Pupae vs. Chrysalis

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
Subject: re: Pupae vs. Chrysalis


> Ken,
>     Maybe my teachers got it wrong or went to a different school from
> your's. I shall see if I can find a reference they might have used.
> Sawflies definitely have caterpillars, as do caddis flies some scorpion
> flies and snake flies.
>     It is probably simpler and less confusing to talk about larvae and
> pupae. I always do.
>     Back in 1957 when I raised Lepidoptera for the CNC in Ottawa, the lab
> report sheet for preserved specimens had a box for "instar". In this box
we
> put either e, l1, l2, l3, l4 . . . p, or a. Most holometabolous insects
> have more than four instars, most of which are larval and all are
separated
> from the others by a moult or egg laying.
> ............Chris Durden
> Does an Hedylid have a chrysalis? I would say yes, but I would use the
word
> pupa to describe it, and I would call the similar stage of an Orange Tip
a
> pupa too.

The above, what is below, and all on this topic is actually a satellite of
the larger subject of *Technically correct terms* (= names) verse common
terms (= names).   It is inescapable in all areas of life that in the
pursuit of knowledge everyone so engaged will sooner or later (depending on
their own pace of advancement)  reach a level of  expertise when
communication becomes more critical and thus technical.  Words gain much
more importance as the ideas and information they intend to communicate are
of a finer and finer degree.  Those who are "ahead" of those behind them in
the knowledge/understanding/communicating journey are often accused of
splitting hairs and just talking over others heads for the purpose of just
making themselves look impressive or elitist.  All they have really done is
learned that more technical terms ( = words, names etc.) are also the most
definitive, non subjective, less vague, and thus best way to communicate.
Thus, when Chris says, "It is probably simpler and less confusing to talk
about larvae and pupae. I always do",  not only do I concur, I would go one
step further and say there is no "probably" about it.   It is absolutely
both simpler and less confusing because it is technically accurate.


Ma-ma  Da-da must eventually become Betty Ann (Smith) Jones  and Robert
Gerald Jones.  Of course these parents are still Mommy and Daddy - these
"common" terms/names of endearment are not abandoned,  but more definitive
and informative names/terms are _added_.   It would be an odd person who
would refuse to move on beyond Mommy and Daddy - especially when
communicating to others or in formal settings.

This pupae vs. chrysalis thread is totally proper and the way it should be.
It is good, in my book, to note that no one has posted something like --
"Why are you all spending so much time talking about pupa or pupae,
chrysalis, imago, dipteran, coleopteran, diapause, instar etc. etc.?
Let's just enjoy the butterfly cats, migrating Tigers and Ladies."

Ron


>
> At 11:53 AM 10/21/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>
 > >    The way I learned it over 50 years ago -
> > - ovum, larva, pupa, and imago are the proper words for the ontogenic
> > instars of holometabolous insects.
> > - egg, caterpillar, chrysalis (with or without a cocoon), and adult are
> > the colloquial words for the life stages of insects with complete
> > metamorphosis.
>
>         I find this odd on two counts:
>
>1) 'Instar' is the "stage of an insect between successive moults, the
first
>instar being the stage between hatching and the first moult" (Borrer &
>DeLong, glossary). I have never seen 'instar' applied to the 4 stages of
>a holometabolous insect.
>
>2) 'Caterpillar' as the colloquial word for a dipteran maggot, coleopteran
>grub, etc. is something I have never come across. Same with 'chrysalis'
>for the pupa of any non-lepidopterous insect.
>
>         That's certainly not the way _I_ learned it over 50 years ago.
:-)
>
>                                                         Ken Philip
>fnkwp at uaf.edu
>
>P.S. I checked a number of my older books (late 1800s to early 1900s), and
>all of them agree that 'chrysalis' applies only to butterflies (without
>going into taxonomic minutiae as what is and what isn't a butterfly). So
>whatever people are saying nowadays, the original use of the term was
>not applied to moths (let alone other orders).
>



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl