|
Post by starlightcriminal on Nov 17, 2011 8:00:19 GMT -8
Mmmm... me too. I have three cabinets with overflow storage (rubbermaids with lots of mothballs and garbage bags around them x2, lol) and I collect pretty much within 100 miles of my home. I've done a little collecting in other areas in my state, and in a few places where relatives and friends live in other states, but 99% of what I have is from very nearby, probably 70% or more just from my county. Most are moths, from plumes to silks.
Downunder has it right- mofz rulz.
Admittedly I've got a decent number of beetles and butterflies but just the ones I fancy. And how can you resist collecting on vacation, so long as it is permissable? I can't help myself, we probably all need an episode of "intervention" dedicated to us. I haven't gotten to the "hoarders" phase yet but I could picture it if I ever ventured into the world of permits and collecting abroad.
Hemileuca maia isn't in Quebec? I don't know, I just thought it was widespread on this side of the continent. Too bad, Hemileuca are nice. I've got a handful from my travels out west. It's Sats that I like most so those are the ones I most frequently make "non-local" exceptions for when I am away. They're so nice. Bombycidae in general, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Nov 1, 2011 6:07:05 GMT -8
Yeah, a stinger for sure. Called "Slug" moth caterpillar casually I think.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Nov 1, 2011 6:04:10 GMT -8
It's not an Io for sure though they are found on Lagerstroemia; their cocoons are far more papery and thinner with a somewhat angular configuration. Definitely Saturniidae though. Does look a bit like a A. polyphemus to me too, it's the thick but sort of messy looking cocoon that is very oval. Cecropia a little like this but in my experience less whispy and thinner. I would also want to know where you found this.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Nov 1, 2011 5:22:57 GMT -8
Then you aren't in research. If I did the same thing, I would hear "then we have some flaw in our experimental design. Let's try adjusting these conditions that are most likely the root of the problem and try several controls before we go back to the expensive stuff." So maybe in your "real world" you have to look for another job, but for many of us our job is to try to test what goes on in the "real world" so we can find a good way to diagnose what we see. Someone has to design these tests and it isn't as simple as thinking of a problem and then thinking of a solution without any testing or experimentation. Think about how many times those smart NASA scientists had to redesign before we got the first man into space. You take for granted all the work that went into all the instruments you use for "[your] world of precise test measurement, data collection, and decision making" in the first place. No one just sat down and built that stuff and then handed it to you. You are monitoring something, some of us are trying to figure out how to design ways to monitor something so that we can pass them on to your boss and he can make you use them, and possibly fire you if you don't do it correctly. If researchers were fired every time something didn't work out immediately there would be none of us left. We explore the unknowns in some area which leaves lots of room for trial and thus error, hence we are also very unlikely to make such rash claims as the media does. That's why every decent paper qualifies their results with statistics and should also report any potential problems or unexplored areas that they encounter.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just pointing out that there is an inherent misunderstanding in the way you perceive how research operates, a trouble which is not uncommon at all. It's important to clarify so that people know how to read and apply the information in scientific publications. It's similar to the false logical argument against evolution- "it's called the 'theory' of evolution because it's just a theory"- that word, "theory" means something entirely different in the context of scientific literature than the statement implies to a lay person. Simply, theory means something so likely to be true that we can demonstrate it lots of different ways and cannot show otherwise. If someone doesn't understand that, it's not surprising that they might try to walk around telling people evolution isn't likely true because it's only a theory, you would be 100% incorrect in your logic because the word "theory" means something else in that context so you predicate the argument on a misinterpretation of the language. You have to understand the semantics and methods involved before you can make judgments on the validity, especially if you are going to try to use this to impugn someone or some other field's integrity.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 28, 2011 6:23:43 GMT -8
