The collection of live specimens and preserving them has been a useful identification tool for hundreds of years. I'd guess that species ID, site evaluations, etc. are all an integral part of scientific research....much of which is geared towards conservation (of species and/or habitat).

Some of the finest insect collections in the world are held under university and museum protection, for the edification of students of the natural environment (entomology, zoology, biology, etc.) from the past to the present. And the future! With the advent of the computer age, and in the spirit of disseminating education and information freely, such images of 'carcasses' help millions of interested folks all over the world to learn more about who and what shares their space in the universe.

There are plenty of web sites with spectacular pictures of live specimens. But I daresay that meaningful scientific research would come to a screeching halt if the world community was unable to swap images of preserved insects.

What bothers me is seeing rare tropical butterflies, obviously collected from the wild, mounted and framed for enormous profit. That type of commercialism really pushes me over the edge. I can only imagine what kind of chaos those kinds of collectors wreak on the environment.

Randy,

Yes, I believe that question may be one that people have VERY differing opinions on. The way I see it, the more "academic, scientific, 'professional'" a person is, the more likely they are to find it very acceptable to have butterfly collections and take pictures of them.

Generally, I have found the people who generally frequent this board, post pictures of butterflies alive.

This board is a wonderful place where people rarely get into arguements or are rude to people with differing opinions, something I appreciate very much. I have seen the veterens on this board answer questions again and again with gracious generosity.

I believe that there was a slight tiff this summer over the very nature of what you are talking about, what kind of photos are acceptable.

Personally, I think that in the advent of digital photography, it is so much easier to take pictures of all insects alive, and it is so much nicer to see them in their natural habitat, that I prefer it much over the dead specimans.

But, overall, I do understand that the very people that do have butterfly collections and such are also some of the same people who work very hard to save the more rare butterflies, and who work to educate people. It is more of their life's work, and also a way for them to become more knowledgable and share their work.

This is a topic that is very dear to many people, and so many people have different opinions on it.

Elaine

Thanks for the replies. I want to voice some things, but for the sake of forum health, I'll keep quiet.

randy

Several years ago I visited the winter home of Thomas Edison, located in Fort Meyers, Florida. They have the original house, a lab, and all kinds of trees, including some strange ones with over-sized fruit. They also have a glass enclosure filled with stuffed and mounted song-birds. It was hard to look at, but I just had to realize that when Edison was alive, capturing song-birds for a personal collection was considered legal. I suspect that the practice of capturing and preserving biological specimens will slowly decline. Collections deteriorate over time, losing color especially. It will always be necessary to capture and kill if you want to study the internal workings of an organism. But the idea of capture and kill for the purpose of maintaining a personal collection is losing its appeal, and losing acceptance.

I think that's called taxidermy, isn't it Eric?

Yes, we did have a rather lengthy discussion on the forum this last summer on the subject of using pinned specimens versus live shots. With the age of digital, and the fact that most of us like to raise butterflies for release, most of us prefer to see live shots.

I think that pinned specimens are becoming more obsolete with the advent of digital photography, except for those entomologists, biologists, scientists, ect., who study them for reasons beyond my ability to even pronounce, let alone my cognitive understanding.

To me, real photography reflects more accurate coloration and other descriptive factors. Pinned specimens, on the other hand, look contrived and totally unlike "up close and personal" observation. But, a scientist's view is different from mine, and it is doubtful that I'll be publishing anything in the NABA Journals for some time to come.

I do have Villiard's book on Moths and How to Raise Them, which is chock full of black & white pinned specimens. But, since I want to raise moths, I can look beyond the artful pinnings, and back when (you know, "back when" don't cha) he began studying moths, black & white was all that was available and pinned specimens were actually the best for studying distinct features.

Randy, if you're ever in the mood to read a really good moth book, try John Himmelman's, Nighttime Jewels of the Garden (I think). He is humorous and provides a great history of moth-ers. He's just a really entertaining writer in discussing his field trips, friends, journies, and experiences in raising and observing moths.

Susan

I received a great book for Christmas named "Butterflies of the East Coast, an observer's guide," by Chech and Tudor. It is more like a coffee table sized book, but it is packed with interesting info and beautiful pictures. The authors strived to take pictures of butterflies that were "free-flying and unrestrained." With very few exceptions. Their thoughts are that field photographs should show the butterfly in it's natural world acting as it naturally does, which leads to much insight into it's life and behavior.

I suppose I am guilty of the occasional posed picture, especially of my newly emerged butterflies. (I have an awful lot of pictures of BSTs resting on my fingertips.) That's where my original interest in raising cats came from, I wanted pictures. And we all know how cooperative a newly emerged butterfly is since it can't fly right away.

