Subject: Re: Western Moth Guide

From: "Charles V. Covell Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 11:56:12 EDT

Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292
PHONE: (502) 852-6771
Thanks for the encouragement.  I was thinking of photos, as large
numbers of paintings of the subtlty required would be very expensive
to get, and would take a masterful artist!.  Charlie C.

---

From: [email-masked] (Terry Morse)
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 12:46:40

>to get, and would take a masterful artist!.  Charlie C.

Charles:

  If you got the go ahead today, roughly how long would it take before the 
guide made it to my bookshelf?  (Assume I would buy it as soon as it was 
available, or sooner)  :-)

  How can we help convince the publisher to give you the go ahead?  You may 
certainly use my comments from sci.bio.ent.lep as evidence of the market for a 
Western field guide (or a US guide, though I'd prefer a Western volume to 
complement your Eastern guide).

Terry
Terry Morse
[email-masked]
****************************************************************************
			    		How Not To Get Nervous
  Before you attend an important occasion, apply spit to you ear lobe and 
then breathe in deeply through your nostrils.  Then go out.  Kick every 
object you come across.  This is the secret.
				     			Yamamoto Tsunetomo (1659-1719)
				     			The Hagakure (Hidden Behind the Leaves)
							Samurai text
****************************************************************************

---

From: Hank Brodkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 18:22:49 -0700

On Tue, 2 May 1995, Kurt Fox wrote:

> I am a birder. I find that drawings are much more efficient. Photos tend to
> be a little misleading at times I am undecided whether this is also true of
> leps.
(Stuff deleted)

> David Glassberg's "Butterflies through Binoculars" is nice because
> it is very regional and covers more life history than just a generic field
> guide.
>

Kurt-
I fortunate to attend a talk by Jeff Glassberg Sunday evening.  First of
all moths and butterflies and the study thereof might be "apples and
oranges".  They are both Leps.  But butterflies can fly by day and can be
studied with binoculars - though many collectors continue to doubt this.
Jeff's field guide is unique for several reasons.  First of all his
photos are photos of live animals in natural poses.  Jeff's whole theory
is that butterflies can be studied with CLOSE focus binoculars.
In close focus bins you see what you see in a photograph.  It is much
easier to get GOOD photos of butterflies than of birds.  I know - I am no
photographer - but with a little guidance I am now able to get dynamite
photos of butterflies.  The secret is a macro lens (90mm or better) a
close up filter for the little guys (the majority of our butterflies are
1/2" or less accross), a flash to insure even exposure and a small lens
opening for greater depth of field with the macro lens, and the
willingness to crawl around on the ground.
Another thing that Jeff did with his book was to size his photos - so
that relative to each other - all butterflies on a page are in correct
proportion.  Of course Jeff's whole movement concerns "non-consumptive"
appreciation of butterflies.  This naturally is met with some hostility
by collectors.  While not a collector myself - I can see the pleasure one
would get in collecting and correctly handling and mounting your
specimens and I personally see nothing wrong with collecting
non-endangered insects.
Moths are a whole other ballgame.  They fly at night (with a few
amazingly beautiful exceptions).  They can not be studied with
binoculars.  They can not be fully appreciated under artificial light.
I do not know how one can study moths without collecting them.
For field guides good photographs can be made of moths that are mounted.
I know of no artist who is also knowledgeable in the "field marks" of
butterflies, much less moths.  Even with specimens in hand results in the
one book I have seen (California Butterflies - I forget the exact title)
are at best uneven,  And the artist is a good artist.  He just did not
appreciate the identifying marks of his subject.  Also the number of moth
species is mind-boggling.  There are about 750 butterfly species in the U.S..
Paul and Sandy Russell have collected some 500 moth species in their yard
alone in the Santa Monica Mountains near Los Angeles.
However apparently a moth guide, at least of the larger, more common
species would certainly be welcomed by almost everyone I know who has any
feeling at all for the natural world.
Good Birding - and Good Butterflying!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Hank Brodkin <[email-masked]> Marina Del Rey, CA
                        33.58'24"N 118.27'39"W
 finger <[email-masked]> for information about the Calbird-L Mail List

---

From: [email-masked] (Kurt Fox)
Date: 2 May 1995 13:47:15 GMT

>From  "Charles V. Covell Jr." <[email-masked]> ()

I am a birder. I find that drawings are much more efficient. Photos tend to
be a little misleading at times I am undecided whether this is also true of
leps. Photos do capture habitat though (only on live species). The best
guides, I think, have drawings with habitat. Alternate plumages and juveniles
are helpful with birds. Similarly, larvae sketches, and BOTH upper and under 
sides of wings would be helpful. I KNOW this is asking a lot. Perhaps the
guide could be a series of books, each with a separate family of leps. I would
prefer a detailed guide (with life histories, much like Arthur Cleveland Bent's
life histories bird guides) than a general guide covering all species to be found
everywhere. David Glassberg's "Butterflies through Binoculars" is nice because
it is very regional and covers more life history than just a generic field guide.

I am new to both moths and butterflies. One thing that I find discouraging
about moth ID guides that I have seen is: They always show pinned specimens
(pictures or drawings) with the wings wide open. I do not collect moths, and
in order to see the underwings, I must coax them and they usually fly off.
I know that the underwings is sometimes key in the ID sequence, but this is
not how I view (right or wrong) moths.

My thoughts only,

Kurt Fox

---

From: [email-masked] ("Colin Cracknell")
Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 19:57:23 GMT

>For field guides good photographs can be made of moths that are 

For beginners at least, these are *useless*. Show someone a mounted 
specimen of the Buff Tip (Notodontidae: Phalera bucephala), then try to 
convince them of its birch-twig camouflage. A set specimen, with its 
wings outstrectched, looks nothing like a twig. A live one, with its 
wings folded back, the yellow face, and the buff spots on the ends of the 
wings is a superb replica of a broken twig but bears no resemblance at 
all to museum specimens.

[Sorry if the Buff Tip is unknown in the U.S., but you get the point.]

Set specimens are essential for fine distinctions between similar 
species, but without photos of at least a few characteristic members of 
each family only an expert woould find them useful for a field guide.

------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked] | "Specialisation is for insects" [RAH]
                           | "I specialise in insects" [ColinC]
All opinions are my own, but Darter Systems agrees with me.
------------------------------------------------------------------