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.

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 

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...  

  

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.

Byelorussian bugs

Believe it or not, but this book was originally published in Minsk back in 1967. Minsk was, of course, a city in the Soviet Union. The English-language translation is from 1988. It's part of an ambitious program financed by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the purpose of which is to translate important foreign-language scientific works. Apparently, a book on the owlet moth larvae of Byelorussia counts as sufficiently important. It's said to be an excellent complement to H. Beck's classic "Die Larvalsystematik der Eulen", which covers Central Europe.

:D

The American editor of the translation questions the keys, and admits that he never heard of the curious preservation techniques used by the Minsk museum of natural history. As for the author, O.I. Merzheevskaya, she pretends that her book has great utilitarian value, since owlet moth larvae are a pest damaging crops, pastures, berries, etc. Therefore, an identification guide is surely needed! In reality, the author is a lady who never left her (sic) bug period, but admitting this behind the Iron Curtain was presumably a no-no.

I'm not sure how to rate this boring reference work on White Russian bugs, but in the end I'll give it three stars. Or instars?

Worth waiting for

OK, I admit it. I'm a geek. About a year ago, I tried to set some kind of world record here at Amazon, posting 84 cranky reviews in a row. I also expressed my great sorrow and disappointment that our favourite vendor wasn't selling the 15-volume mastodon work "Noctuidae Europaeae". I mean, imagine what I could have done with *them*? However, it seems the gods have been smiling at me this week, because guess what showed up at the Amazon horizon?

Yes, you guessed it: "Noctuidae Europaeae. Vol 4. Hadeninae I." by Hermann Hacker, László Ronkay and Márton Hreblay, published by Entomological Press at Soroe, Denmark in 2002. A unique Hungarian-Danish co-production, I'm sure. And in the English language, to boot! I mean, my Hungarian *is* a bit rusty...

The in-house character of the book becomes readily apparent already at the dust jacket, which shows a painted self-portrait of a 20 year old Hermann Hacker back in 1971, and a photo of an 18 year old László Ronkay from 1973. The self-styled "Editor-in-chief", Michael Fibiger, starts off the preface with the words: "Hadeninae I - Finally! The editorial board and authors are pleased to present this long-awaited volume in the series Noctuidae Europaeae, scarcely a year after the publication of the previous volume, Hadeninae II. Although in preparation for many years, part of the delay has been waiting for the completion of revisions of large genera and tribes in the old sense Hadeninae, which of course include large numbers of extra-limital, non-European species".

Of course.

I also note that the encyclopaedia is funded by...wait for it...the Carlsberg Foundation. Carlsberg really is the best beer in the world.

So what's all the fuzz and buzz about, then? What are the Noctuidae? Well, they are...you know, moths. Owlet-moths, to be exact. Yes, we are talking about a 15-volume encyclopaedia covering all species of owlet-moths found in Europe. And this is all bankrolled by the same guys who gave us Danish ale! :D

Of course, this makes the potential readership of "Noctuidae Europaeae" rather narrow, and I don't think the present volume is an exception to the rule. "Hadeninae I" covers the tribes Hadenini and Mythimnini. Causal readers better get to learn fancy-sounding words such as subgenus, paneremic, nominotypical, turanoeremic, saccular, fascia, crenate and synonymy. All this just from the first entry, about the truly exquisite owlet-moth Hadula (Hadula) sabolurum pulverata (Bang-Haas 1907). It's only been found once in Europe, at the Maltese Islands, but is included anyway. Incidentally, in this book, Europe really means Europe, all the way to the Urals and the Caspian Sea.

Each species presentation contains sections on Taxonomy, Notes, Diagnosis, Bionomics and Distribution. Range maps are included. The photographic colour plates show the poor moths in pinned, stiffed, unnatural position. Yepp, it's a science books! Let me guess. The moths were "sugared" with Carlsberg beer? There are also plates showing genitalia figures, for identification purposes only.

Obviously, a tour de force of this kind is bound to be based on some really obscure source materials. Thus, there is Beshkov's 1995 article "A contribution to the knowledge of the Lepidoptera fauna of Albania. Some findings of a collection trip in September 1993", published in "Atalanta", issue 26. Or how about the 970 pages long work by E. Berio, "Noctuidae I. Generalità Hadeninae Cuculiinae. Fauna d'Italia. Lepidoptera", published in Bologna by Edizione Calderini. Can I review it, please? But the real scorcher is surely a Swedish book from 1840 by one J W Zetterstedt, "Insecta Lapponica" at 1,140 pages sharp. I didn't even knew there were that many bugs in Lapland!

For the general reader, this is a no-no, especially at the price of 235 dollars just for this single volume, but if you are an owlet-mothing geek, an associate professor of entomology in Albania, or an insane Amazon reviewer, "Noctuidae Europaeae" probably is a must-have.