Yes, that's just it winged, I completely agree. People often claim they are a "sanctuary" so they can hoard animals and ask for unwanted pets for free. It's very common with parrots and farm animals, everywhere here in Florida. I've seen quite a few "sanctuaries" which are worse than even the worst pet store I have seen with tiny caged full of dirty, screaming and feather plucked parrots that are receiving "sanctuary" from some nutjob that can't afford to feed them all so they call themselves a "sanctuary" to subsidize the installation with tax credits and donations. If only the people who donated new what they were actually paying for. There is a guy that always brings his pet FLorida Panther to the local flea market. He puts up all of these "save the panther" posters and such that he takes from our state agencies and then puts out a big jar for donations. In reality, this is his pet panther and he is a poor, rural idiot who cannot afford the huge volumes of raw, fresh meat required to feed an apex predator of that sort. Not only that he also encourages people to pet it through the shotty, falling apart cage he tows it around in, it's really a tragedy to see such a majestic animal subjected to such things and to be a part of this dishonest endeavor. It amazes me that people will give him money without even checking into him or why it is he has a panther at every flea market on the weekends. I stay far away from it and the area of the market he is in when I do happen to go there because I have always thought to myself "one day that thing is going to get pissed at one of the little dogs walking around here that bark at it incessantly or one of the kids poking it through the cage. It's going to knock that flimsy cage to pieces and kill someone."
I think the same thing about regulations- any animal of that magnitude of danger and rarity should be on a national register. It is mostly the responsibility of the owner, but I think our nation has to accept some blame too for allowing a man like that to get into this situation. He was clearly never a fit or responsible owner, he should never have been in the position to purchase even one.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 28, 2011 6:10:38 GMT -8
It's not idealistic, I didn't at all state that it was a perfect situation. But is it better than it was? Better than feudal oligarcic theocratic dictatorship? Sure. The real idealistic problem you pose is this- is a sovereign but brutal and under-resourced country better than an occupied, but stable territory? What is idealistic is thinking that China's withdrawal or there not having ever changed the social structure in that region will somehow have made Tibet a better place today rather than just one more crazy little country with a violent regime ruling it's downtrodden population with an iron fist. It was on the latter route for most of recent history, even when it was prospering while it was absorbing countries around it (yes, did you know the Tibet we want to free was actually invading and taking neighbors itself before China became powerful?). Now there is at least relative stability. People are poor, just like many places in Southeast Asia and most of China for that matter, but poor is better than being shackled to the earth you are forced to work for a religious ruling class that sits on top of a mountain in a golden palace all day. Can you see how that is like asking for Europe to surrender its various claims to land to the Pope because at one point they owned basically everything? So what?
The argument at hand is that China's regime is somehow equivalent to Gaddafi but the reality is that it is much more like we are. Think about Ireland. And how are Native American populations doing in the US? Poor, mostly on reservations, poorly paid and mostly not even in this country anymore. And a huge percentage of them were also killed. It's not that I am defending the mode in which the transition was made, but I'm saying it's a lot more complicated than Tibet should be free in the manner of restoring it's former self because it's former self was not at all free and was in fact worse, full of worse human rights violations. That's like saying "well Iraq didn't turn out well, let's get Saddam back in charge." Understand? There is a difference between a heartlessly forward moving culture and genocide. Of course there are still racial tensions, they exist in all of the countries listed (France I found to be the most outwardly racist place I have been, frankly, and then next a couple of places in Latin America). But what I am saying is that arguing for a free Tibet is not fully understanding what that implies. A free Tibet argues about allowing Tibet to liberated now? If so, then what you say is let another country swoop in, uninvited, change how everything works so you are more modern, and then leave. Is that not exactly what the west likes to do in the middle east? So why is China demonized but Europe and the US are not? Because they continue to occupy? We still occupy all the land of all the native peoples we wiped out or relocated. It's naive to say "freedom is better" absolutely because "freedom" is relative.
