|
|
Post by timsbugs on Nov 30, 2012 20:17:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Nov 30, 2012 20:56:59 GMT -8
Goliath and David  . What's the size of Goliath ? Close to 165 mm ? |
|
|
|
Post by timsbugs on Nov 30, 2012 23:48:00 GMT -8
No only 160 mm, as you know they get even bigger!!!
The biggest I've seen for sale was 176 mm.
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by timsbugs on Dec 2, 2012 9:10:26 GMT -8
The big guy is 130 mm Tim Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by lucanidae25 on Dec 2, 2012 13:57:01 GMT -8
Anyone agree the smaller the better??? ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by timsbugs on Dec 4, 2012 15:50:49 GMT -8
Most times the smaller ones are much harder to find.
Does anyone else have some examples, they would like to share?
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Dec 4, 2012 16:38:30 GMT -8
Try to find a 25 mm male Lucanus cervus, or an 85 mm Titanus giganteus . |
|
|
|
Post by bichos on Dec 4, 2012 20:07:25 GMT -8
I tend not to keep runts, they end up in the bin most times...
|
|
|
|
Post by lucanidae25 on Dec 4, 2012 21:33:59 GMT -8
I didn't have any problem collecting small Cyclommatus chewi when I was in Sabah but finding a big one was really really hard. I don't really see the point to keep too many small one. One small one is already far too many. ;D Here is an other example of Cyclommatus chewi 84mm and 29mm. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Dec 5, 2012 6:37:23 GMT -8
another prionid (A. nigrita) and this not the biggest i know !! Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by bandrow on Dec 5, 2012 8:25:38 GMT -8
Greetings, Bichos - send me all your runts - I'll keep them!! Actually, I think it's really interesting to see the full range of natural variation in a species. I'd much rather have an abnormally small, wild caught specimen than a monster specimen artificially coaxed up in size in a rearing culture. Big is fun, but little can be just as neat, and remember, without the little ones, you have no idea when you have a big one |
|
|
|
Post by timsbugs on Dec 5, 2012 8:34:02 GMT -8
"I don't really see the point to keep too many small one. "
The point to me is your 84 mm chewi is almost 3X the size of the small one! With out the small one as a reference it wouldn't be nearly as impressive to me! Wow thanks for sharing.
africaone:
Unbelievable! I'm in awe! Do you want to sell? I don't even have N. forcipata in my collection, little own an amazing example like this! What are the sizes? And is it harder to find BIG or small ones?
Thanks for posting these pictures guys. Size variation is my new infatuation.
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Dec 5, 2012 15:04:40 GMT -8
Here the biggest (+82 mm) and smallest (36 mm) male of Lucanus cervus I have collected myself here so far. Sorry for the bad photo - I didn't remove the glass or the specimens from the box to put them side by side. Anyway you can see the difference is huge. At least here - and I'm telling this after years of systematic collecting of the species - the 36 mm is even rarer than the +82 mm (I've found a few more giants of around 81-82 mm, plus some giant heads from eaten by birds specimens which indicate sizes of +80 mm, but no other male under 38 mm). I guess that a 25 mm is extremely rare - probably even rarer than 90 mm c. cervus. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by lucanidae25 on Dec 5, 2012 18:03:43 GMT -8
I still haven't met a person spicalized in collecting the smallest specimens in every sp but there're more people want the biggest one. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Borja Gómez on Dec 5, 2012 19:10:23 GMT -8
Hello First I have to mention that I never readed articles related to this issue ( but I'm sure they must exist, and if they don't exist, what are the entomologist doing? Go there and publish something! this it's very interesting hehe ;D ). Anyways my guessing is that probably the distribution of the size on a concrete species should follow the typical "gauss's bell" or normal distribution like most of the measurable variables in the natural world (Of course not every variable follows this distribution, I know...). So the dwarf specimens and the huge specimens must be equally, very hard to find as they aren't common. In the specific case of the Lucanus cervus that thanos comments, in my zone I noticed the average size of the specimens changes every season of each year, so for example, summer two years ago, was hard to find specimens under 65mm, but this year, specimens over 65, were quite rare. So this depends on climatic variables I suppose, but I also think that with enough samples through the years, the distribution of the size in this species should follow normal distribution, and anyways, extreme especimens like 34mm or 80mm are very very rare no matter the ambiental conditions because they need confluence of lots of especial circunstances to exist. Lucanidae25, I think that a good number of collectors will be very happy having the extreme size variations forms in many species, because they look cool together, they are both rare to find and they show an amazing example of the variation in the nature. In fact, some times I've seen collectors looking for especially small specimens. But I agree with you, most of us try to obtain the huge specimen first, hehe ;D Regarding this facts, should a specially small specimen, value more than an average one? I think so  Regards |
|
. What's the size of Goliath ? Close to 165 mm ?
