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 divine prankster

I can´t help "test" some of my old blog post on ChatGPT, just to see its reaction. Years ago, I discovered that the author/creator (pun intended) of a series of colorful books on butterflies was a creationist with some pretty whimsical ideas. So naturally I had to ask the AI some whimsical questions about it!  

[My old blog post/book review] "Butterflies of the Neotropical region. Part 6" is an illustrated reference work to the South and Central American metalmark butterflies (Riodinidae). That, however, is the least interesting part of the book... 

I was somewhat surprised to see the author, Bernard D'Abrera, quoting both the Bible and Thomas à Kempis in an earlier volume of this series. In this volume, the plot thickens as D'Abrera turns out to be...yes, a true blue creationist! His creationist musings can be found on ppg. 984 and 1015-1016. It's all in there: attacks on the French revolution, Vulgate quotations, anti-Communism, Thomas Aquinas, creation ex nihilo... 

Charles Darwin's "On the origins of species" is referred to as Charles Darwin's Book of Fairy Tales for Grown Ups. I take it D'Abrera is a very conservative Catholic. 

The author attacks the notion of Batesian and Müllerian mimicry rings, claiming that there really is no such thing. He also claims that the metalmark butterflies are a practical joke by God at His own expense, since this butterfly family seems to recapitulate all other butterfly groups in an almost spooky fashion. I admit that they do. 

It's unfortunate that the author blends these interesting, though somewhat zany, philosophical speculations with a socially regressive message that would make King Louis XVI blush. Still, it does mean that I managed to solve a little mystery. 

[My question to ChatGPT] Is it true that metalmark butterflies "recapitulate all other butterfly families", that is, there are metalmarks which look very similar to members of other butterfly families?

Yes, it is true — metalmark butterflies (family Riodinidae) are remarkably diverse in appearance and often show striking resemblances to species from other butterfly families, including Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae, Pieridae, and Hesperiidae. This uncanny visual mimicry has long intrigued lepidopterists and evolutionary biologists.

---

🦋 Why Do Metalmarks Resemble Other Butterflies?

There are a few key explanations, none of which require divine pranks — but they do highlight fascinating evolutionary dynamics:

---

🔁 1. Mimicry (Batesian & Müllerian)

Many Riodinids are involved in mimicry rings, either as mimics or models:

• Batesian mimicry: A harmless species mimics a toxic one.

• Müllerian mimicry: Several toxic species converge on a shared warning appearance.

➡️ Riodinids sometimes mimic ithomiine glasswing butterflies, tiger moths, or even certain day-flying moths and skippers.

---

🎨 2. Morphological Plasticity and Evolutionary Flexibility

Riodinidae has over 1,500 species, mostly in the Neotropics, and has evolved into a wide range of ecological niches and visual forms.

• Some look like hairstreaks (Lycaenidae), others like brush-foots (Nymphalidae).

• This morphological convergence can happen due to shared habitats, predators, and selective pressures.

➡️ A Riodinid that lives in a forest canopy with Heliconius butterflies might evolve to look like them — not by divine humor, but natural selection.

---

🧬 3. Genetic and Developmental Flexibility

Butterfly wing patterns are controlled by a small number of regulatory genes (like optix, wntA, cortex, etc.). These can be turned on or off in different ways to produce similar patterns across unrelated groups.

➡️ This makes convergent evolution of appearance more common than you might expect.

---

🧠 D’Abrera’s Interpretation

Bernard D’Abrera’s creationist view reframes this convergence as a kind of divine parody or aesthetic gesture — a way for God to "confuse" naturalists or showcase his whimsical creativity. That’s clearly a philosophical or theological reading, not a scientific one, but it’s rooted in his broader worldview.

Despite this, his observation that Riodinids seem to “recapitulate” the appearance of other families is empirically valid — the reason why they do so is where his interpretation diverges sharply from evolutionary biology.

---

✅ Conclusion

Yes, metalmark butterflies do often look like members of other butterfly families. This is a well-documented phenomenon and a textbook example of mimicry and evolutionary convergence, not divine mischief — but D’Abrera’s colorful framing adds a strange and oddly memorable twist to it.

Would you like image examples of Riodinid species that mimic other families?

