|
Post by hypanartia on Jan 11, 2020 22:11:24 GMT -8
Exactly Jan. That is the normal reaction to the post. Not to take every post like a personal attack.
As for the discussion. I was asking for help, not for a discussion.
First of all. What i am asking is to see 1-2 pages of a book, mostly to confirm information (the book is a little bit old). What will be the difference between somebody sending me a copy or going to a library and seeing it for myself. None. I am not going to sell the page.
Second, talking about the book of Tshikolovets (to prevent somebody else to think I am talking about he/she). The book is a survey that include some records made for the authors but, mostly, records by previous authors. Are you going to tell me that he (any author) own personally every single book, every journal manuscript (I mean pay out for the article), he cited or read to compile the data which conform the book. That is ridiculous. On the other hand, if the information I am looking for happens to be a contribution for a previous author, it could be unfair to pay Tshikolovets for this information (his book, I do not need it for anything else). He will be making a profit selling me that data, and preventing me for buying the information [book] from the original author(s). What a crook. [this is obviously a "reductio ad absurdum"]
If you have a book, you can share it, and that had happen since books exist. It is its purpose. Science is a common endeavor.
|
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Jan 9, 2020 18:42:38 GMT -8
To share part of a book or the content of a book is perfectly legal, and actually it is encourage, specially when the content is scientific. Many of us still know what is a library. If it was available in a nearby library (and if the DC inter-library system wasn't just so bad), I will go there and made a copy of the pages. My last resort is to go the Smithsonian, but an appointment is necessary in advance. It is a nuisance for just 1-2 pages.
PS> Chuck, rest assure I have no interest in your book, at all.
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Jan 8, 2020 19:00:50 GMT -8
I will appreciate if somebody can send me a copy of the pages containing the information of Lasiommata in the "Butterflies of Kazakhstan" V. Tshikolovets et al. Regards Jesus
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Jun 19, 2018 19:07:01 GMT -8
L. arthemis astyanax and a few other species (P. glaucus/females, P. troilus) are considered to be Batesian mimics of Battus philenor, which is inedible. The problem is that in this area Battus philenor is much more rare than the mimics, which in some areas are very abundant. The result is a decreased protection against predators, clearly shown in the picture. This is a spot where L. arthemis astyanax and other Nymphalidae congregate to puddle, and birds are well aware. They were many other wings around. It is curious however that they only seems to be eating L. arthemis.
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Jun 19, 2018 18:51:01 GMT -8
P. comma is very variable. You are obviously right, but to be sure, the upper surface of the hindwing will be very dark in the "summer form" and brightly colored in the "winter form", although there is a lot of in between. The "winter form" overwinter as adults and lay eggs in early spring. They are long lived. You can easily have easily mixed phenotype populations with both summer and winter individuals, particularly at the spring and autumn. That will be easier as you move south. On the other hand, I think your top specimens are females, and the one at the bottom is a male, which have a slightly different coloration and edge shape.
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Mar 15, 2018 17:59:57 GMT -8
Kalamay, Just to point out that e-bay americaninsects-world shows up as if it is located in USA (MT, I think). That is false. This was also a source of trouble when esperanza was his/her brand name. On the other hand, I almost certain Peter Jakubek is not his/her name.
|
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Sept 16, 2017 17:48:21 GMT -8
I had one. He is an honest dealer.
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Nov 11, 2016 15:31:13 GMT -8
It is almost certainly Vanessa indica. Although unlikely in my opinion, the specimen may be V.vulcania, as paulk suggested (if the specimen is pretty old). Certainly, no a hybrid. Otherwise it exhibits none of the diagnostics characteristics of cardui or atalanta.
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Apr 27, 2016 20:43:03 GMT -8
Hi, With Polygonia is always a hard determination, especially with live individuals. Because of what appear to be the typical green markings in the underside (no very clear) I will say it is P. faunus. The specimen is not too rugged in shape for faunus, it has less contrast in the underside and a more tawny upperside, suggesting it is likely a female (of faunus).
I will discard satyrus and zephyrus; P. oreas is a distant possibility. I hope this helps Jesus
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Apr 10, 2016 12:11:23 GMT -8
Hi Teinopalpus Are you sure it was Galleria mellonella? I am not a moth collector but I check it out of curiosity and it seems to be a worldwide spread moth. The body is about 1-2cm in size On the other hand, are they accused of smuggling something when still in the country (which is an island), and arrested far from the airport or any port. Makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Mar 5, 2016 10:32:51 GMT -8
With an intermediate to low level of confidence I will say E. eleus (the three ones at the top), and at the bottom picture, E. ceres at the top and E.janetta at the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Mar 5, 2016 9:55:32 GMT -8
I think it is Neope yama
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Feb 6, 2016 10:33:42 GMT -8
Please, do not contribute to increase the fear. Until now the only cases confirmed in the USA are from travelers, and the only properly confirmed way of transmission is through carrier mosquitoes (which can no survive in most of the USA). There is not demonstrated (there is only a suspicion) a cause-effect relation between infection and microcephaly in newborns, although it is a demonstrated relation with some types of neurologic disorders in adults (in a small fraction of the infected individuals).
I fully agree with the overall feeling of ornothorchid. They are many diseases with a far greater number of cases worldwide and more deadly that remain unnoticed for the public. Just to mention another viral mosquito borne disease, Dengue, closely related to Zika and far more deadly. It is as close to USA or more that the Zika virus, but does not cause, as for today, the same alarm. I think a great deal of the problem is because of the attention of the media and the involvement of child among the patients. This both create a huge public pressure in USA and other developed countries. The photos of babies with microcephaly scare to death (obviously) to any pregnant women, the husbands... Press, now social media, are big movers of this alarm. Remember that the H1N1 caused a far less number of deaths than the common flu (which cause a huge number of deaths every year), but the public fear for that particular diasease was huge. The self-centered culture of the "West" is part of the problem, although being honest I do not think the problems are approached differently for any other country, including african countries. First my problems, then maybe...
The idea which is extremely important to spread is that in a World hyperconnected, virtually but more importantly phisically, infectious diseases (all of them) are a common problem, that can affect us all, and which must be approach globally (no borders). Priorities must be selected in the basis of number of cases (and circulation, ...), but not in the basis of what is trending.
Just a thought Jesus
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Jan 8, 2016 23:58:20 GMT -8
I never saw this variant myself, and I did not know that wild populations of this form were found in the wild. The only similar phenotype that I heard of, is the melanic variation induced by cold, which is more prevalent in Danaus females, as your two specimens. More information in here altizerlab.uga.edu/Publications/PDFs/Davisetal2005melanism.pdfRegards Jesus
|
|
|
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?
|
|