Historic Specimens

[Reverdin]

squemish? ... is that how it looks? wow!

a few weeks ago, we were being gently warned about the risk of treading on habitat, now we're squemish at the thought of swatting the odd insect.. bit of an uneasy contrast in community thought processes going on perhaps...

old specimens, like that JH portrays are.. well.. old specimens... could do with being able to see what's written on the bit of brown paper underneath though, without date/ site etc it just has no value... surely.

otherwise... bring it on... paper the pages with pinned insects if that's what people feel valuable!

[David M]

Like many on here, my interest in butterflies began by catching them, and (for a short period between 11 and 14 years of age) killing them in ether, setting them and mounting them in a display case.

Thirty tears on, my passion for butterflies is stronger than ever. Butterfly Conservation have benefitted financially via my support and I am seriously considering bequeathing them a significant percentage of my estate via my will when I die.

Shame, shame and more shame on me though for killing between 50 and 100 of these creatures back in the 1970s.

I am an immoral butcher.

[Mark Colvin]

It is not often that I comment off diary but as an entomologist I felt that a response was appropriate.

In my opinion it is impossible to separate the history of British butterflies from that of their collectors, as our current knowledge of the butterflies is the result of four hundred years of collection and research by the collectors.

Our attitudes towards collecting butterflies have rightly changed and although this alone, in many circumstances, is unlikely to have caused the loss or decline of treasured species, in other circumstances it may well have been instrumental in the species demise.

Our knowledge of the entomological world continues to grow partly, at least, through responsible collecting, but this often requires specimens to be killed. This is far less likely with our beloved Lepidoptera though essential with many of the other insect groups where accurate identification often requires microscopic examination of a non-moving insect. Inevitably this usually means that the insect will be dead. There is also the requirement for a voucher specimen(s), which can be referred to in cases of future doubt or for further research. This last point requires that the collector make responsible and appropriate arrangements for the preservation of his research efforts after he has ceased to care for them.

Death, like it or not, is an integral element of many aspects of detailed entomological research. Providing it is justified and we learn from our studies in order to better conserve for the benefit of future generations, then I support it. However, if for monetary gain or to seek personal pleasure as a collector of large series of the same insect, in the same way as perhaps a philatelist may with small squares of pristine coloured paper set neatly in rows in an album, it cannot and must not be justified without challenge …

There will always be winners and losers. Man does play God and this is even reflected in our own conservation efforts where we manage sites to benefit certain species at the inevitable cost of others.

Food for thought …

Image copyright OUMNH, photographed by Katherine Child.

[Jack Harrison]

old specimens, like that JH portrays are.. well.. old specimens... could do with being able to see what's written on the bit of brown paper underneath though, without date/ site etc it just has no value... surely.

I agree. A significant problem though is that the data is often pinned underneath the specimen. Had I persuaded (I didn't try) my friend to remove the data-label so that it could be read there would have been considerable risk of him damaging the specimen. Maybe the data had also been written on the underside of the label - that would be more convenient to look at by using forceps to lift the pin, specimen and label together.

Jack

[Padfield]

To answer Reverdin: I feel we must be thinking or writing at crossed purposes!

We are talking here about history and there was never (so far as I know) any intention to use these specimens for anything other than to document the history of British butterflies. A possibility, that I personally like, is to link to these specimens from the history article on these pages, so their full context and importance can be appreciated.

If your worry is that we will encourage collecting, rest assured this site will never, ever do that.

If your worry is that we are exploiting the deaths of butterflies in the past, I'm afraid almost everything we do as butterfly hunters does that. All those beautiful illustrations in Tolman are drawn from dead specimens. Lewington may paint them with vibrant, living colours, but he most certainly didn't paint them all from vibrant, living insects.

If your worry is essentially aesthetic - that people just don't want to look at dead butterflies - then we can arrange the site so viewing specimens is optional (which is why I don't think they should appear on the main species pages).

You know me and I know you. We've been in the field together and if I remember correctly I was the only one of our group in 2010 who objected to the swatting of horse flies and mosquitoes... It's important to everyone who administers this site that we don't offend you or anyone else who shares your feelings, but for the moment I don't really understand them.

I'm sure you're not alone in your reaction. We'll work with you on this if we know exactly what your objection is!

