, habitat destruction is THE cause of species decline throughout the world and ot overcollecting. So in answer to the origional question, collec ting all known forms of a given species is necessary but wanton destruction and greed are a different thing altogether as are the motives of the 2 different actions.

Dunc

[saturniidave]

Jamesd I agree with the comments by Bill, Dunc and the others, a series is necessary for many reasons. Just look closely at the example you have pictured your self and see the amount of variation there!
Also bear in mind that a lot of long series have been captive bred to show the variation, in nature a small fraction would survive but breed them and you have as many as you want and even some to spare to release back into the wild!
There is an old collectors adage that states that 'For every bug you catch there will be 20 more that you don't'.
Dave

[lordpandarus]

I really doubt that for most collectors it's for "scientific reason" and amassed vast amounts of pristine specimens just to experiment on them or collect DNA samples. It just looks nice to have a drawer full of the same species , especially if your trying to imitate museum style collections. Also to impress others with a drawer full of a series of an extremely rare butterfly

I'm happy with 1 A1 specimen. I tend to toss away specimens that are damaged when I find a better one


But as mentioned I don't think collectors have to justify themselves, they are not responsible for species decline

[Chris Grinter]

I tend to take series of moths for reasons stated above - geographic variation is 90% of my reasoning to collect a series for MY collection. When you have the graces of time to examine hundreds of years of butterflies in a museum collection - then you can add in geographical distribution and address conservation issues even. Hard to achieve this within decades though (but sadly most of the parks we collected in 10 years ago are already parking lots).

I also like having a series of insects for trading!

But, I also tend to trap for moths, meaning I've already killed it anyway. I find it a shame to not keep a moth I've already killed (I do still end up tossing thousands of specimens I'm not targeting). But contrary to lordpandarus - I very rarely if ever throw out bad specimens. I killed it, took the time to spread, label and database it, I'm certainly never going to toss it like a piece of garbage!

[wingedwishes]

The previous posts are from collectors. In my case, I rear a tremendous number of local leps. My daughters have created a business out of it. We bought ova from other collectors and began rearing 11 local species. My daughters have a strict policy to release 70% of the adults we rear into the wild. Instead of only a few D. plexippus ova surviving to adulthood and breeding, we let go a hundred. Sure, we keep a few dozen from each batch but there are more in the wild when we are done than when we started. My kids are being, in my opinion, ethical and responsible. Those kept buy teenage girls clothes and trips to the nail salon.

[prillbug2]

On the other hand, Zamodes obscurus ( Cerambycidae) was collected once in Pennsylvania in the 1800's, none have been seen since then. It could not have been caused by deforestation since that state had most of its forests then, nor could the extinction have been caused by over collecting, unless it was simply confined to the Philadelphia area, specifically. So, maybe, in an off-handed, bizarre way, collecting did cause this beetle to go into extinction.
I wish we could find them. They haven't been found anywhere else in the world, either, so not an import.
Jeff Prill

[jamesd]

When I asked this question I was mainly targeting the collectors reasons for collecting a series - affecting population numbers didn't even cross my mind. So I wasn't questioning the correctness of killing many specimens, we don't need to include that in this forum post.

billgarthe, I didn't originally consider what I was asking at the time to be 'gutsy', but I suppose next time I should be a bit more careful. Yes, I accept your answer.

lordpandarus, I also agree with what you've said. I guess it does look nice to have a series, so that could be partially the reason in some cases.

Good points, and keeping extras for trade isn't a bad idea. Collecting so many to see variation... not something I'd do myself but, it's a fair enough reason.

Thanks to all,
James

[bichos]

I'm like a beetle black hole and can never have enough

When I see the effects of deforestation and the careless habitat destruction that has occured widely I realise that creating awareness and preserving habitats is much more important than killing 6 insects instead of say 10 insects or more, let's see the bigger picture. If anything, it is more benificial to take more than less, that is considering you are correctly labelling and storing your specimens which may be used in future for some sort of research.
Like the important point made above of demonstrating variation

[lepidofrance]

What is said here is absolutely correct: in the general case, these are not entomologists that threaten a species, but the destruction of natural environments. As I mentioned earlier on this forum, to fight against the disappearance of the butterflies would imply that we boycott all products containing palm oil (Indonesia, Malaysia), any product containing soy (Brazil), etc..

There are still some exceptions: some species are threatened by abusive collection to commercial purposes. Only a few examples:

- Parnassius loxias (Eastern Kyrgyzstan) and Parnassius autocrator (Pschart Valley in Tajikistan).

- Parnassius davydovi would also be seriously jeopardized if the professional collectors know where to find it: fortunately, for the moment, the two recognized biotopes remain secret! When I present this butterfly on the website I does not indicate the exact location of this species:
www.lepido-france.fr/2010/12/photos-de-parnassidae/

Again about Parnassinae: there is a focus of Parnassius apollo in the top of Mount Luberon (France, Provence) with only a few dozen copies: fortunately the collection is prohibited, except this little home would disappear! (In this regard, note this: in France, Parnassius apollo is fully protected. This protection is justified entirely in the case presented - the Luberon mountain. Elsewhere in the Alps, the species is very common and I know places where you can see dozens fly: the legal prohibition is no longer justified!).

In this case, this is a location of a species that can be found widely elsewhere. By cons, Erebia christi (the "Moiré du Simplon") exists in a Swiss valley and one or two Italian valleys nearby. If the collectors had the right to capture, the species would disappear!

Attachments:

[lucanidae25]

It's not just the destruction of palm oil products from Indonesia, Malaysia. There are also other products like tea, coffee and chocolate. Tea is responsible for the disappearance habitats in the high countries in Southern China, Darjeeling in India, Sir Lanka and part of Africa. Coffee is responsible for habitats in mainly South America and Africa. Chocolate is responsible for habitats in Central and South America, Africa and Sulawesi. I haven't even mantioned timbers.

I don't eat or drink any of those products at all. Maybe if we all cut down on all the stuffs we love to eat or drink, it might make all the habitats a better place in this world.