Understated

 

LOL. My nostalgic revisits of old Amazon customer reviews continue. Yes, this is a sequel to the "Apollo cult" stuff. Brace yourselves...

Is this a true description of the moth/butterfly collector´s subculture: "But then, it's quite possible that collectors of Lepidoptera really are a bit `out there´. I read in another book about the existence of two factions within this particular community in Britain. One believes it's OK to kill and pin moths, but not OK to kill and pin butterflies. Another faction doesn't want to kill moths either. (Presumably, there is also a third faction who wants to kill'em all.) Apparently, the conflicts between these groups can become somewhat acrimonious..."

Yes, that description is broadly true — and even understated. The world of Lepidoptera collectors (and amateur entomologists more broadly) has long had its internal divisions, some of which can get surprisingly passionate for what is, on the surface, a quiet and delicate hobby.

Here’s how those dynamics break down:

---

🦋 1. The "Moth vs. Butterfly" Split

✔️ Real and observed.
In the UK and elsewhere, there's a cultural distinction between moth collectors and butterfly collectors, even though both belong to the order Lepidoptera. Historically:

• Butterflies have enjoyed a more romantic, conservationist image, especially post-1970s.

• Moths were traditionally treated more as subjects of natural history and taxonomy, often collected in large numbers by amateur and professional entomologists.

Some modern butterfly enthusiasts consider pinning butterflies to be cruel or unnecessary, especially for common or protected species. But they may be more lenient with moths, which are often more difficult to identify alive due to their nocturnal behavior and less distinctive field markings.

Thus you sometimes get "split positions":

• ✔️ Kill-and-pin moths: OK

• ❌ Kill-and-pin butterflies: Not OK

This inconsistency is sometimes criticized within the subculture as aesthetic bias — butterflies are seen as “pretty” and “special,” while moths are “brown” and “numerous.” Some collectors find this logic incoherent, which leads to…

---

⚔️ 2. Ethical Conflict & Acrimony

✔️ Also real.
The debate over killing specimens is a hot-button issue in some Lepidoptera societies:

• Conservation-minded members may advocate photographic records only or live-trapping with release.

• Traditionalists argue that collecting is essential to taxonomy, museum work, and species monitoring, and point out that collecting rarely impacts populations if done responsibly.

• A small but vocal group of "preservationists" regard any killing for hobby purposes as immoral.

This has led to splits within societies, heated letters in entomological journals, and personal feuds, especially when public exhibitions or conservation policies are involved.

---

🐛 3. The “Kill-’Em-All” Faction

✔️ Exists — but rare today.
There used to be (and still are) a few collectors who treat Lepidoptera much like stamps: if it’s new, rare, or not in their collection, they’ll pin it, regardless of status or rarity. This approach is increasingly frowned upon, especially with endangered species and international regulations (e.g., CITES).

In the past, collectors like Walter Rothschild or Lord Walsingham amassed enormous insect collections from around the world, killing millions of specimens — but in a pre-conservation era where scientific knowledge took precedence.

Today, modern ethics, conservation laws, and social pressure have significantly constrained this approach, at least publicly.

---

📚 In Summary

Yes, the Lepidoptera collector subculture can be:

• Quirky

• Internally divided

• Occasionally acrimonious, especially over ethics

But it’s also deeply passionate, often scientifically valuable, and part of a long tradition of natural history. Like many niche hobbies, it contains multitudes — from Zen-like moth-watchers to pin-happy collectors with secret drawers full of rarities.

The Apollo cult revisited

 

LOL. I didn´t know Bernard D´Abrera was *this* notorious. Not only does ChatGPT know about him, there is even an entry on the man on RationalWiki (the link in orange below). So I can´t have been the only person who noticed his somewhat idiosyncratic butterfly books. And just as I suspected, D´Abrera had the reputation for being...shall we say...difficult. Still, the AI is actually a bit charitable to some of his observations here. The Apollo "cult" seems to be real?!

Bernard d´Abrera

Here is D´Abrera again. Is this a true or fair observation? "In this volume, D'Abrera has some pretty unkind words to say about some of his fellow butterfly-collectors. He claims that there is a veritable cultus of the genus Parnassius (the Apollos) among lepidopterists, a cultus with its own high priests, acolytes, a nomenclature bordering on the hagiographic and a literature with the force of Canon Law. Anyone who questions the prevalent taxonomy of these particular butterflies is suspected of heresy, anathematized and excommunicated. Presumably, the authors' taxonomy is controversial among Appolo-infatuated collectors and scientists all over the Holarctic region..."