But nothing beats the thrill of "capturing" a great specimen of a free flying butterfly with the camera and sharing it with everyone here.

This spring I came across a PVS colony, which is very rare here, thanks to a few hints from a local butterflying friend. He was worried about telling me the location until he really trusted me. They'd had a problem with a collector in recent past posing as a butterfly association member.

Now we talk in hushed voices about that site that "no one is supposed to know about." It broke our hearts that someone could kill and pin one of our special and rare butterflies.

Susan, that's the site where I met John H.

And he too was very tight lipped about the area until we talked more and he realized that I was an avid butterfly conservationist.

Maryann

I appreciate everyones thoughtful input. Guess I'll spill my guts. Please be patient with me. I'm not trying to stir up controversy, just pointing out what I see is a problem.

Have nothing against scientific research. Know it's important and can shed light on how things can be done to help. If having pinned specimens around does that great. That's not what bothered me.

It's a no brainer to me that if you are trying to reach the masses, you know, the average person be it parent or child that can help make a difference in butterfly populations by getting active in gardening or healthier gardening techniques, you need to step away from the dry simple pinned carcasses of butterflies on your website.

That average person will and does find those kind of photos very unnatural and uninformative. A lot of the photos I've seen here and on some of your personal photo sites kick butt. The full range of color usually on nectar or host plants thrill and excite me. I've started some seed already in the greenhouse for spring. Can't wait to get started.

This is 2007. What worked to draw attention in the 40's and 50's is not going to impress the high teckkers of today.

That was my beef. Hope it comes across with passion without stomping on toes. That's not my intent.

randy

Me confused. I don't see that there is ANY (nada, nil, zero, zilch) controversy in what you've expressed. Not even a difference of opinion, really. So, it's ALL good!

I've said in this forum (and other forums where I've bragged about this forum) several times that some of the photography I've seen is unbelievable. Can't wait for spring to get here so you can all get out to your gardens with the cameras!

One of the specific reasons why the collecting and pinning of specimens will likely never disappear is that it is the only reliable way to compare the minute differences and similarities within genera (and species, subspecies). It is a uniform, passionless method of display for catagorization purposes. Those facts, arguably, are not of importance to the masses but will continue to be to the scientific community.

Cool, so we seem to agree.

A beautiful butterfly on the wing is gift from above. A pinned specimen is an occasional scientific necessity, for study purposes, whose day has probably come and passed.

Knowledge and conservation is probably the goal of each one of us here.

And Rhizo, thanks for the compliments. I, too, think this forum's photographers and observers are some of the best.

I'm new to this forum, but I wanted to chime in in support of all of you and also in support of the scientists. My brother in an entemologist with Michigan State University. He has been working with the Yellow Tiger Swallowtail for years. His project, unfortunately, is to track the DNA variations in those butterflies which are found in different counties along the coast of, and on different islands in, Lake Michigan. This information helps to trace the consistancy of the migratory patterns, ie.How close to their original birth place do the butterflies return each year? This information, in turn, will help in attempts to create or recreate new habitats and predict whether the butterflies will return to their new habitat. Unfortunately, DNA work requires dead butterflies. My brother in no way enjoys killing these beautiful creatures, but he does hope to find ways to preserve all sorts of butterflies using the knowledge he and his colleagues have obtained. Thanks for listening, and all of you keep up the good work of spreading the word and supplying safe host plants and nectar sources for our fragile friends.
Martha

Martha, welcome... It's great to have another posting member!

What an interesting project your brother is involved in. Thanks for sharing. I have no real problem with studies such as this which are reputable and result in increased knowledge.

My real problem is the collecting for trophy thing...

Maryann

This has been an annual, but moot, topic. This is a butterfly GARDENING forum, and pinned specimens are incongruous.

However, it is unfortunate that the slight tiffs brought on by the posting of dead specimens has caused the exit of at least two persons in the last three years who otherwise had much to contribute here.

Patience.

I definitely agree, Larry_Gene. I know one of whom you speak, and was very sorry to see this individual go because I asked him tons of questions about moths, in particular. This person was always responsive and I truly miss her/him.

While I don't "love" pinned specimens, I do absolutely understand the scientific necessity of using them for research. To me it's a "win-win". The scientists gain much knowledge from their studies and we learn from them, despite the fact that we may not necessarily like it. I mean, how would doctors have learned about our bodies without cadavers? Doesn't mean I want to see lots of photos of them pinned to a board, but I certainly don't denounce them for it.

That said, you're also 110% right - this is a Butterfly Gardening. Perhaps the scientists might want a forum for Butterfly Studies?????????????

Susan