The issue is what your definition of "free" is. In my mind, making a living albeit meager is better than making no living at all. This is what I hear from the rural populations in Tibet as well. I hear a whole other story in India, but as I said that is like going to Miami to ask the older generations about pre-Castro Cuba. That was no great place either, but the people who fled during that time period were the people who were benefiting from the corruption. Just because the state it is today isn't perfect doesn't mean that it isn't better than it was when the revolution happened. And now that it has, what do you do? Re-instate the wealthy elite and force the population back into land-labor slavery? It's very complicated. But you can't fault China any more than you can fault any other country that has been engaged in such activities because there is both a positive and a negative which are neither here nor there in relationship to the status of Tibet 70 years ago. The question now is really whether or not an ethnic minority should be allowed to succeed, literally. Is that a good option? Just because the region was not under Chinese control so many years ago (and also recall that Dalai Lama XIII was actively pursuing expanding his kingdom into China which was vulnerable and weak just prior to that due to Sino-Japanese interactions, so it's also a bit of tit-for-tat I think) means the dominant ethnic group should be able to take back their land and every improvement another nation made to it? There are so many similar cases all over the world that no one is interested in at all, like all of Africa with ethnic groups split over many country lines that were arbitrarily drawn by Imperialists based on what they claimed. And if China leaves, does it degrade into something like that? Or like North Korea? The free Tibet movement, therefor, has little to do with anyone actually knowing what is going on the with social structure and history of that region and more with anti-Chinese sentiment, which is not a very good reason to desire such dramatic steps as to re-liberate a country that was not in good shape to begin with. It's easy to look through a window, much less easy to imagine looking back at yourself from outside.
|
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 27, 2011 10:26:26 GMT -8
One more thing- Eumorpha fasciatus I think occurs where you are. I found several larvae last week in my area, not last instar yet. This one is 'better' than H. lineata anyway, check around where you are on Ludwigia and you might get lucky. They like relatively moist habitats. Looks similar, but better.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 27, 2011 10:19:07 GMT -8
My cats do not care about dead bugs. The ones I rear, that's a whole other story. Twice one has snuck in under my feet and remained hidden until I closed the door and walked away, only to come back and find a bunch of dead "cat toys" smashed into a million pieces. Too hard to resist all that fluttering I guess. My parents have several dogs though, one of which loves dead insects for some reason. She can smell them out in the yard and will find their carcasses, usually beetles but the other frequent non-insects she likes are large Florida millipedes. She tracks them down and then she proceeds to roll all over them, as though she is trying to scent herself. I've not figured out why only she does it or why she does it all, but I did see a documentary on Lemurs in Madagascar that would purposely seek out millipedes to rub all over themselves. The theory was that it may have some anti-parasitic effect but it also clearly made the Lemurs intoxicated as indicated by their bobbling and falling out of trees. They would even share the millipede with their friends. So maybe they just like getting messed up. Who knows. Anyway, strangely similar to the behavior of this dog as well. Perhaps some cats detect something desirable about dead insects that most others do not. Generally, cats have a poor sense of smell (but an excellent very sensitive taste) so it's probably something else. I lose more specimens to my own carelessness than to anything else. How many times I have slipped and torn something or broken off legs or antennae I cannot count. Someone have a technique to scold your hands when they don't do what you thought they were going to?
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 27, 2011 7:34:13 GMT -8
Yes, but take that with a grain of salt because you get only Richard Gere's perspective on it. Just like other overhaul, it was violent. But it also ended what amounted to Feudal Slavery in Tibet. Every wonder what the social function of Bhuddism is? Simple- your life sucks as a starving peasant (some literally even chained to the land they were forced to work by the theocratic dictator, the previous Dalai Lama 13) but don't complain, don't try to get better because you obviously did something terrible in your past life to make you suffer this way now and if you don't suck it up then you will get worse the next go around.