Dracula´s hidden kingdom

 

Credit: Charles J Sharp 

¨

“Dracula´s Hidden Kingdom” is the dramatic title of a fairly regular nature documentary about Transylvania in Romania. As far as I understand, Transylvania wasn´t even 15^th century warlord Vlad Dracula´s actual principality! It was probably British writer Bram Stoker (19^th century) who made the association and…well, here we are.

To give the docu some (tourist) “local color”, some scary castles, ruins and graveyards have been included, and something I take to be Gypsy music plays in the background while the narrator speaks. Most of the time, however, we get to see all the usual players: lynxes, wolves, red foxes, deer, beavers and European bison – OK, maybe the latter is new to most viewers! Birds shown include white storks, bee-eaters and the hoopoe. We also learn that there are 200 species of butterflies in Transylvania and 27 species of bats. I admit I had no idea so many species of these particular critters even existed in Europe! Sources?

Apparently, Homo sapiens have lived in Transylvania for 40,000 years (a Stone Age cave painting of a bison is shown) and throughout most of its history, the area was teeming with wildlife, including enormous herds of the just mentioned bison. Even today, at least the bear population seems to be thriving, while many other animals have diminishing populations. The bison were actually extirpated in the wild at one point, but have been reintroduced. Plans to establish a new national park in the Carpathians are mentioned. 

Personally, I have to admit that East European rural backwaters give me claustrophobia, but sure, maybe they are good for non-humane Animalia? Perhaps somewhere in that vast mountain wilderness, some lonely vampire is still stalking the hills… 

The land of desolation

 

So I just watched the nature documentary "Wild Ireland: Kingdom of Stone", about the apparently world famous karst landscape between County Clare and County Galway known as the Burren. I admit I never heard about it before! Or maybe I did, since parts of this docu reminds me of - surprise - other documentaries about western Ireland.

Animals shown include the pine marten, Daubenton´s bat, whooper swans and the butterfly known as the marsh fritillary. In the Atlantic Ocean we also find the finback whale (the world´s second largest animal) and the basking shark (the world´s second largest fish). The basking sharks occasionally gather in one place and swim in a large circle, nobody really knows why. But yes, it does look majestic.

The Burren also has an interesting human history. Here we find Neolithic grave monuments, abandoned churches and monasteries, and a mysterious tower once inhabited by none other than W B Yeats (who apparently saw whooper swans as near-divine). Indeed, the landscape is man-made in the sense that Neolithic farmers cut down all the trees, presumably to give room for agriculture and cattle. 

"The Kingdom of Stone" has a romantic (or Romantic) undertone, and frequently shows ravens (?) flying across the bizarre landscape of karst and ruins. Ahem, Ireland is a modern, globalized territory these days...

Still, could be interesting on a boring Wednesday evening. 

Controversial clades

 

This one might be a bit confusing, tbh. But there you go!

Rädda nipsippan! Länge leve Sovjetunionen!

Credits: Sharp Photography 

Den senaste rysk-kinesiska påverkansoperationen: få Sverige att avstå från cementproduktion (och därmed tvingas importera cement från ondskans nya axelmakter) för att "rädda nipsippan och väddnätfjärilen". Nu väntar vi bara på att Oksanen och Wolodarski ska lyfta den sino-rusiska infiltrationen av Länsstyrelsen på Gotland (visste inte ens att det fanns en sådan). 

Nipsippan och väddnätfjärilen ställs mot cementproduktion

Hilarious hedylids

This is a hilarious "nerd article" from Wikipedia, dealing with a group of "American moth-butterflies" (!!!) known as the Hedylidae. Apparently, these lovely little critters (35 species) look like moths but are butterflies. Or is it the other way around? And why would anyone even give a damn? 

The sources cited have fantasmagorically boring titles such as "Elusive ditrysian phylogeny: An account of combining systematized morphology with molecular data (Lepidoptera)" or "Creataceous origin of repeated tertiary diversification of the redefined butterflies". 

From these tours de force (and some others), we learn that the hedylids have a number of surprisingly butterfly-like characteristics, including a second median plate of forewing base lying partly under the base of vein "1A+2A" (quite unlike the configuration in moths) or ventral larval proleg "crochet" hooks not forming a complete circle, unlike the configuration in hesperiids and papilionoids. Or is that last thing an error, since the nerd was supposed to tell us the *similarities* with the non-redefined butterflies, not the differences? 

