Germany has fallen

 

Credit: Christian Fischer

The invasion has begun...

Germany battles aggressive outbreak of poisonous caterpillars

On the Wallace line

 

- Nah, if you try and steal the butterflies, I just call my grandmama Kali! 

On the cryptid cusp

 

A video entitled "The Most Mysterious Cryptids in the World". Somewhat ironically, many of them seem more plausible than the regular cryptids?! Perhaps because we are dealing with actual physical evidence. Or even strange species theorized to exist, which were later actually discovered.

Of course, there are some exceptions. I mean, "Strange Creatures Seldom Seen" is obviously a collection of folklore or even talltales, so don´t worry, no super-sized woodpecker larger than an eagle will corner you in the Canadian outback! Well, I hope...

Could be of some passing interest.

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. 

Offended by the euphemisms

 

A guy with ideas that offend 

OK, I can´t let this one go...

The bizarre thing with the Woke is that they use "safe space" euphemisms even when discussing fascism and Nazism. It´s like a sick joke. Maybe it is?

Bro, Mussolini´s fascism wasn´t "an idea that offends". Nor does the name Hitler "have an objectionable sound to modern ears". Nor were Adolph and Benito simply "controversial figures". Geezus. The Nazis were genocidal maniacs, for crying out loud!

And why is Beyoncé mentioned in the same headline as Duce and der Führer? 

They are laughing at us. I´m offended by the euphemisms. Can I file a complaint with the HR department? 

Hitler beetle, Trump moth, Beyoncé fly 

Controversial clades

 

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

Curiosity killed the moth

 

Credit: James Lindsey/Ecology of Commanster

Curiosity is supposedly a virtue, and all that, but I can´t help thinking that scientists get some kind of power trip out of this kind of research. During a number of recent field trips to Morocco, lepidopterists discovered 12 new species of Coleophora, a genus of micro-moths. 

While I suppose that´s fascinating somehow, I wonder if this gives scientists (and the rest of us) the illusion of control over the natural world, the universe and/or Existence itself? We can find any small critter, catalogue it and fit it into a vast Systeme. We can also colonize the Moon and terraform Mars. And become like gods? 

Perhaps the really interesting observation here is that 12 species of living creatures could evade discovery by Science (or is it Man) for tens of thousands of years...

Who knows what else is out there, LOL.  

New and little known Coleophora from Morocco 

Plants are people

 

"What Plants Talk About" is a National Geographic documentary, following a number of scientists in Canada and the United States as they try to prove that plants are more advanced than hitherto believed. Plants, it turns out, don´t live sedentary and solitary lives. Rather, they espouse a wide range of animal-like behaviors including foraging, making choices, communication, territoriality and kin-recognition. Or at least that´s what Dr James Cahill, a featured plant ecologist, believes. He concedes, though, that most people would consider him crazy! Or crazy and wrong...

Regardless of how you chose to interpret the activities of plants, they are fascinating. One segment of the documentary deals with the wild tobacco plant and its constant chemical warfare against the predators that would like to feast on its stem and leaves. The nicotine is actually a toxin meant to poison each and every bug that dares to attack this particular plant. However, hawkmoth caterpillars or hornworms are practically immune to nicotine, prompting the plant to take further action. By emitting a different chemical, the tobacco plant can attract big-eyed bugs, which feed on hawkmoth eggs and caterpillars. The plant can also offer "sweats" to the caterpillars through its trichomes (fine outgrowths on the stem), but the gift is deadly: the chemical marks the caterpillar for predation, as other animals can now sense its smell! Bizarrely, the hawkmoth is also the main pollinator of wild tobacco plants - that´s why the plant blooms during the night. However, the plant can somehow chose to change the shape of its flowers and the taste of their nectar, and instead bloom during daytime, attracting a very different pollinator - the hummingbird - which doesn´t threaten it later on. 

One group of scientists have tried to find out whether or not plants can recognize their kin, in this case their "siblings" (plants that have the same "mother"). It turns out that some species indeed can, something that almost shocked the research team. One such species is the searocket, which grows on sandy beaches in Canada. The plants grow more roots if they grow close to "strangers", and politely restrain root growth if they grow near "siblings". A clear example of genetic altruism among plants. (The roots identify each other chemically.)

