Be there collectors here?

[Gruditch]

No doubt Monet will try put a positive spin on that Jack.

Regards Gruitch

[JohnR]

Here is an ongoing research project asking non-collectors to catch common butterflies (Pieris rapae - Small White) and send them on to the researchers. http://www.pierisproject.org/

Some genealogists do the same thing to trace where their ancestors came from but I haven't heard of a case where cousins have been murdered in order to collect the DNA; though I have a few that might deserve having pins stuck in them.
I would be quite happy to send one or two eggs of Cabbage Whites for such research simply because the chance of them reaching maturity are slim but having a tray full of mounted Pieris just so that I can boast that I have all the variations known to mankind reduces me to the level of egg collectors and big game hunters.

[monet]

"I stuck a pin through a Silver washed Fritillary I caught in Great Yarmouth in 1947.
I wiped out the species there and then as the SW Frit did not return to East Anglia for some 60 years.

As an eight year old in 1947 I should have known better. It has been on my conscience ever since."

Jack, apparently the Silver-washed Fritillary did not become extinct in Norfolk in 1947. They were still present in Foxley Wood in 1968 and reasonably common there in the 1950s. Indeed there is a late record from Felthorpe in 1971.

Regards,
David Hall.

[Susie]

I'd be interested in people's opinions on this http://collector-secret.proboards.com/

[Tony Moore]

Absolutely horrendous - and a number of contributors from the UK. I shall certainly be keeping my camera GPS switched off in future.

Tony M.

[MikeOxon]

Note that they maintain a 'live list' of visitors to the site - no doubt to prove how popular the subject is.

[Nigel P]

Really saddening to see what's on that forum and even sadder the way they try to reassure each other.

Nigel

[David M]

I'd be interested in people's opinions on this http://collector-secret.proboards.com/

Good detective work, Susie.

Since you ask, my opinion of this is that people who indulge in such practices ought to be ashamed of themselves.

There's simply no place for the capture, killing and setting of insects (usually the rarer the better) in modern society.

[jasonbirder]

Disgusting - but sadly not unexpected.
Particularly (un) impressed by the photo's of a number of batavus Large Copper collected at Woodwalton fen in 1982 whilst simultaneously bemoaning its extinction - and a number of posters hoping for a successful reintroduction in The Broads/Somerset (no doubt to be targeted by these same unscrupulous individuals)

[Susie]

I think it's easy to knee jerk react that it is all terrible and they are dreadful people but I don't think it is as simple as all that.

I know some people who have collected and / or bred and then pinned and they're great people. We would definitely be the lesser without the great collections of the past. In the present it is more of a grey issue but I think there is a place for some collecting in the right context.

As a self styled butterfly hugger I wouldn't collect or pin and I have strong feelings on those who do for the fun of it and give no more regard to the butterfly than a stamp collector his stamps.

[David M]

I'd be interested to know what context you consider to be right, Susie.

Other than for bona fide scientific reasons, I can't think of any personally.

[Pete Eeles]

Just a suggestion, but I recommend that anyone commenting in this thread read this article first:

http://www.dispar.org/reference.php?id=92

And feel free to disagree with the article too ... let's have a proper debate.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Goldie M]

I just thought I'd put my two- penny-worth into the debate, I'm all for the scientific point of view that the article presents us with, if it means preserving butterflies by pinning them, I think we should preserve them so that we'll be able to check in the future what is a miss with the Butterflies, like for instance , why they decline, causes for this ETC, ETC, also, perish the thought, incase, like here in Britain we lose some species entirely, does this make sense

But I don't agree with pinning them for fun, how any one could stick a pin into a lovely Butterfly beats me, we all do silly things when we're kids, it's just a pity these people haven't grown up yet. Goldie

[Gruditch]