It seems the coordination between 19th century scientists wasn´t always the best, since the genus name Hedyle has also been graciously bestowed upon a group of sea slugs and one genus of polychaete worms (whatever that is exactly - well, they certainly aren´t butterflies, at any rate, not even redefined ones). It seems the taxonomy of the plants hedylid caterpillars feed on with reckless abandon is even more complex than that of these moths themselves - whoever heard of eurosid II orders or the APG II system?

A more fun fact is that one of the entomologists who researched these insecta was also a talented pianist, and that his name really was Louis Beethoven Prout (no relation to the famous composer, though!). 

I was a bit surprised that the original thesis arguing that Hedylidae are butterflies rather than moths was published already in 1986 in the Bulletin of the British Museum (surely not *the* most obscure source?), since I never seen the hedylids mentioned in any butterfly-associated context ever, so how do we know we´re not dealing with some kind of original research here, which surely must break Wiki´s guidelines? Can the Wiki commentariat please weigh in on this? 

Or no?  

Hedylidae

Titta vem som blivit fjärilssamlare

Den här fulblaskan upphör aldrig att förvåna, nu låtsas de bry sig om den svenska fjärilsstammen! Okej, de kanske gör något slags koppling till svensk mylla, svenska kullor, och storsvenska erövringar i *väster*led, för jag antar att Fria Tider *egentligen* inte gillar Karl XII eftersom de frontar för Putte?  

Larmet: Två arter av dagfjärilar försvunna från Sverige

A collector's item

Yes, this is “A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Britain and Europe” by L G Higgins and N D Riley. The color plates were made by Brian Hargreaves. Higgins-Riley (as the field guide was widely called) is something of a classic, originally published in 1970. A thoroughly revised and somewhat expanded edition saw the light of day in 1980.

The guide was considered indispensable by more experienced butterfly aficionados, while being extremely difficult to use for newbies. Indeed, I wonder if Higgins-Riley isn't really geared towards actual butterfly collectors, rather than the occasional butterfly-watcher, since the plates show “pinned” specimens. Originally, Higgins also wanted to include pencil drawings of genitalia and other diagnostic characteristics hardly visible on a sunny summer day in the field!

The guide covers Europe outside the Soviet Union (almost – for some reason, it does cover the three Baltic republics) and the northern parts of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. It also covers the Canary Islands, the Azores and Madeira. It doesn't include species or subspecies endemic on Cyprus or the Aegean Islands. I'm not sure if this geographic range makes any kind of sense, or whether it was chosen for purely practical reasons. The Cold War? We are also kindly informed that all species are illustrated, except Delattin's Grayling and Cretan Grayling. The migratory Monarch, which occasionally shows itself in Europe, isn't covered at all, but then, it's hard to confuse with anything else!

Otherwise, I must say that the vernacular names of butterflies are more boring than those of moths, perchance suggesting that Victorian-era moth collectors were quite the characters. The butterflies, by contrast, mostly have names such as Greenish Black-tip, Lesser Clouded Yellow, Large White or Common Blue. Sounds like the name of backbenchers in the House of Lords…

OK, I admit. I'm just an occasional butterfly-watcher, not a collector. I'm also a republican. With a lower-case r, I hasten to add.

Lepidopterology for human larvae

A review of "Little Lepidopterist" 

This is the sequel to E L Botha's “Little Ornithologist”. This time, the baby is introduced to the world of butterflies, with color photos of ten species found in North America (including, of course, the iconic Monarch). The species presentations are even shorter than the ones found in “Little Ornithologist”, but then, this is introductory material for small kids! Three stars. Also available in paperback.

Butterfly Moses

"The butterflies of Egypt" by Torben B. Larsen was published in 1990. It attempts to summarize the then-current knowledge of Egyptian butterflies and place them in an ecological and biogeographical perspective. Since there are only 58 species of butterflies in the land of the Pharaohs, the book is relatively short. It includes colour plates.

The author has been very thorough, and one chapter is titled "Species that might possibly occur in Egypt, surprising absentees or species that have been recorded in error". One of the surprises is the Old World Swallowtail, common in Israel but unknown in Egypt. A Zionist? The Common Baron was once found on imported mango at Suez. It's really an Indian species.

