|
|
Post by jshuey on Apr 28, 2021 4:21:22 GMT -8
I was contacted by someone who's grandfather made a small collection of butterflies from the Himalayans decades ago. She would like some insight into the collection. Perhaps if you recognize some species, you could help? Thanks, John  |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Apr 28, 2021 4:40:39 GMT -8
I’m recognizing about 70% of species but to name them it’s a task of its own and I’m not sure if this is of any help.
This is a great example how important is to keep specimen out of sunlight, most of the colours are gone.
Please note Graphium sarpedon in the left, bottom corner. The blue band faded to white. This is an example of blue pigment that we discussed not long time ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by livingplanet3 on Apr 28, 2021 8:18:54 GMT -8
I’m recognizing about 70% of species but to name them it’s a task of its own and I’m not sure if this is of any help. This is a great example how important is to keep specimen out of sunlight, most of the colours are gone. Please note Graphium sarpedon in the left, bottom corner. The blue band faded to white. This is an example of blue pigment that we discussed not long time ago. On that subject - what about indirect (reflected) sunlight? I have some displays of Lepidoptera that have been under low, ambient light (and not facing any east or west windows) for at least 35 years, and have not shown any signs of fading at all. So, I assume that the effects of having specimens exposed to indirect vs. direct sunlight, are not the same? |
|
|
|
Post by yorky on Apr 28, 2021 8:36:34 GMT -8
All specimens except those such as morphos where the colours are structural should be kept away from light altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinkk on Apr 28, 2021 17:09:46 GMT -8
All specimens except those such as morphos where the colours are structural should be kept away from light altogether. Light of any source is detrimental over time, I've got, or had different A. luna in a riker mount hung on a wall that gets no indirect or direct sunlight, and after a couple years, they fade, the Urania ripheus look the same as they did in 1980. Anything I want to keep fresh looking stays in the dark. It's a little similar to different buildings I've been in, historic houses, museums, where flash photography isn't allowed, over time, any light will fade your stuff. It's something you'll really notice when you get a fresh specimen of something you've had hanging in what seemed like a safe place. |
|
|
|
Post by livingplanet3 on May 11, 2021 9:57:45 GMT -8
All specimens except those such as morphos where the colours are structural should be kept away from light altogether. Light of any source is detrimental over time, I've got, or had different A. luna in a riker mount hung on a wall that gets no indirect or direct sunlight, and after a couple years, they fade, the Urania ripheus look the same as they did in 1980. Anything I want to keep fresh looking stays in the dark. It's a little similar to different buildings I've been in, historic houses, museums, where flash photography isn't allowed, over time, any light will fade your stuff. It's something you'll really notice when you get a fresh specimen of something you've had hanging in what seemed like a safe place. protection from light is problematic to implement when you want to keep your specimens in wall-mounted displays so that you can have them visible continuously, though. Is there some kind of special, completely clear film that can be applied to the glass to significantly alleviate (if not eliminate) the potential for fading due to light exposure? |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by benihikage92 on May 15, 2021 9:07:25 GMT -8
Storage boxes with a UV filter film applied to the glass top are available here in Japan. The film filters 99 per cent of the ultraviolet light. It is about 10 dollars more expensive than the one without the film, but it's worth it if it helps to prevent fading of important specimens. Such films are also commercially available. You can put it on the glass yourself if you are good with your hands.   |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on May 15, 2021 17:17:17 GMT -8
John you really did t get any answer to your question. I presume you have Smarts book and other broad spectrum ID books to get close, but if not, I can try to find some time to dig through and ID.
