Subject: Re: collecting

From: [email-masked] (Chris Raper)
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 10:06:35 GMT

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:56:39 CST, James Kruse
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Thu, 18 Jul 1996  Michael Pennington <[email-masked]>
>>
>> The argument revolves around butterflies because they do *not* need
>> to be identified by capture, killing or genitalia. So they do not
>> need to be captured. Moths are a different matter and they *may*
>> require collecting to enable scientific study, or even more
>> importantly, conservation.
>>
>
>With tears in my eyes, I've tried so hard not to jump into this
>debate, but I can't help it!!  There must be SOMETHING in Britain
>that needs to be netted to confirm ID??? 

Hi Jim,

I think the argument here is about 'killing' UK butterflies for a
collection. There are quite a lot of species that should be netted to
confirm an id. A couple of the Lycaenids a few Hesperids should be
looked at 'close-up' and this usually requires the use of a net (or a
lot of luck on a very cold, wet day! :-)).

The collecting debate (at least on this side of the pond) seems to
center around the collection (that means killing) of UK butterflies -
which many (including myself) find difficult to come to terms with. We
have had significant habitat loss in the last 50 years and there are
several species of UK LEP which are at risk of going under if any more
pressure is exerted on their populations. 

I have seen quite a lot of heat & light caused by this debate when
people don't say exactly what they are objecting to. One person's idea
of collecting may differ entirely from another and whenever this
'debate' comes up a lot of 'rags' are lost over simple
misunderstandings. There will always be people who are anti everything
to do with killing _anything_ but I think most people here are adult
enough to accept that every now and then a specimen must be taken and
in some countries, where populations are not under treat, general
collecting can be condoned.  (Though the last bit of this last
statement may cause a few hackles to rise over here in the UK  :-))

Now, I used to collect things when I was a kid and I consider that it
was this collecting that really hooked me onto LEPS in later life.
>From  collecting I have graduated onto photography and now only have to
collect (kill) difficult to identify species of moth / diptera /
coleoptera - and I only do that because I am running a species
monitoring scheme on my local nature reserve (ie. the correct ID is
important).

As far as the rest of the world goes I have no problem with collecting
(killing) LEPS - IF this doesn't threaten any populations. And by that
I mean it must not weaken even a colony of butterflies - let alone the
species/sub species as a whole. I have collected stuff from South
America in the last 10 years but at the moment I am giving it a rest
for a while until I have enough time to continue my study. I just
don't have the time (or inclination at the moment) to do the specimens
justice.

> So I would disagree, there are some
>butterflies that need to be captured (but not necessarily killed) to
>confirm ID.  Recreational yard or life-lists, no, use a binoculars.

Certainly. I have to collate sightings on this local nature reserve
and I would not accept any sighting of Thymelicus flavus or lineola
(Small/Essex Skipper) without knowing that the person had been able to
examine the antenal tips very closely. It _can_ be done if you can
creep close enough while it is feeding but to be sure of population
size I would want a proper count taken - with a net.

>Moths ARE a different matter....

Definately. Although it is unnecessary to kill most of them to get a
decent ID. If something interesting/unusual was turned up though I
would take (kill) a voucher specimen to be confirmed at my local
museum or by the local county recorder. The specimen would then either
me donated to them or added to my collection if they didn't want it.

Cheers
Chris R.

--
All views are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.

---

From: [email-masked] (DIPTERA2)
Date: 22 Jul 1996 14:48:58 -0400

The issue being discussed here, Chris, is not just UK butterflies, but
entomology as a whole, unfortunately. Again, I understand the need for
knowledge in the field, but that knowledge only comes from collecting in
conjunction with observing. I might have overshot my mail by referring to
collecting as a whole, not as a individual involving species under the
knife. Hopefully I wont be taken out of context, but regretfully I will
be. 
THE BEETLE GUY IN OKLAHOMA  \ /
 If you think education is                  (_)
expensive, try ignorance.               \-{  }-/
 Throw another steak                     \-{_}-/
 on the grill.                                    <>

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Raper)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:30:02 GMT

>knife. Hopefully I wont be taken out of context, but regretfully I will

Oh well, I've said my bit - I'm ducking out of this one before I get
dragged into another flame war.   :-)

BTW DIPTERA2 - is there a DIPTERA1 on AOL? And if so, why doesn't he
post here?   :-\

Cheers
Chris R.

---

From: Ian John Waller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:07:53 +0100

>BTW DIPTERA2 - is there a DIPTERA1 on AOL? And if so, why doesn't he

Also, why don't you put your "real" name up ?.  :-/

Are you hiding something ?.  :-o 

-- 
Ian John Waller (really)