We hear about it from people who paint old tibet as Shangri-la, which is a huge myth. It was an agrarian feudal society with a ruling class made up of people who's sole activities are religious seclusion. Bhuddist monks running that country were extremely oppulent for folks that are supposed to sacrifice the material for the spiritual. They can't kill, but breaking of legs and plucking out eyes and leaving on a Himalayan mountain side is still acceptable. Do you know how much money our government currently gives Tibet? How about how much went there back then? Do you know that we trained monks (the CIA did this) that we drop off in Tibet to continue the war there, as assassins? Not at all the picture the current Dalai Lama paints of his people- like they are all nature loving peaceful happy peasants working the land and meditating all day. Times before him, before Chinese invasion, were brutal and harsh just like everywhere else. The ruling class was just as cruel, exploited just as much as anywhere else. That was a dictatorship that also needed to fall. So how is Chinese intervention any different than intervention from the West in the Middle East or Europe or Africa? It's not, they saw something they wanted and saw a good excuse to take it so they wove a story about instability and went ahead in, just as we do when we feel it suits us.
More importantly, all history aside, the population of Tibet in large part now enjoys roads, cell phones, public education and healthcare. These things are all priorities to the younger generation, I have been there on medical business for long periods and consider myself fairly aware of the historical and current sensitivities of the people of Tibet in regard to their Chinese host. The overall feeling of people not displaced by the revolution (so basically everyone that wasn't old and/or rich) is not anti-Chinese as we see it painted by our new-age pseudo-Bhuddist celebrities here in the US. That would be like talking to Miami about Cuba. You won't get a fair picture and you shouldn't expect to. There were all kinds of human atrocities going on in Tibet prior to Chinese invasion, so it's really a mute point. The question is what the population who has to live there now wants- some sense of sovereignity for posterity but more emphasis on modernization which is the opposite of the former Bhuddist theocracy's agenda.
And yes, that is literally assimilation. Most Tibetans are functionally Chinese now, so they are assimilated. They hold Chinese jobs, they use Chinese resources. Their economy is largely based on tourism from other parts of China. Good to know about a historical dilemma before you try to take sides because it is rarely what you hear on TV and it is fluid over time.
There is a book called "The Snow Lion and the Dragon" which explores the lesser told parts of the US/UK-China-Tibet interactions by an eminent scholar on the subject. There almost was no violent transition, it was really instigated in large part by US and UK involvement (and India), both of which were highly anti-communist at the time. The people of Tibet were caught in the middle of an ideological struggle between the west and the east at the time, it was about politics that really had nothing to do with Tibet but go played out there anyway.
My point is that Tibet is still full of mostly Tibetans compared to Armenia or Rwanda where we are talking about Genocide, not assimilation. Tibetans are still permitted to practice their religion, it's just that all things are second to national health in China as is the policy. Do I necessarily agree with everything or think it was a perfect idea? Of course not. But it's not at all on the same level as the messes we see in Africa so often. Know what you criticize or don't criticize- don't mean to sound harsh but when you hear people say anything about Tibet in that tone it's very obvious that the historical research is lacking and that it is all learned through vague exposure in the media and other uninformed western dialogue. It's outdated anti-communist propaganda which is not productive nor pertinent to the situation as it stands today. As more history is revealed, we now know that things were, not surprisingly, misrepresented at the time in order to further a particular agenda which was outside of the literal details of the events in question.
