Historic Specimens

[Pete Eeles]

The UKB team, along with some members, has agreed to include a new album: "Historic Specimens" (see gallery/album.php?album_id=2135). While UKB doesn't condone collecting, we felt that images of significant specimens and collections would add a valid (and new) dimension to the website.

As ever, comments welcome.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Reverdin]

raised eyebrows... really?..... REALLY?
I can only think of one worthwhile specimen... the Aphrodite/ GSF... why on earth would dead things be of interest?.... and what message does it send??.....
nowadays I cringe when I come across a (mainly European) website which depicts dead things... should I have captured that lugenda so it would have become a "historic specimen"... should I paint that Brimstone...

reminds me of when Yorkshire BC AGM decided they would support a proposed re-introduction ... which blew all their previous long and often drearily pontificated views out the water. ( or was I missing something).

I remain ever more confused. honest.

Beerily yours PK

[Padfield]

I think the key word here is 'historic'.

These butterflies, many of which I have known since my youth through various books (including E.B. Ford's Butterflies, for example), are part of the history of British butterfly study. Each has a story to tell - usually a story about people, rather than butterflies, admittedly - and I think it would be a shame just to throw these dead insects away.

There is no intention to condone (or condemn) entomological collecting - these are not for identification purposes or to illustrate the butterflies themselves but to illustrate the history of butterfly study.

Your objection is noted, though - there is no intention to offend.

Guy

[David M]

Regardless of how we treat the issue today, we have to accept that entomologists routinely collected specimens generations ago. Perhaps if they'd had the luxury of digital photography then they wouldn't have needed to.

In some respects it's a good thing that they did, as had they not done so we would not have actual specimens of long extinct species, such as the British Large Copper.

This is surely of interest to any modern day butterfly enthusiast.

[Pete Eeles]

I can only think of one worthwhile specimen... the Aphrodite/ GSF... why on earth would dead things be of interest?.... and what message does it send??.....

And the reason it's historic is because it is the actual specimen that led to it being added to the British list. But the same can be said of many other species too. I'd also personally be quite interested in seeing the type specimens for some of our species, as well as examples of extinct species and races. There are no photos of the living creature (for the most part), only dead specimens. And I consider these things part of our heritage. I also think it's important to remember that the specimens we're talking about here were collected in a different era, when collecting was the norm.

What I can't abide is modern-day specimens - there's absolutely no need to collect in this day and age, other than for genuine research purposes.

should I have captured that lugenda so it would have become a "historic specimen"

That wouldn't be "historic" in my book.

... should I paint that Brimstone...

No. We already have one of those

Cheers,

- Pete

[Rogerdodge]

Whilst I consider collecting butterflies pretty abhorrent, it must be remembered that, when these historic collections were assembled it was not only a legal, but a laudable activity.

These collections do serve a seriously useful purpose, and scientific collection does, and should, continue.
I personally access the Cockayne database fairly regularly.
A respected member of these fora is prsently studying tray after tray of European Pyrgus species trying to produce an identification key, for example.
It would be churlish I think, to ignore the existence of these collections just because we have different ethical values from the Victorians..
As long as it is clearly stated that UKB does not condone collecting (and no one can argue that this isn't the case) then I don't see a problem with it.

I watched an old episode of the Sweeney the other night. It contained sexist and racist references that would not be acceptable in a modern program. However it remains a compelling and brilliantly produced TV series, and a window to a different age, that we should still be able to watch.

[Pete Eeles]

BTW - once we have a better view of examples of historic specimens, any images may be moved to the appropriate species-specific album, and considered for inclusion on the main species pages. I've just added a couple of Large Copper ssp. dispar shots to seed things.

Of course, we'll make it quite clear that collecting is not condoned if these images do end up there!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

My feeling is that they shouldn't end up on the species pages. The reason for this is that some people (like Reverdin) may actively not want to look at pinned specimens - it may diminish their experience of the site if these are 'thrust under their noses' every time they want to look at pictures of a particular species. If historic specimens are kept in a separate, but easily accessible, place, then the viewing of dead butterflies becomes optional rather than obligatory.

Guy

[MikeOxon]

I'm struggling a bit trying to understand the aim of this proposal.

There is already a history article on this website. Anyone seriously interested in the subject will have the relevant books (or facsimiles) and will seek out collections to visit. A survey of distributions and populations over the decades would probably be informative and would help to show why we need to be concerned for the future. This would set the subject in context much better than a gallery of pictures.

Until very recently, most moth books used set specimens for illustration, until Richard Lewington broke the mould with paintings in life-like poses, but butterflies are much more amenable to photography which is now, judging by this site, a major focus of interest.

Most (all?) 'historic' species in the UK are still to be found elsewhere so, if we want to know what has been lost, photographs are available and are probably more 'accessible' to most people, in terms of understanding what they really look like.

So, I come back: exactly why do we want to do this?

Mike

[Pete Eeles]

Anyone seriously interested in the subject will have the relevant books (or facsimiles) and will seek out collections to visit.