Just don't tell me I didn't warn you!

Probably the best beer in the world

Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce the catch of the day: "Noctuidae Europaeae, Vol 5, Hadeninae II", brought to us by László Ronkay, José Luis Yela and Marton Hreblay in cooperation with Matti Ahola.

Apparently, lepidopterists are in some kind of crisis. The Hampsonian concept of the trifine and quadrifine subfamilies have been generally shaken with new phylogenetic concepts and suprageneric classifications published, to no avail. Don't ask me what this means, but it seems to be the entomological equivalent of the fiscal cap. There goes our grant money!

Not to worry, the editors of "Noctuidae Europaeae" are up to the task, bankrolled (as usual) by the Carlsberg Foundation (yes, the guys with the Danish beer). In this volume, our valiant knights save the day by introducing a monophyletic rather than subfamilial structure. They also sternly declare that infrasubspecific names are biologically meaningless.

Somehow, I suspected that all along.

Otherwise, everything is pretty much the same. Interested readers might want to read my review of Vol. 4 of this series for the full story...

Male genitalia of mandibulate moths

This is a 1,000-page reference work entitled “Keys to the Insects of the European Part of the USSR”, Volume IV, Lepidoptera, Part 1. It's said to be the 117th volume of an even larger work, “Keys to the Fauna of the USSR”. The English-language translation was commissioned by E J Brill Publishing in Holland, but printed in India. We are gravely warned that “its export from India is unauthorized”, presumably without explicit permit from E J Brill.

Could be good to know, if you ever find two or three copies of this mammoth work in a used book store somewhere in Goa and wish to avoid problems with the customs at the airport...

This volume is said to cover moths belonging to the groups Microjugata, Macrojugata and 17 minor families of Frenata. I suppose these are discarded taxa, since I can't find them on Wiki or even the web at large! Most illustrations are black-and-white drawings of diagnostic characters such as wings or male genitalia. This may not be such a big deal in the chapters on mandibulate moths, pygmy moths and monochromatic miner moths, but strikes me as a somewhat boring approach when applied to clearwing moths or forester moths…

Clearly, editor-in-chief G S Medvedev has compiled an excellent work for real scientists only. In particular those interested in, well, Euro-Russian moths.

Thank you.

Soviet smorgasbord

This voluminous volume (1,092 pages) is titled “Keys to the Insects of the European Part of the USSR. Vol IV. Lepidoptera. Part II”. Originally a Russian-language work published in the Soviet Union, it was translated to English by a Dutch publisher, E J Brill, in 1989 and printed by Oxonian Press in India. We are sternly warned that all “export” of the book from India is unauthorized, whatever that means. I can't board an airplane to Amsterdam if I buy one at Osho's ashram in Poona in perfect used condition?

The volume covers 33 families of moths of the Frenatae regarded as “lower” by the editor, whatever *that* means in Darwinian terms. The book covers clothes moths and other pests of stored goods. Clearly, these dishonored butterflies are perfectly adapted to their chosen environments! Since this is a scientific reference work, there are few illustrations, and those that have been included show diagnostic characters, including “types of damage”, i.e. what kind of mines the larvae of moths do inside leafs! A long list of moth-attracting food plants includes pretty much everything from apricot and arctic birch to wormwood and yellow toadflax. “Lower” moths, indeed. If you ask me, I'd say the Euro-SSSR is a gigantic smorgasbord!

Not for the general reader, but for specialists in the lower rungs of the Great Chain of Mothly Being, probably a must.

Ike just called it Russia

This little work is entitled “Lepidopterous Fauna of the USSR and Adjacent Countries” and is dedicated to the memory of Professor Alexsandr Sergeevich Danilevskii, apparently some kind of stalwart of Soviet entomology. Edited by O L Kryzhanovskii, this gedenkschrift was originally published in Leningrad in 1973. The English translation, dated 1988, was financed by the U.S. National Science Foundation and published in New Delhi, India. Humorously, the American editor constantly refers to the Soviet Union as “Russia” in true blue Cold War style!

If you're interested in hyper-obscure subjects such as the phylogenetic relationships in the family Tortricidae based on studies of the functional morphology of the genital organs, or leaf-rollers of the southern part of the Soviet Far East and their seasonal cycles, or even the case moths of the Kyzyl-Kum desert, this may be just what you have been searching for all these years. If you're more interested in, say, the phylogenetic relationships of case moths of the northern part of the Far East, I'm afraid you will have to look elsewhere…

A little bit of everything

"The Natural History of Moths" by Mark Young is a book difficult to review. It contains information about a little bit of everything concerning moths. The author jumps from one subject to the next, almost like a rambling college lecturer, and although the book is about 230 pages long, it still feels like a introduction to the subject. Perhaps it is intended that way.

