Butterfly Questions

[Phil Schappert]

On 26 May 1999 05:59:54 -0700, jhimmel at CONNIX.COM wrote:
>>Some people maintain that photography is more environmentally friendly
>>than collecting, but I wonder. There is an environmental cost to both
>>manufacturing and processing film, and that may not be insignificant
>>compared to the modest effects of removing a few individuals from
>>abundant populations. 
>
>Oh, come on now!  I was going on sit at the side while everyone was encouraging 
>the poster to collect until that statement.  If you want to take that route, how 
>about the chemicals used to kill the butterflies?  Good healthy stuff?  
>Rationalize all you want.  The bottom line for the INDIVIDUAL butterfly that is 
>being observed - not the population as a whole, because it probably won't be 
>affected by responsible collecting - is that it benefits less from being killed 
>than photographed. Some people, myself included, look at the individual 
>butterfly (or moth) as an individual butterfly and think of it in those terms 
>instead of it being just one of thousands.  Some of us enjoy the pursuit of this 
>pasttime this way.  There is nothing wrong with that.  If we choose to 
>photograph it instead of killing it, it flies off unharmed.  That makes some us 
>us happy.

I'll step in here... (in for a dime, in for a quarter...)

Ken makes a legitimate point regarding the ecological "cost" of film
and it's effects on the habitat of a population and the relative
"cost" of removing an individual butterfly from a population. I hadn't
considered it in that light and his comment provoked some thought on
my part.

Heres some news for you:

Most collectors don't use any chemicals at all. I don't consider
myself a collector but I DO collect for study purposes and I prefer to
freeze them when I have that option. Larger specimens can be easily
placed, alive, into glassine envelopes, and smaller specimens can be
kept in the dark in small vials, for transportation. Some people pinch
the thorax of specimens but I generally find that does too much damage
to them, especially to small specimens.

And don't assume that photography is automatically less intrusive --
I've seen well-meaning and knowledgeable photographers trash the
habitat, oftentimes a hostplant, around that "individual butterfly".
This is more destructive to the population than the removal of a
single specimen which, when done properly, has no effect on the
habitat.

Personally, I prefer to take photos but as my old entomology prof.
used to say, "You can't disect a photograph!" Collecting insects still
has a major role to play in understanding the world around us.
Rationalize that all you want...

Phil

---
Dr. Phil Schappert

Section of Integrative Biology,     Stengl-Lost Pines Biological Station, 
School of Biological Sciences       University of Texas,
University of Texas,                401 Old Antioch Rd, 
Austin, TX 78712-1064               Smithville, TX 78957 
Office/Lab: 512-471-8240            Station: 512-237-3864
Fax: 512-471-9651                   Fax: 512-237-3864 (call ahead) 

mailto:philjs at mail.utexas.edu       http://www.esb.utexas.edu/philjs

Imponderables: What should you do when you see an endangered animal 
               eating an endangered plant?