I'd say that Tibetans were far more assimilated than Native Americans, wouldn't you? Most of them still live in Tibet, Native Americans were forcibly marched across the country until they found themselves (or what few were left anyway) in Vancouver. Yet we still say that they are "assimilated." Reserve your judgment of China until you have some legitimate background information, not celebrity side talk.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 27, 2011 6:45:58 GMT -8
I always see them during the hottest months during the hottest parts of the day. I find them on flowers or resting on tree trunks or buildings, etc.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 27, 2011 6:44:29 GMT -8
I thought those solitary FW markings were distinctive, they are in my collection. C. maestosa it is.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 27, 2011 6:40:38 GMT -8
In fact, here is a quick list-
Feb 2010, Ontario man killed by pet tiger Oct 2009, Pennsylvania woman killed by pet bear May 2009, Pennsylvania girl mauled by pet mountain lion April 2009, Colorado man mauled by pet tiger Jan 2009, Maryland woman mauled by tiger at her "private sanctuary" Nov 2008, Virginia child loses part of hand to tiger bite Oct 2008, Oklahoma man killed by tiger in front of pre-schoolers at "interactive" sanctuary Aug 2008, Illinois man mauled by tiger for small circus while training Aug 2008, Missouri teen mauled by three tigers at "interactive" private zoo Aug 2008, Missouri man mauled by tiger at private sanctuary, leg amputated May 2008, Florida rapper bitten by his pet tiger while filming a music video April 2008, California man training bear for live preformance killed Dec 2007, California teen killed, two friends attacked at a zoo by a tiger that climbed fence Dec 2007, California man mauled by pet tiger owned by celebrity Tippi Hedren (owns Michael Jackson's Tigers now) July 2007, Texas zoo handler severely mauled by tiger while interacting with it inside enclosure Aug 2005, Kansas teen killed while taking photograph with tiger at a private sanctuary June 2005, Minnesota child mauled by pet lion and tiger at a bodyshop- child paralyzed and dependent on respirator April 2005, Minnesota woman mauled by pack of tigers while cleaning enclosure at private sanctuary Nov 2004, Florida child attacked by pet tiger exhibited at county fair Jan 2004, North Carolina girl mauled by tiger her family kept in a cage behind their trailer Dec 2003, North Carolina boy mauled and killed by aunt's pet tiger Oct 2003, Nevada Roy (magician) mauled severely by his tiger which he refers to as a "pet" that "loves him" Sept 2002, California kindergartner mauled by tiger at school function while tiger being led by owner/trainer Aug 2000, Idaho woman mauled and then shot by tiger and people trying to subdue tiger (wow, bad luck!)
As you can see, events like this are not at all anomalous, averaging well over one a year as I had originally estimated. This is just the quick list I could find without much effort, I'm sure even more exist. Notice only one is at a public zoo and the larger percentage come from places where no permit is required for ownership.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 27, 2011 6:06:02 GMT -8
What is anomalous is the personal, private ownership if such animals. I beg to differ, most people do not own tigers. Most people own dogs and cats, maybe a parakeet or a goldfish (and here probably an insect or two). Yes there are tigers at lots of zoos, but in a facility you just erected in your backyard? No. So working from fact- the greater majority of the folks in the US do not have household class III wildlife nor do even the majority of small scale private zoos. The ratio of tiger to human, unlike cats or dogs, is very small. Most are housed in state, often federally, approved installations. Is it a problem that states don't have laws preventing known trouble people from getting tigers? Yes. Is it an anomaly? Yes. Most states do restrict this and even in states where it is unrestricted most people forgo the lion cub at the pet store for obvious reasons. Ohio is an anomaly, only one of a few states that permit this and they are the states these kinds of things happen in. Before you try to say that tigers are this ubiquitous in the US, remember that most of the tigers around are on the federal radar and are housed in accredited facilities that are inspected at regular intervals. The number of tigers in someone's backyard is extremely small. Attacks from tigers in this country are almost exclusively reserved for people with "pet" tigers at "rescue" centers in their backyards, not people who work at zoos where the overwhelming majority of the US' tigers are housed. Those animals are well contained and the people who work with them are quite aware of how un-pet-like tigers et al can be.
And could they be found? Clearly they could because within the day most of the animals were dead. It's the most realistic end because it is the cheap and easy and worse, fun for LE to shoot something otherwise unattainable.
Since most of the animals were already dead before sundown, who would even have a chance to consider whether it was a viable option? It was a free for all open hunting season, it's the approach that is disgusting. If it even seemed like there was some thought given to the plan and that other options were considered then it would be much more palatable. It's the LE officers interviews, the time frame and heaps of dead CITES animals that makes the story aggravating. Pretty obvious this was a freebie for a canned hunt, not that it had anything to do with protecting the people of the city (else those animals would've been gone long ago given the documented history of the nut job that owned them from that very local law enforcement agency that ultimately killed the escapees). See the difference?