Yes, Bernard d’Abrera’s remark about a "cultus of Parnassius" among lepidopterists is real — in the sense that he did write things along those lines — but whether his observation is fair depends on how charitably one interprets his rhetoric.

---

🔍 Context and Interpretation

D’Abrera was known for his deeply opinionated style, often blending scientific observations with cultural, philosophical, and theological polemics. His statements about the Parnassius "cultus" reflect his broader frustration with what he saw as:

• Overly rigid or dogmatic taxonomic systems

• Scientific elitism or groupthink in entomology

• Excessive splitting of species into subspecies or varieties based on minor morphological differences

He often described these behaviors in grandiloquent, sometimes sarcastic terms, borrowing language from religion — "high priests," "canon law," "heresy," etc. It’s colorful and provocative, but it’s also a metaphor, not a literal accusation.

---

🦋 Is There Any Truth to It?

Surprisingly, yes — at least partially. Here's why:

1. Parnassius Has a Complex Taxonomy

• The genus Parnassius (Apollo butterflies) is notoriously difficult to classify.

• Many populations are geographically isolated mountain dwellers with subtle but consistent morphological differences, leading to:

  • Dozens (or hundreds) of named subspecies

  • Frequent disputes over species vs. subspecies status

2. Strong Collector Enthusiasm

• Parnassius is beloved among butterfly collectors, especially in Europe, Russia, Japan, and China.

• The group is surrounded by a wealth of literature, specialized monographs, and highly detailed field guides.

• Certain taxa can fetch high prices on the collectors’ market.

• This leads to passionate debates and strong in-group consensus on classifications.

3. Conservative or Rigid Taxonomies

• In some taxonomic circles, dissent from the prevailing views (especially by non-academics) is indeed treated dismissively.

• This isn’t unique to Parnassius or entomology — scientific subfields sometimes develop cliques, especially around charismatic taxa.

So D’Abrera is using exaggerated, satirical language, but he's critiquing a real tendency in the butterfly community: the tribalism that can emerge around difficult or beloved genera.

---

🧠 Is It a Fair Critique?

Fair-ish, but laced with hyperbole.

• Yes, because taxonomic debates can indeed become cliquish, politically charged, or stubbornly orthodox.

• No, if interpreted literally as some kind of irrational religious cult. Most taxonomists are serious professionals doing their best in a difficult field.

---

💬 Final Thought

D’Abrera was a provocateur, but his critique of Parnassius scholarship reflects a genuine tension in taxonomy between:

• Stability vs. revision

• Professional vs. amateur contributions

• Morphological vs. molecular approaches

It’s a poetic exaggeration, not a dispassionate analysis — but as a metaphor, it rings surprisingly true in some corners of entomology.

Would you like examples of famous Parnassius disputes or subspecies inflation?

Yes, please.

You're absolutely right to ask. The genus Parnassius (Apollo butterflies) is famous—or infamous—among lepidopterists for one of the highest rates of subspecific and varietal descrip­tions in Lepidoptera, often leading to protracted debates and sharply divided camps.

Here are some well-documented controversies that illustrate why D'Abrera’s depiction of a Parnassius cultus is at least partially grounded in reality:

---

🧐 1. *Over 200–290 named subspecies of Parnassius apollo*

• Parnassius apollo, the emblematic Apollo, has been described under more than 200 subspecies names, especially in Europe and Central Asia ResearchGateGöran Waldeck.

• In the Carpatho‑Pannonian region alone, 26 subspecies were defined based on limited morphological traits like wing color and patterns SpringerLinkGöran Waldeck.

• A 2024 morphometric study of 20 so-called subspecies in that region found virtually no significant wing‑shape divergence, suggesting that dozens of named forms may not merit formal taxonomic recognition SpringerLink.

---

🔬 2. Morphological discipline vs. molecular data

• Traditional taxonomists relied heavily on wing color, pattern, and minor structural traits (plus location data) to name new subspecies.

• Modern molecular studies (e.g., mitochondrial DNA barcoding) reveal that many of these subspecies lack genetic differentiation and may actually represent phenotypic variants within a single species MDPIOxford AcademicScienceDirect.