One of the objectives of this website is to provide information - and information regarding some of the history of British butterflies is best-illustrated through the use of set specimens. Simple as that really.

A survey of distributions and populations over the decades would probably be informative and would help to show why we need to be concerned for the future. This would set the subject in context much better than a gallery of pictures.

The objective isn't to "show why we need to be concerned for the future", although anyone taking an interest would hopefully infer that we need to look after the precious fauna we have.

Until very recently, most moth books used set specimens for illustration, until Richard Lewington broke the mould with paintings in life-like poses, but butterflies are much more amenable to photography which is now, judging by this site, a major focus of interest.

True - but it's unfortunate that we can't go out and take a picture of a British Large Copper (for example) to post on UKB.

Most (all?) 'historic' species in the UK are still to be found elsewhere

Sorry Mike - but I disagree. I understand what you're saying, but I can't find the dispar subspecies of Large Copper anywhere (it is extinct), for example.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Reverdin]

ok.... thinking further, and less disinhibited this am... ...

what I would feel useful would maybe be a series of named chalkhill blue abberations, yes there's Cockayne, but I suspect UKB could do it better... I suppose there would be other such examples of highly variable species... what I would prefer (wishlist) would be the same in photographic form.

The whole idea just seemed so out of character for the site

Maybe if those dispar had been allowed to fulfill their raison d'etre we would still be able to see them ?( no - only joking, they were gonners anyway thanks to our landscape handling prowess.)

[Pete Eeles]

That's a tricky road Paul - since it takes us even closer into "well, you could have taken a photo instead" territory. Specifically, if a trawl of museums and private collections were conducted, then I think we could better the Cockayne website. But I'm not sure that would be palatable

Cheers,

- Pete

[Jack Harrison]

Try this then.

Photographed just a few days ago. Note price £2.50

Jack

[Susie]

A large copper should surely be priced at 2p?

[MikeOxon]

Thank you, Pete, for your reply to my previous post. I asked exactly why we want to do this and now have some answers. May I push a little further?

One of the objectives of this website is to provide information - and information regarding some of the history of British butterflies is best-illustrated through the use of set specimens. Simple as that really.

Answer 1: to provide information. Can illustrations of set specimens do this on their own? Surely, we need the context, at least to explain why these are 'historic specimens'. A gallery alone can't do this in my opinion. I looked at the two photos you have posted already. One won't enlarge properly for display on my computer and the other doesn't seem to contain information about date and place, which would make it useful. What information have I gleaned from seeing these illustrations?

I can't find the dispar subspecies of Large Copper anywhere (it is extinct), for example.

Answer 2: to show extinct sub-species peculiar to UK. This answer seems to define the aim fairly closely. It would be helpful for the experts to draw up a list of what is needed for this task. The collection of 'historic images' could then be targeted to meet this objective. This seems a very good educational aim and would be even more informative if the differences from existing sub-species could be pointed out. How did the extinct English Chequered Skippers differ from those currently in Scotland?, for example.

I'm not against the idea, I'm genuinely trying to tease out what it is for and, having determined that, how the aim can be achieved most effectively.

Mike

[Rogerdodge]

Susie
1d surely?

[Pete Eeles]

Can illustrations of set specimens do this on their own?

Of course not They need some context. In the case of the 2 Large Coppers, simply saying that they're ssp. dispar is enough to provide historical significance (I believe). I don't have the data (shame on me) of location or date (to be frank, I didn't want to touch them!).

To be honest, I think we're all, pretty much, on the same page and I'm reading more agreement than disagreement.

Yes - a list of criteria to qualify a specimen as "historic" would be no bad thing.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Jack Harrison]

The specimen I saw was in a private collection. This is all above board but the owner of the collection might not want his details published.

Suffice it to say: In Southern England where there are two good pubs in the village, "The Bell" (very expensive!) and the "Crown & Anchor" (cheaper but you have to do what you are told by the landlady - no dithering over orders!)

Now do your detective work!

Jack

[Pawpawsaurus]

Susie
1d surely?

I would agree, but Susie won't know what that means. Don't forget that she turned 21 only a few days ago ...

Paul

[Susie]

I can't believe some of you lot seem to be so squemish.

I wouldn't chose to pin specimens purely for the pleasure of looking at them but if the only way they can be properly studied is to take the odd one then so be it. Surely then if these butterflies have been sacrified, historically or recently, it makes sense to share their images with as many people as possible and this site is an ideal place to do it? There must be limitations to the value of photos taken in the field, surely?

Personally one of the reasons I don't run a moth trap any more is that a number of moths will probably die or lay eggs which won't thrive and so it is an unkindness to do so purely for my personal pleasure (and I am generally too lazy to identify the trickier moths and so any recording I do is pretty useless). If, however, there was point to what I was doing other than my personal pleasure then I would consider the death of a few moths justified.

And I don't remember old money but I still know my pounds, shillings and pence.