To my mind the important element is that they are from an area not widely studied.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 15, 2021 22:39:09 GMT -8
John you really did t get any answer to your question. I presume you have Smarts book and other broad spectrum ID books to get close, but if not, I can try to find some time to dig through and ID. To my mind the important element is that they are from an area not widely studied. Chuck Actually this area has been very well studied since the mid to late 1800s. Moore published Lepidoptera Indica in the very early 1900s, and then there were several editions of Fauna of British India, Lepidoptera by Bingham and then by Talbot. The d'Abrera Oriental Region volumes picture a large representation of the Indian butterflies. This recent book (a few plates at the end too) might help update the nomenclature a bit: www.researchgate.net/publication/287980260_A_Synoptic_Catalogue_of_the_Butterflies_of_IndiaFor Papilionidae here are IDs: left box top right and left Papilio protenor euprotenorbottom left Graphium sarpedon sirkarinear bottom right Graphium cloanthus cloanthusright box top right Graphium nomius nomiuscentre Papilio bianor ganesaAdam. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on May 16, 2021 8:07:29 GMT -8
Since Papilionidae are covered, I'try Pieridae:
First box:
from top left:
Colias ( Im not familiar with these so I leave it to the specialist here)
Pieris canidia (4th from top, first column,
Pieris brassicae 3rd column, 3rd from top
Pontia edusa ( 4th column, 2nd from top
Appias albina - 4th column, 6th from top
Appias olferna - 5th and 6th column, 7th from top
Aporia agathon - bottom, 4th from left
second box:
Gonepteryx rhamni- 2nd column, 7th from top
Delias hyparete - last column. 4th from top
|
|
|
|
Post by benihikage92 on May 16, 2021 8:24:27 GMT -8
I'm wondering what sort of butterfly collector the person's grandfather was. There are some interesting Lycaenids among them. I don't think you can catch some of the Theclini like Shizuyaozephyrus(Euaspa) zilha(?) (left box, 5th row, second from the left), another species (left box, 8th row, second from the left), and some others in the box if you just casually stroll around. (I haven't collected those species myself, so could be wrong. What do you think, Nomihoudai?) Most of them are in good shape other than their faded colors. Normally butterflies you encounter in the fields are of lesser quality. It means he chose just good ones. His mounting skill is also good. But each specimen doesn't have a data label. (Are they ricker mounts?) It seems he was an experienced butterfly enthusiast, and he made those boxes for someone as a gift or for ornamental purposes. He had a bigger collection but had donated the rest of his butterflies somewhere.
It might not be difficult to identify each of them to the genus level. However, it would be difficult if you have to do so down to species other than the well-known and common ones. You can't see the details, and they have lost colors on top of it. There are too many of them, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on May 16, 2021 9:34:34 GMT -8
I'm wondering what sort of butterfly collector the person's grandfather was. There are some interesting Lycaenids among them. I don't think you can catch some of the Theclini like Shizuyaozephyrus(Euaspa) zilha(?) (left box, 5th row, second from the left), another species (left box, 8th row, second from the left), and some others in the box if you just casually stroll around. (I haven't collected those species myself, so could be wrong. What do you think, Nomihoudai?) Most of them are in good shape other than their faded colors. Normally butterflies you encounter in the fields are of lesser quality. It means he chose just good ones. His mounting skill is also good. But each specimen doesn't have a data label. (Are they ricker mounts?) It seems he was an experienced butterfly enthusiast, and he made those boxes for someone as a gift or for ornamental purposes. He had a bigger collection but had donated the rest of his butterflies somewhere. It might not be difficult to identify each of them to the genus level. However, it would be difficult if you have to do so down to species other than the well-known and common ones. You can't see the details, and they have lost colors on top of it. There are too many of them, too. The label says collector C. A. Campbell and when Google shows that some of his collection is in Essig Museum in USA and indeed these two boxes were made as a gift or display Riker mounts as looks like he is/was professional entomologist. |
|
|
|
Post by bobw on May 17, 2021 0:14:43 GMT -8
The Colias in the first box are an upper- and underside of male C. fieldii and a male C. erate.
|
|
|
|
Post by benihikage92 on May 17, 2021 1:13:49 GMT -8
I'm wondering what sort of butterfly collector the person's grandfather was. There are some interesting Lycaenids among them. I don't think you can catch some of the Theclini like Shizuyaozephyrus(Euaspa) zilha(?) (left box, 5th row, second from the left), another species (left box, 8th row, second from the left), and some others in the box if you just casually stroll around. (I haven't collected those species myself, so could be wrong. What do you think, Nomihoudai?) Most of them are in good shape other than their faded colors. Normally butterflies you encounter in the fields are of lesser quality. It means he chose just good ones. His mounting skill is also good. But each specimen doesn't have a data label. (Are they ricker mounts?) It seems he was an experienced butterfly enthusiast, and he made those boxes for someone as a gift or for ornamental purposes. He had a bigger collection but had donated the rest of his butterflies somewhere. It might not be difficult to identify each of them to the genus level. However, it would be difficult if you have to do so down to species other than the well-known and common ones. You can't see the details, and they have lost colors on top of it. There are too many of them, too. The label says collector C. A. Campbell and when Google shows that some of his collection is in Essig Museum in USA and indeed these two boxes were made as a gift or display Riker mounts as looks like he is/was professional entomologist. Thank you for your research, Paul. Good to know Mr. Campbell left his collection in the capable hands of Essin Museum! |
|
|
|
Post by benihikage92 on May 17, 2021 1:54:59 GMT -8
left box, third row, second from left Aglais kashmirensis
left box, third row, 3rd from left Pieris brassicae female
left box, third row, 4th from left Vanessa cardui
left box, third row, far right Lasiommata menava? male
|
|