• This mismatch has fueled divisions between "splitters", who emphasize morphological subtlety, and "lumpers", who stress genetic unity.

---

🌍 3. Geographic isolation and the naming frenzy

• Many alleged subspecies inhabit extremely remote and narrow habitats (e.g. high-altitude Tibetan valleys, small Pamir peaks).

• Collectors described new subspecies often based on single or handful of specimens from unique locales — sometimes accessed only by helicopter ZobodatEureka MagEureka Mag.

• These small-isolated populations were quickly named, reinforcing the view of a taxonomic cult based on micro-endemism.

---

👥 4. Emotional and ideological investment

• Parnassius butterflies are deeply beloved by collectors across Eurasia.

• Some communities treat specific subspecies as prestigious or rare trophies, generating a parallel literature and community logic that can resist revisionist voices.

• An outsider questioning a named subspecies may risk criticism in those circles — an effect reminiscent of the "heresy" rhetoric D’Abrera uses metaphorically.

---

✅ Summary: How fair is D’Abrera’s characterization?

Claim	Scientific Justification
Parnassius has a cult-like subculture	Yes—intense collector and taxonomic interest across regions
Subspecies proliferation based on minor differences	Yes—hundreds of subspecies based on wing markings and location
Resistance to revision by questioning collectors	Yes, splitters vs lumpers dispute remains active

So while D’Abrera’s tone is deliberately provocative, it captures a real dynamic in Parnassius taxonomy: entrenched subspecific naming, sometimes spectacular collector devotion, and a lively tension between morphological tradition and molecular modernity.

---

Would you like an outline of a few especially contentious Parnassius species-groups or further reading on the ongoing molecular-lumping efforts?

The Apollo cult

"Butterflies of the Holarctic region" is an illustrated reference work in three volumes featuring the true butterflies of North America, Europe, North Africa and most of Asia. This is the first volume, covering the following families: Papilionidae (Swallowtails), Pieridae (Whites), Danaidae (Milkweed butterflies) and part of Satyridae (Browns). The same author has also compiled similar books on butterflies from other parts of the world. I think the entire series is 13 volumes!

Due to a limited print run and high production costs, these books are extremely expensive and hard to get by. While the butterflies are (of course) beautiful, the books as such are of interest primarily to butterfly-collectors, butterfly-lovers or perhaps vendors of rare books. Library reference sections might also want to have them.

It struck me when looking through the Holarctic volumes that they could be used to complement regular field guides. Otherwise, "Butterflies of the Holarctic region" contain relatively little information. The books consist mostly of color plates showing pinned specimens from the voluminous collections of the British Museum.

Bernard D'Abrera is obviously an author with a very independent mind-set. He is actually a Christian creationist, and has included some pretty strange anti-Darwinist musings in some of his books on Neotropical butterflies. He also complains about the general state of the British Museum collection, which suggests that he spent considerable time trying to track down more robust information on the specimens he was photographing.

In this volume, D'Abrera has some pretty unkind words to say about some of his fellow butterfly-collectors. He claims that there is a veritable cultus of the genus Parnassius (the Apollos) among lepidopterists, a cultus with its own high priests, acolytes, a nomenclature bordering on the hagiographic and a literature with the force of Canon Law. Anyone who questions the prevalent taxonomy of these particular butterflies is suspected of heresy, anathematized and excommunicated. Presumably, the authors' taxonomy is controversial among Appolo-infatuated collectors and scientists all over the Holarctic region...

Am I right in suspecting that Bernard D'Abrera might be a difficult person? A kind of Åke Ohlmarks of the butterfly world? Tolkien fans would know what I'm talking about. But then, it's quite possible that collectors of Lepidoptera really are a bit "out there". I read in another book about the existence of two factions within this particular community in Britain. One believes it's OK to kill and pin moths, but not OK to kill and pin butterflies. Another faction doesn't want to kill moths either. (Presumably, there is also a third faction who wants to kill'em all.) Apparently, the conflicts between these groups can become somewhat acrimonious... (Prozac might help.)

But that's another show. Meanwhile, I give this book five stars for the butterflies...and the effort.

PS. In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a butterfly-collector. I had a small collection as a child, but it only included four or five specimens, all collected by my grandfather. The specimens eventually disappeared under truly myserious circumstances. I suspect they were eaten by moths! SO NOW YOU KNOW WHICH FACTION I SUPPORT. :-0