The last segment of the docu deals with "the wood-wibe web", more formally known as mycorrhizal networks. Mycorrhiza is a form of symbiosis between trees and fungi, which mutually exchange nutrients. However, it seems that entire forests can form "networks" of "communication" and resource-sharing through this symbiosis. "Mother" trees can send nutrients to their "daughters" (saplings) through the fungal-based network.

One problem with "What Plants Talk About" is that it seems to be geared towards a popular audience steeped in New Age thinking. It´s not *that* obvious, but it shines through here and there. Thus, the Hollywood fantasy flick "Avatar" is mentioned, and the question of altruism is nature is treated as some kind of mystery, which (of course) it isn´t. The kin recognition of the searockets is standard genetic altruism, and other behaviors mentioned could be interpreted as reciprocal altruism. All described long ago in books by Richard Dawkins! 

Or am I just imagining all this? 

The never stated question underlying this entire production is whether or not plants actually have consciousness. One scientist suggests that the wild tobacco plant might have "self-awereness". Personally, I think the answers very much depends on how you define "consciousness". What does it take to be conscious? After all, nobody denies that plants or fungi are alive. But are they "conscious" in the animal sense (really human sense - nobody cares about caterpillars)? Perhaps a better question is: Do plants *need* to be conscious in an animal way in order to "forage", "communicate", and so on? We may simply be animalo-centric for assuming that "consciousness" in the standard sense is the only thing that can make shit happen on Planet Crazy...  

  

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

Insectoid aliens?

Some fascinating speculations in this one. The claim that some UFOs are "simply" insect swarms may sound like a typical armchair skeptic debunking, but as cryptozoologist Karl Shuker demonstrates here, there is nothing simple about it. It seems that some insects can glow due to electrical discharges in the air after thunderstorms! 

I´m not sure whether this has been scientifically proven, but it certainly sounds as an interesting addition to the "natural but really weird" kind of explanations for supposedly paranormal phenomena. So the next time you see a glowing flying disc in the sky during a forest foraging foray, it might actually be an enormous aggregation of ants or moths! 

Nature has never been more strange... 

UFO-logical encounters of the insect kind?

Natives and strays

This is a volume of the Swedish encyclopedia "Nationalnyckeln", subtitled "Ädelspinnare - tofsspinnare. Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae - Lymantriidae". It presents 144 Nordic species of macro-moths belonging to three superfamilies: Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea and Noctuoidea (excluding the unwieldy family Noctuidae). 

After a huge introductory chapter follows species presentations, range maps and keys. Most illustrations and photos are in color. Apart from adult specimens, many larvae are also illustrated (some of them are pretty bizarre). The volume covers spectacular species such as the Garden Tiger, Cinnabar Moth, Oleander Hawk Moth, Privet Hawk Moth, Death´s-Head Hawk Moth and Tau Emperor. 

The work is surprisingly comprehensive. The Large Tiger Moth (Pericallia) is included, despite being a rare stray in the Nordic region. The Cream-Spot Tiger (common in Central Europe and Russia) has only been found in Sweden a couple of times during the 18th and 19th centuries, with the last (unconfirmed) report being from 1930, when a specimen was found caught in a spider´s web in Scania! Yet, it too has a full species presentation. OK, let me guess. Whoever made this book is a hardline macro-moth aficionado? 

Recommended even if you don´t understand a word of it, since "Nationalnyckeln: Ädelspinnare - tofsspinnare" is a good collector´s item in its own right. 

No, we don't enjoy the silence

Taylor Swift's silence on the turanoeremic and mongoloeremic distribution of certain lepidopterous insects is deafening, and given the present chaotic state of noctuid cladistics, not a little chilling.