Larsen clearly wants to impress his readers, at one point claiming to have seen the Sahara Swallowtail hill-topping around the little chapel at the summit of Gebel Musa, better known as Mount Sinai. If he also saw burning bushes, is not revealed.

All in all, I give this little book on Egyptian butterflies five stars. Next year, I'm sure our Butterfly Moses can write a book about the butterflies of Libya!

The Monarch mystery

"The Incredible Journey of the Butterflies" is a Nova documentary about the iconic Monarch butterfly and its strange journeys across the North American continent.

The "eastern" population of Monarchs migrates to a relatively small area in central Mexico, the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, where they spend the winter. In the spring, the Monarchs return northwards. Curiously, the back journey takes three or four generations, with each succeeding generation somehow "knowing" where to migrate. The last generation in the cycle knows that they should fly southwards to Mexico again! Apparently, these insects can navigate using the position of the sun or perhaps magnetic fields. How the migration route is inherited by subsequent generations is, of course, an interesting question... (The "western" population migrates to southern California, but this is not mentioned in the documentary.)

The documentary doesn't just show us the actual butterflies, but also gives us glimpses of their cultural significance. In Mexico, the local population regards (or used to regard) the Monarchs as the returning spirits of the ancestors, perhaps because the Monarch in-migration coincides with the traditional celebration known as "The Day of the Dead". The relatively poor locals also earn extra money during the Monarch ingathering, by selling souvenirs, renting room for tourists, etc. Unfortunately, the Monarch reserve is threatened by illegal logging operations. Although the WWF pays locals to protect the forest, this has proven more or less impossible, since the illegal loggers are often armed and dangerous. (The sole illegal logger interviewed on the show claims that he is simply trying to survive.)

The documentary also shows the cultural impact of the Monarch in the United States, where children are hired to band the large butterflies for scientific research programs. The entomologists studying the Monarchs virtually worship the creature. One aspect not mentioned (it's a Nova documentary, after all) is the creationist/ID interest in Monarchs, obvious on Youtube, where every other thread dealing with Monarchs and other butterflies seem to be about God or religion!

"The Incredible Journey of the Butterflies" is a good introduction to "Danaus plexippus", and I therefore give it four stars.

A guilty pleasure

I've only watched the trailer and the short pre-views of this DVD. It seems to be a well-produced documentary about butterflies in general and Monarchs in particular, arguing the case for so-called Intelligent Design. The metamorphosis of the caterpillar into an actual butterfly is said to be a problem for Darwin's theory of evolution. Paul Nelson from Biola University and the Discovery Institute is prominently featured.

I don't believe in “intelligent design” in the creationist sense of that term, but I admit that the sneak peeks were a real guilty pleasure. Get real, guys, complete metamorphosis of the butterfly kind *is* difficult to explain on the basis of pure, reductionist, blind materialism! Of course, you're not allowed to actually *say* so, but since I'm pseudonymous, I might as well take my chances…

However (a big however), there are problems with creationist “intelligent design”, too. The strict dualism between Mind and Dead Matter doesn't seem to make much sense. Since everything points to the universe being very old, it's difficult to see why a supposedly omnipotent deity waited millions of years before creating the first butterflies out of nothing (or out of a pre-butterfly by an enforced macro-mutation). Why couldn't the deity rig the process in advance of the Big Bang? Or why can't the universe be a creative, ever-evolving emanation from a pan-en-theistic deity? Or a “fallen” emanation? This kind of soft teleology, with evolution based on some kind of pre-existent information matrix, makes most sense of the facts.

So yes, Virginia, butterflies really did evolve. So did moths, bombardier beetles and, cough cough, creationists. And no, the process wasn't strictly materialist or “blind”. Intelligence, consciousness and goal-directedness are parts of the deep structures of the universe. The butterflies are a particularly beautiful manifestion of these structures. Humans are…well, perhaps a more ugly (and blind) one. And yes, after spewing all this rank mysticism, I presumably have to go back to the 19th century, where I clearly belong!