I've read the article http://www.dispar.org/reference.php?id=92 three times now. Although it does make a sound case for the historical importance, and scientific value of existing collections. If one wanted to rise a sceptical eyebrow about the need for all these "scientifically important" collections. One could ask the question, why is it only insects, and butterflies in particular, where every species, sub species, aberration, form etc, must be collected, and displayed. No doubt convenience of size has a part to play. But there are some very small birds, and mammals that could no doubt fit nicely into a display cabinet. Yes the NHM will have a jar with a pickled example of everything that will fit in a jar, and yes some people do have a collection of stuffed animals. But I don't see a mounted display of every British rodent suddenly catching on. I suppose with the size of Golden Eagle, collecting birds would be a bit impractical to, but you could collect their eggs. In the eyes of some people, just like a cabinet full of mounted butterflies, that would make a nice display. Lets be honest, that's the point of a butterfly collection, it looks nice. Yes some collections of the more scientifically minded lepidopterist, have turned out to be of great value. But the vast majority of collections, where assembled by someone indulging their hobby. Anyone collecting today, can kid themselves that they are doing it for scientific reasons. But the fact that they probably target aberrations, would suggest they are just simply indulging their hobby, and adding to their private collections.

As you sad way back in this thread Pete.

The feeling of the overwhelming majority of UKBers is that there is simply no need to build a reference collection (or collect aberrations, or whatever) in this day and age with websites like this and a plethora of literature. And, of course, the tool of the trade these days is the relatively-benign camera. These collectors make not be breaking any law, but we just don't like it, or them.

Regards Gruditch

[Pete Eeles]

Lets be honest, that's the point of a butterfly collection, it looks nice.

Yes some collections of the more scientifically minded lepidopterist, have turned out to be great value.

And so it's impossible to form an opinion unless you know what the context is. Collecting for scientific purposes (whether professionally or not) or for purely aesthetic purposes are not the same thing and I think that simply saying that all collecting is bad isn't helpful. I object to collecting where there is no greater purpose and I think that a lot of online posts fail to connect the collecting with the purpose (if there is one). And that includes topics such as killing and genitalia examination, unless you're monitoring distribution trends:

http://www.highland-butterflies.org.uk/ev_03_08.html

We're all entitled to a view - and that's mine

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

Is there still any scientific value in collecting butterflies in the UK. How many pined examples of one species do you need. If butterflies need to be collected for a scientific study, then go ahead and do it. I think I've been pretty consistent throughout this thread, my objection is to people compiling their own collections. Certainly in the UK, I don't believe that it can have any historical or scientific value anymore. As you sad yourself Pete, that can be done with a camera.


Regards Gruditch

[Pete Eeles]

Is there still any scientific value in collecting butterflies in the UK. How many pined examples of one species do you need. If butterflies need to be collected for a scientific study, then go ahead and do it. I think I've been pretty consistent throughout this thread, my objection is to people compiling their own collections. Certainly in the UK, I don't believe that it can have any historical or scientific value anymore. As you sad yourself Pete, that can be done with a camera.

It depends on the context The separation of Wood White from Real's Wood White (and, eventually, Cryptic Wood White), and their ongoing habitat management was, I believe, derived in part from the collection of specimens, both historic and present-day. But I don't believe that there is any need to collect specimens (in the UK) to create a reference collection; there are more-than-enough "historic" specimens out there for such a purpose or online resources or photos.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Goldie M]

You maybe right in what you say Pete about the Context, the Small Pearl Bordered Fritillary I photographed up at Gaits Barrow in June 2012 was first recorded in 1850 by G Hartly and is in the Natural History Museum . That's why we were able to know what I'd photographed. If this butterfly had not been recorded would we know about it
My point being if some one see's some thing that is truly unusual and not known it's surely going to be recorded for it's scientific value.
I don't agree with pinning but I don't think even today they'd be satisfied with a photograph . Goldie

[jasonbirder]

Apart from DNA sampling what Scientific purposes could there be for collecting UK Butterflies?

Its interesting that the example given (genitalia examination) is one for Moths rather than Butterflies...

[Susie]

Double standards annoy me a bit. I don't believe in killing butterflies for fun (hobby) but nor do I think it's okay to kill moths, spiders ants or slugs. There was such a strong reaction to the death of a lion recently but no one seems to care about the other creatures. I do appreciate that it's impossible not to harm anything but I don't see the enjoyment in it either.