Sweden's most wanted moths

“Nationalnyckeln” (NN) is a Swedish biological encyclopedia. Originally, over 100 volumes were projected, but at the time of writing, it's unclear how many will really be published. Since 2005, 17 volumes have seen the light of day. Or at least been rushed to the printers! This one (code DE 1-13) covers the first 13 families of Lepidoptera, considered to be more “primitive” than other butterflies and moths. 12 of the families covered are “micro-moths”, while one (Hepialidae, which includes the Ghost Moth) has traditionally been classified as “macro-moths”. Today, these terms are generally considered somewhat unscientific.

The volume describes all 256 Nordic species of the relevant families, and is one of the largest NN volumes, being 645 pages long. It's also one of the more boring. Let's face it, micro-moths aren't *that* interesting, unless you're a super-nerd extraordinaire. But if you are (provided you also understand Swedish), you'll gonna love this one, since most covered species are illustrated in color (if you can call micro-moths colorful), with additional black-and-white drawings of their genitalia. The keys to identification are bilingual (Swedish-English), and very short English summaries of the species presentations have been appended to the main entries.

My little butterfly collection was actually destroyed (and eaten) by moth larvae, but unfortunately the culprits remain unidentified, although I'm sure they are hiding somewhere in this massive tome! Let me guess. The Common Clothes Moth got tired of eating Swedish textiles? The only interesting section (to me, at any rate) deals with Psychidae. Within this family, many species have bizarre, wingless and parthenogenetic forms. Somehow, I consider the idea of a wingless moth slightly sinister…

But that's me. I will nevertheless award this volume of Nationalnyckeln five stars!

I have excellent sources

This is the 10th volume in a 15-volume series covering all European species of owlet moths. At least I think it does! This volume deals with the two subfamilies Catocalinae and Plusiinae. From the top of my head, the only catocalinids I'm familiar with are the underwings (Catocala).

Each species presentation is divided into three sections, titled Diagnosis, Bionomics and Distribution. Range maps are included, and I'm pleased to report that in this book, “Europe” actually means Europe – all the way to the Urals and the Caucasus (but excluding Cyprus). The photographic plates are in color, but form a separate section of at the back of the book. The poor moths are shown in pinned condition. The collectors' names are included, which may become a security problem if Mothra ever turns out to be a real creature… There is also a section showing magnified photos of, ahem, noctuid genitals.

The book is *not* for the general reader, instead being a specialized work for noctuid-interested scientists only. The language is heavy and technical. I found several strange and unfamiliar terms already in the first few paragraphs: trifine, quadrifine, quadrifines, Hennigian principles, autamorphies and juxta. The word “irritating” is, I believe, more common and above all, more known! The in-house character of this book is obvious already from the front flap, which shows a photo of author Barry Goater when he was five years old with a butterfly net made for him by his grandfather. A large portion of the volume discusses various problems of noctuid taxonomy. Apparently, many of the owlet moths are hard to catch, phylogenetically speaking, and the exact classification of them constantly changes. Indeed, some believe that Noctuidae should be split up into two distinct families, the new kid on the block being christened Erebidae. Something tells me the guys behind this volume will have a lot to do in the decades ahead!

As usual, the team behind “Noctuidae Europaeae” uses fantastic sources. How about E Aisleitner's and L Rézbányai's 1982 earth-shaking article “Neu für Österreich: Diachrysia nadeja Obth 1880 auch nördlich der Alpen nach gewiesen (Noct.)”, published in “Nota Lepidopterologica” 5 (2 – 3)? Other referenced journals include “Bulletin de la Classe-Physico-Mathématique de l'Académie Impériale de St Pétersburg”, “Memoirs of the Southern California Academy of Sciences” and “The Lepidoptera of Transbaikalia” (in Russian). The most intriguing source, and I say this un-ironically, is from 1797. One T Martyn then published a small booklet called “Psyche: Figures of Nondescript Lepidopterous Insects of Rare Moths and Butterflies from Different Parts of the World”. I assume our dream team has managed to describe some of these, yes?

Not sure how to rate this product, actually brokered by the Carlsberg Foundation (I assumed their primary interest was other than owlet moth phylogeny, but what do I know?), so as compromise I give it three stars.