But yes, if you want solid scientific information about moths, this is probably the place to start. "Discovering moths" by John Himmelman feels less scientific, and many other books are field guides, the quality of which I cannot judge.

But if you buy "The Natural History of Moths", be prepared for a fast-paced roller-coaster ride! Mark Young has attempted to cover almost everything about moths in a little over 200 pages. Note that the book is about British moths, not American ones. The chapters cover the origin and distribution of British moths, their dispersal and migration, life cycles and hibernation, the relation between moth larvae and their food plants, mating behaviour and moth predators. The book ends with two chapters on how to catch moths, and how *not* to catch them (read conservation). The only topic not covered very extensively is the classification of moths. The book also contains an extensive bibliography. Since "The Natural History of Moths" was published in 1997, I assume most of the information isn't completely out of date.

Not being much of a mothman, I only skimmed the book. But yes, it does contain intriguing information. For instance, some moths can avoid being eaten by bats by disturbing their eco-location. Other moths migrate (like Monarch butterflies) over long distances, sometimes across most of Europe. Apparently, migrating moths often land at British oil platforms in the North sea. Some of them look so scary that the oilworkers usually kill them on sight! It turns out that moths can orientate with the aid of the sun, the moon, the stars, and even the Earth's magnetic field. The author also ponders why moths often have a more restricted distribution than their food plants. Perhaps soil quality has something to do with it? An edible plant might be less than edible in a region with "bad" soil. The tricky subject of "talking trees" is also discussed: how is it possible for trees unaffected by moth larvae to increase their defenses against moths if they stand close to an affected tree? Can trees really communicate with each other? (Clue: No, not really.) Of course, the book also discusses why moths are drawn to light, and it turns out that the issue is more complicated than may be assumed!

I recommend the book to budding scientists. Personally, I rather purchase a coffee table book about butterflies! :-D

Honorary butterflies

Some people have pretty original career choices. Imagine spending a lifetime as a scientist studying moths of the family Zygaenidae. Is that even fun?

Perhaps it is. As a child, I was also intrigued by the burnets, as these moths are called in English. (In Sweden, we call them "swarming crossbreeds". Yes, really.) They are conspicuous, diurnal and look very different from other moths, let alone butterflies. To me, they always vaguely resembled hymenopterans, perhaps parasitic wasps? Their status as diurnal moths add to the confusion, especially since the Swedish term for moth means "nocturnal butterfly". The burnets, it seems, are something as curious as diurnal nocturnal butterflies! Apparently, some scientists have jokingly called them honorary butterflies.

The author of the foreword to this book, Eva Rotschild, has experienced even stranger feelings towards burnets: "As a beginner I found them somewhat sinister and I still think their crude aposematic characteristics disseminate a subtle sense of Angst, difficult to define". Are burnets allies of Sartre, Kafka and Camus, one wonders?

As for the book itself, "The Western Palaearctic Zygaenidae" is essentially a mini-encyclopaedia covering all species of burnets found in Europe, Northwest Africa, Asia Minor, the Caucasus and the Transcaucasus. The closely related forester moths are also included. They belong to the same family as the burnets, but are less conspicuous. The book actually ends with a new species of forester, discovered in Hungary as late as ten years ago!

The book isn't suited for the general reader. However, the language is surprisingly non-technical, making the book useful for entomology students or amateur naturalists with a special interest for moths. The introductory chapters cover all aspects of zygaenid biology. What scientists find most interesting about burnets are their high degree of geographical and individual variation, their toxicity (burnets contain cyanide!), the long diapause of their larvae, and their local abundance. The latter makes burnets an excellent indicator species of environmental change or destruction.

"The Western Palaearctic Zygaenidae" also contains sections on collection, breeding and the history of zygaenid research, complete with photos of famous entomologists who studied these insects (only old men, it seems).

The main part of the book contains the usual species presentations, range maps and colour plates, showing burnets and foresters in boring, pinned positions. Only a few photos show zygaenids in their natural environment. At least, they are in colour.

Recommended - if you are fan of honorary butterflies.

An enjoyable book about moths, men and Newcastle Brown Ale

"Enjoying moths" by Roy Leverton may the best introduction to moths and "mothing" currently on the market. Leverton is an amateur naturalist who has been fascinated by moths ever since his childhood (curiously, he grew up in a heavily industrialized and polluted city in Britain). He is also on a first name basis with Mark Young, the scientist who wrote another book published in this series, "The Natural History of Moths". This, plus a certain self-ironic attitude towards the mothing subculture, makes him an excellent choice for writing an introduction to moths.

It should be noted that "Enjoying moths" is mostly about British moths. Still, it could be interesting even for foreign readers. The book is illustrated with lage colour photographs of moths and their caterpillars, taken by the author himself. It covers all aspects of the subject: identification, collecting, where to find moths, their life cycle, moth photography, rearing moths in captivity, and the conservation of moths. Leverton also attempts to answer the perennial question "What is the difference between a butterfly and a moth?". (Not much, it turns out. Indeed, the moth on the front cover looks like a butterfly!)