So seriously folks, is it that strange that someone who is already a law enforcement nightmare, who is clearly not responsible as documented by history and who owns tigers would ultimately become a public safety concern? Speaking from fact not the heart, this is not the only incident of this nature. If you just google US tiger attacks, you will find scant accidents at actual zoos where public entry is permitted in stark contrast to the multitudes that happen at private ranches or so-called "wild-life sanctuaries." I'd like to see educated, intelligent owners. Not people who think their tiger "loves them" or is "pet" because it was raised from a cub. That is the reality. Just because we like to import exotics doesn't mean that everyone can or should own them. Just as you purport shooting the tigers for public safety, so should you jump on that bandwagon then as it is in the public's interest for safety to ensure that any animal, which by nature can do what it chooses should it ever escape, is securely housed and well-cared for. Without regulations you are just asking for more of this kind of thing to happen, which is no doubt will. I think annually someone is attacked by their personal large cat, at least.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 26, 2011 5:44:13 GMT -8
I know, it is terrible. Probably the agency closest at hand. There are biologists all over the country and probably willing people in other parts of the world that could be there at the drop of a hat if they had any hope of recovering and re-homing these animals to somewhere more suitable, somewhere their genes wouldn't just be completely lost, I suspect that they were not even a thought though. I think the main issue is that using radio tags, not unlike what is done for Sharks or other elusive species, is the expense. However it seems to me that if the government is going to permit these animals to enter the country at all then we are accepting stewardship of said animals because of the nature of their tenuous ecological position. It stands to reason that any animal you bring into the country may and probably will at least in a few cases escape by virtue of human error. Either paying the money upfront to pre-tag these animals (frankly I think they all should be tagged for this reason- don't you want to know where every single man-eating exotic beast is? You don't like the "big brother" sense of that, then easily avoided by not buying lions and tigers and bears) or paying it later when you have to round them all up because some psychotic maniac does something like this recent guy, or the stupid chimp woman and so on should be obligate. Instead we take even the cheaper route and just shoot them all. Well it's much cheaper to kill all the wild ones too than it is to spend money on their conservation, why is different suddenly when it's at home? Either accept that you are dealing with rare and wild animals and treat them as such or be willing to go to great lengths to recover them. It's not impractical to do it, it's just expensive. These animals can be darted and radio labeled with the very same shot, for a not-so-small cost of equipment and personnel. But it's case by case- animals like this warrant special efforts.
You are exactly right, government is responsive and not pro-active at all (look at healthcare for a perfect example of why paying less up front is better than waiting for a crisis down the road and yet we still don't do it) so I do fully expect a bunch of ridiculously framed laws to appear that makes it harder for wildlife refuges to care for their animals and easier for canned hunters to bring more of these unfortunate animals into the country by paying for a new and more expensive permit. Or some kind of laughable regulations to that effect.
Well at least I rest assured that it will be just as hard to get a tiger now as it is to get a butterfly pupae from the neighboring state, lol.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 26, 2011 5:27:21 GMT -8
Ditto.
Rev, do you use a blacklight? I have a perpetual black light running, it's very unobtrusive and screens for mostly beetles and much fewer moths. In terms of numbers, that's about what you expect- more beetles than anything else with moths right behind and then a handful of butterflies for every hundred of the former that you find. You'll run out of local butterflies quickly but if you keep collecting little non-descript brown and gray moths (esp. micros) and black or brown beetles, also especially the small ones, you will never finish if you collect for three hundred years.
This time of year is great for looking in flowers during the day for beetles too. The bulk of fall flowers are yellow or pinkish-purple in our area and which indicates a specific pollinator preference that is seasonally dependent; check the fluffy centers of the various Asteraceae local to your region and you might find some colorful little beetle surprises.
|
|