Using "set" specimens on the species pages

[Pete Eeles]

Hi folks,

I was wondering what the general sentiment from visitors would be to using photos of set specimens on the various species pages.

I know this is a sensitive subject but feel that there is justification when demonstrating identification features, for example, that can't be seen in the wild (such as the upperside of a Pale Clouded Yellow versus a Berger's Clouded Yellow). Thanks for voting!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Dave]

Hi - Not too sure what you mean by set specimens - is this Butterflies which have been killed and mounted? or rather photographs taken of captive bred individuals?

[Pete Eeles]

I mean dead, mounted specimens.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Dave]

Thanks for the clarification, voted accordingly.

[Pete Eeles]

Time to resurrect this debate

My aspiration is to be able to show male, female, male underside and female underside of all UK Butterfly species on the website. I've looked into various options:

1. Use the available photos and crop them (not good, since many photos don't display the very characteristics you're after!)

2. Get illustrations of all species (the only person I know that has a complete set is Richard Lewington - and I doubt he'd want to give them up!).

3. Provide photos of set specimens.

I'm currently favouring the 3rd option since I have access to specimens from old collections and museums that I could photograph.

So - does anyone violently object? This is quite a departure for the website and I'd like to get some feedback before I proceed. Of course, I would qualify any such photo along the lines of "from old collection" and/or "this website does not endorse the killing of any insects for whatever reason" etc. etc.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance, as ever.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Dave McCormick]

Sounds like a good idea, you could mark and show the various parts that make up the species.

[Chris]

I don't like it, Pete. It'll make the site look tired and old-fashioned. Furthermore, we should be encouraging people to identify butterflies without having to trap them or kill them... so the best guide in the field will be photos of insects that haven't been trapped or killed!

As I understand it, there are only a handful of butterflies that can be difficult to set apart, if you must use mounts, restrict the mounts to these species. What will be the value of showing a dead peacock, for instance?

Chris

[Martin]

the upperside of a Pale Clouded Yellow versus a Berger's Clouded Yellow

We're back to Lep manners and using nets. Do we protect butterflies for us, or for the sake of the butterflies? I feel the only people who "NEED" to know the difference are twitchers, people putting ticks in books, and I find thier attitude slightly offensive.

Martin.

[Pete Eeles]

Hi Martin - I'm not sure I understand your post.

I find that quite a few people are interested in distinguishing all sorts of species - such as a Brown Argus from a female Common Blue.

Why is this offensive? I must be missing your point

Cheers,

- Pete

[Martin]

Hi Pete,
The bit I find offensive is netting (maybe hurting/damaging) butterflies, then killing them just so someone can be sure they got the right tick in the book. I love butterflies, each and every one of them, and I'd love to see them all. But if doing so causes harm then I'm quite happy to go to my grave missing a few ticks.

Martin.

[Pete Eeles]

I'd find that offensive too if that was being suggested - but it's not!

The suggestion was to use museum specimens, just like the Natural History Museum Cockayne database does.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Martin]

I stand corrected, and apologize for misinterpreting the OP. If no "additional" collections are made then fine, and I see no point in not using the data already available.

Martin.

[Pete Eeles]

No worries Martin!

I think I'll put a mockup together to allow me to demonstrate what I mean. My main concern is that getting all of the perspectives needed will take a very long time if using photos - since most of the photos needed aren't available.

Even with photos, it's sometimes very difficult to know if you're looking at a male or female!

Cheers,

- Pete

[alex mclennan]

Hi Pete
I am reliably informed that Adrian Riley's new book (publishers say it should be in the shops in August) contains photographs of upper side, lower side, male and female of every species found in Britain and Ireland.
Alex

[Pete Eeles]

Hi Alex - does that mean Adrian would be willing to let us use them on the UK Butterflies website?

If this is an angle that you think could be explored, could you please email me directly to discuss. Thanks!

Cheers,

- Pete

[alex mclennan]

Pete, E-mail on its way to you.
Alex.

[Pete Eeles]

Right - a further update! I'm going to see if we can avoid using set specimens. I've played around with photos of set specimens and, as pointed out, it does indeed detract from the overall look and feel and principles (!) of this website.

So ... the next step is to figure out which photos are needed - and I'd like this community to help me here - just like we did when deriving the pronunciation of the scientific names (thanks again Guy!). The objective is to determine just which views of a species we need. I'd also suggest that we only need views that would be seen in the wild - so an upperside of a Clouded Yellow is "out"! This will hopefully assist those that feel they need a net for ID purposes For example:

A Common Blue needs "all 4" - male upperside, male underside, female upperside, female underside (= 4 photos). This is because both male and female show upperside and underside in the wild, and both are different.

A Peacock needs upperside and underside (= 2 photos). This is because the species shows both upperside and underside in the wild, but the species are not discernably different.

A Brimstone needs male underside and female underside (= 2 photos). This is because the species never shows its upperside except in flight.

A Black Hairstreak needs an underside (= 1 photo). This is because the species never shows its upperside except in flight, and the sexes are pretty much identical.

Of course, you'll miss out on features you don't see in the wild (e.g. there is definitely a difference between Black Hairstreak male and female based on their upperside) - but maybe that's not important.

So - watch this space. Feedback on this approach would be appreciated!

Cheers,

- Pete

[eccles]

This sounds a good way to go. I'll be happy to offer any that I have.

[Dave McCormick]

That seems good. Hows about a clouded yellow (male) upperside? That needs doing. Hardly ever see that in wild, unless your lucky.

[Pete Eeles]

Exactly - so what's the point of showing it if you never get to see this in the wild?

Cheers,

- Pete