The chapters on where and how to find moths are pretty detailed. For instance, we learn that blackberries, ivy bloom, honeydew, campions and sallow blossom are favourite moth haunts. Find the blackberry bush, spot the moth. Easy. We also get to know that many moths are actually diurnal, or at least partially so, and some can be found even in cities (at least British ones). Leverton also reveals a few curious tricks of the trade. Apparently, moths are drawn to a mixture of beer, treacle and brown sugar, which can be applied to tree trunks, wooden poles, and so on. The technique is known as "sugaring". Another beverage-linked way of attracting moths is "wine roping": thick ropes are soaked with a mixture of sugar and cheap red wine (Rosita?), and the ropes are then hanged on suitable places, for instance low tree branches. But, of course, the most common way of catching moths is by light traps...

The most entertaining pieces of information in the book are about the mothing subculture. There isn't a specific chapter on it, but the subject keeps popping up here and there. Leverton mentions that some people have as a sick hobby to overturn long-established scientific names by sifting through old natural history magazines. According to the principles of scientific nomenclature, the oldest name has precedence, so if you can find a long forgotten Latin name of a certain moth from the time of the Napoleonic Wars, you might create havoc in the entire system of moth classification! He also reveals that the English names of many moths aren't taken seriously by hard-boiled moth experts, since the names often sound very strange: The Uncertain, Heart and Dart, Merveille du Jour, Creamspot Tiger or The Flame. (My favourite moth name, not mentioned by the author, is Setaceous Hebrew Character. Come again?) Names like these were often given to the moths by enthusiastic collectors working the British countryside over a century ago. There also used to be unscrupulous moth dealers, who imported exotic moths, and then sold them to unsuspecting collectors, claiming the rarities had been caught on British soil. Some old lists of which moth species have been found in Britain might therefore be incorrect. During his discussion of "sugaring", Leverton writes that many moth collectors have secret recipes for how to make the sugar-beer mixture as potent as possible. Some add rum, which is said to make the moths quite literally drunk! The best beer is supposed to be Newcastle Brown Ale (which apparently doesn't make the moths tipsy.) The author also admits that he has on occasion consumed the sugaring mixture himself, when he felt really hungry after a long nights walk in the woods. Is that why he prefers Newcastle?

Finally, a few observations on what this book is not. It's not a field guide to moths, although it does mention the most conspicuous families and how to tell them apart. In fact, the book constantly emphasizes how difficult it is to identify moths. Many moths are so variable that specimens found on the same tree look like several different species. Nor is it a book for the general reader. It's not difficult to read (quite the contrary), but it's so filled with esoteric facts about moths from page one, that you have to be very interested in the subject before even picking it up. If your interest in moths is only casual, you might be bored pretty quickly.

But if you are a budding little mothman, I'm sure you will enjoy the ride!

Mothing community in-house report (part 1)

First, some definitions. A moth is an insect, closely related to butterflies. The collection or observation of moths is called "mothing". What the people doing it should be called, is less clear. "Mothers", perhaps? For reasons of simplicity, I will call them that in this review. (Presumably, the "th" in "mother" is voiceless!)

"Discovering moths" by John Himmelman is too in-house for my taste. Although marketed as an introduction to moths and mothing, it rather strikes me as a book by a mother for other mothers. And to a large extent, it's *about* mothers as well. It's essentially a book for the amateur entomologist mutual admiration society. It's not bad for such purposes: if you have a son, daughter or friend who is obsessed by moths but short on cash, I'm sure this nerd book will be an excellent Christmas or birthday gift. However, I don't think you want to read it yourself!

One of the most esoteric chapters is about famous mothers in various parts of the United States - famous, that is, within the mothing community. Another equally internal chapter, deals with moths named after famous 19th century mothers! I'm sure you never heard of Augustus Grote, John Henry Camstock, Anna Botsford or Harrison Dyar. Well, neither have I.

"Discovering moths" also include sections on the moth life cycle, the best season to find various moth species, Gypsy Moths, silkworms, the horror movie "Godzilla versus Mothra", growing moths in captivity, and finding moths by day. Often the author pauses and tells some anecdote from his own field experience with moths: how he and his sweetheart were bombarded by Gypsy Moth mucus (or was it feces?), how he spent some quality time in the Smokies going through large piles of dead moths killed by scientists during a species survey, or how he followed a mother known as Big Easy to observe moths in broad day light.

The most interesting part of the book deals with the perennial conflict between collectors (who kill and collect moths) and anti-collectors (who believe killing moths is unethical).

And finally, guys, mark my words: a moth is nothing more than A NIGHT BUTTERFLY!