Down and out in Africa

"Butterflies of the Afrotropical Region" is a ridiculously huge work of almost 600 pages, featuring photos of...well, butterflies from sub-Saharan Africa. When I looked through the book, I got a really weird feeling. I imagined that I had seen the butterflies before somewhere. And I don't mean the species, I mean the actual specimens! Had I finally lost it after all these years, slowly descending into barking insanity? Or was something else going on...?

Luckily (for me), "something else" turned out to be the correct option. The butterflies in this mammoth work are specimens from the collection of the British Museum. I happen to have another book featuring photos of specimens from the very same collection, "Butterflies of the world" by H.L. Lewis. Obviously, I'm not going crazy. What Bernard d'Abrera thinks he's up to, is something else again...

I'm sure libraries would want to have this book, and the other books in the series, in their reference sections. It could also be a collectors' item. However, I would never give $ 600 for a book stashed with pinned butterflies made in Britain. Frankly, can you imagine anything more boring?

Huston, quit the ganya and check this out!

"Butterflies of the Neotropical region. Part 1" is part of a mammoth work covering all butterflies of the world. This is the first volume dealing with South and Central America. It contains sections on the families Papilionidae (swallowtails) and Pieridae (the Whites).

Sometimes, you can find really strange things in books on natural history. I was reminded of Huston Smith's book "Forgotten Truth" when looking through Bernard D'Abrera's work. Am I getting crazy again? Well, not entirely.

In his perennial classic, Smith claims (only part flippantly) that a hummingbird might be the Platonic form of a bird pretending to be a butterfly, and that it just fell from the sky one day, with no previous evolutionary history. I couldn't help thinking of this rather peculiar alternative to Darwinism when I saw that D'Abrera's book on butterflies starts off with two verses from the Vulgate, and an extensive quote from Thomas à Kempis.

For reasons all his own, the author quotes the epistle to the Colossians, 1:16-17: "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." Amen to that, brother! The statement by Kempis is less clear: "What signifies making a great dispute about hidden and obscure things, which we shall not to be reproved in the judgement, for having been ignorant of? (...) And what matter is it to us of genera and species? He to whom the Eternal Word speaks is delivered from a multitude of opinions". I never read "The Imitation of Christ", but something tells me Kempis wasn't talking about butterflies...

I guess D'Abrera is advising his entomological colleagues to stop arguing over the finer points of lepidopteran taxonomy, and simply enjoy their natural beauty. A noble sentiment. Except, of course, that all butterflies in this book are in pinned conditions and taken from the collection of the British Museum. LOL.

Well, at least it's good to know that the thorough explorers of the Neotropical region can't lay their hand on the Platonic form of a butterfly...

Madame Butterfly

"Butterflies of the Oriental Region, Part 1" is a reference work on the butterflies of south Asia: India, Indochina, south China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaya and the East Indies up to Flores.

It covers three families: Papilionidae, Pieridae and Danaidae. In contrast to many other volumes of this "mother of all encyclopedias", this one could actually work on your coffee table. The reason is, of course, the large and dramatic species of the Oriental region Papilionidae, the birdwing and swallowtail butterflies. The local milkweed butterflies (Danaidae) are also something to actually write home about. "Butterflies of the Oriental region, part 1" is thus excellent for your collection of must-see butterfly books.

Of course, in other ways this work could be considered boring. The species presentations are extremely short, and the photos (although in color) show pinned specimens from the collections of the British Museum.

Still, it's impressive that some butterflies look "all that" even when dead...

Five stars - for who- or whatever made, spawned or selected for the south Asian Papilionidae and Danaidae. ;-)

Five-star butterflies

Bernard D'Abrera is a somewhat curious author, photographer and butterfly-collector who has blessed the world with a multi-volume reference work on the butterflies of the world, "butterfly" as in the superfamily Papilionoidea. Skippers need not apply!

This is the second part of "Butterflies of the Neotropical region", and includes the Danaidae, Ithomidae, Heliconidae and Morphidae. The species presentations are extremely short, and all butterflies are shown in pinned position, straight from the collections of the British Museum. No vernacular names are included.

Despite this, this particular volume is nevertheless an excellent collectors' item or coffee table book. The species shown are large and conspicuous. The Morphidae are super-large!

Since these books contain very little "real" information, I'm not sure how they should really be put to use, but this particular volume deserves five stars thanks to the butterflies themselves...