Guy

[Rogerdodge]

Personally, I have no objection to historical specimens available on this site.
However-

• 1/ They should be accessible only by a distinct decision/click - not scattered amongst photographs of live subjects.
  2/ They should illustrate something not available in a live photograph.
  For example
  • a/An extinct sub-species or population. Large Blue, Large Copper, Chequered Skipper etc.
    b/ An aberration not yet captured on film.
    c/ Upperside of butterflies that rarely (if ever) settle with wings open.
  3/ Once the photo of a dead specimen can be replaced with a live photograph (aberration for example or lucky Hairstreak shot), then it should be.

My views are not based on squeamishness - I eat meat, and swat midges.
They are a combination of the aesthetic (set specimens really don't look nice) and the ethical - (I do not want to add any fuel to the argument for the aesthetic or pseudo-scientific collection of butterflies).

However - I have no objection to the sensitive and peer group condoned, scientific collection of specimens.

Incidentally, I also have no problem with the capture and release of butterflies for identification purposes. However, I remain to be convinced that this is ever necessary in UK.

[Pete Eeles]

1/ They should be accessible only by a distinct decision/click - not scattered amongst photographs of live subjects.

Indeed. I was thinking of implementing a "cookies" mechanism so that visitors could set their preferences (e.g. show set specimens, show species listing in taxonomic order, show scientific rather than vernacular names in species listings etc.).

b/ An aberration not yet captured on film.

Not sure about that. While I personally believe we could provide a comprehensive set of aberration descriptions and images, I'd still be uncomfortable showing an image of a set specimen that was captured, say, last summer - for obvious reasons. I'd rather have a gap than an image of a recent corpse.

c/ Upperside of butterflies that rarely (if ever) settle with wings open.[/list]

See above. Nothing recent.

I eat meat, and swat midges

I sometimes eat midges, but it's always unintentional

Cheers,

- Pete

[Susie]

Well I would LOVE to see set specimens of the adonis and chalkhill blue aberrations as well as photos and any other information which is available.

[Reverdin]

Ok .... historic photos such as Bloxworth Blue... and any other old specimens of great importance... I understand that. I just didn't quite get why UKB wants to depict them.. I suppose bringing a resource together from disparate sources would be a useful achievement, but I still have reservations about how much value a photo of a faded old specimen is. For example, that blue could have been 20 years old for all I would be able to tell without the written bit, and that bit can be made up, not an unusual Aurelian feat. I'd rather marvel at a photo of a fresh one from wherever.

My only reservation remains that some idiot will one day miss your point entirely and post " I did not have a camera when I saw this (unusual) butterfly, so I caught it" - cue photo of trampled butterfly, "well you do show lots of dead butterflies on your pages, and I thought it could be important" sort of thing..

I guess it is an irrational fear, but I have spent many years observing human nature and behaviour, and learnt lots of really bad things about Mr & Mrs average.

The really odd thing is that I don't have ANY strong feelings at all, just felt a healthy discussion was in order, given I was initially suprised much as Kyle was when told by the US government they planned 9/11

Guy... you were all right...but you didn't have a bead of sweat..... sadly, my smelly perspiring hulk seemed to act as a babe, sorry clegg magnet, for any beast within miles... I could have personally extinguished 90% of them flies on that walk.... maybe they were put on the planet to protect rare butterflies from photographers

[Padfield]

My only reservation remains that some idiot will one day miss your point entirely and post " I did not have a camera when I saw this (unusual) butterfly, so I caught it" - cue photo of trampled butterfly, "well you do show lots of dead butterflies on your pages, and I thought it could be important" sort of thing..

That is a legitimate fear, I think. I am frequently sent photos of caught and killed butterflies for identification, even though my website preaches non-violence to butterflies! I always refuse to identify them, not because I am really unwilling but because I don't want them to go out and catch some more to send me. I was actually sent some Reverdin's blues once, caught in Switzerland, where this is a rare and local butterfly (and killing butterflies is illegal in the only canton I've ever seen it).

I'm sure Pete can find a tactful way to state on the site something like: 'Please note, we do not accept photographs of pinned specimens for inclusion on the site except where these come from historic collections'.

Guy

EDIT: Just noticed the South Park reference! I believe all episodes will be available online in the UK soon, so you can enjoy them legally!!

[Pete Eeles]

Just to close this thread off ...

No set specimens will be shown on the main species pages. Paul Kipling has added some photos of Great Spangled Fritillary, and Richard Lewington has kindly donated some of his illustrations of extinct subspecies, namely:

Large Copper ssp. dispar
Silver-studded Blue ssp. masseyi
Silver-studded Blue ssp. cretaceus
Large Blue ssp. eutyphron

Any other gaps can be filled with photos from living creatures!

Cheers,

- Pete