Preserving and Pinning

[syndicate]

avic lover i noticed u have one of those praying mantis puppets hehe.i got one of those years back in newyork at the falcon ridge folk festival lol

 

[roach dude]

Yea i think its fine if you useing the specimins for a univerty to study, where many people will study them and this also helps preserve a species. I would also like to go and study entomology in unversity, i find it very intresting. I think more people should use photography to study insects rather than pinning/preserving. It is more hunmain and does not wast life.

Also to what Nepenthes said about me contridicting my ideas about keeping pets. None of the pets I buy are wild caught. And also how is keeping an animal in a safe enviroment feeding it properly and caring for it right the same as killing a wild animal and pining it for you to study???

 

[AviculariaLover]

Roach dude, in your profile it says you're into "bug collecting" and I'm guessing thats a bit of a lie since you say you dont keep wild pets or pin them? Though I guess you mean just for photography... which can be fun, though I prefer to photograph them when they're in their natural environment, unless I'm keeping one as a pet for a while. I don't keep wild insects in captivity for more than a few days/weeks, generally. Which I have a permit for, in the state of new york, to capture small animals and keep them temporarily for study.

If you are going to study entomology in a university you will be killing plenty of insects. I've known since I was a little kid that I would be doing this, so I figured I'd get in some practice, hehe. I hope what I've done can be useful to somebody some day.

 

[roach dude]

What i mean by "bug collecting" is bugs as pets. But not native wild ones. Stick insects,cockroaches,mantis and other sorts of bugs. And yes i do collect BUgs from outside, but i do the same as you do, mabye keep them in for couple of days and then release them, after i have studied them. BTW just to state 'for the record' im only against the pinning of animals when they are needlessy going to be kept in somebodys house, where they are no use to anybody apart form the person who caught them. If the insect needs to be killed then it should have a purpose behind it, like helping many people study them (like in museums and universitys). And aslong as those species caught are not endanged in any way shape or form. just to clear that one up.

 

[gunslinger]

I collect insects as well and IMO it is the best way to get hands on experience in various fields from taxonomy to anatomy to ecology. No university or major collection is going to loan out there specimens for one person to do some "personal investigation" into understanding anatomy or taxonomy. If specimens are taken correctly, it will never be an issue. In fact I think its much more devastating to populations when people buy wild-caught insects from pet trade companys, as this encourages more and more to be taken, where as an insect collector and entomology student will take one or two samples of a spp to study, and usually will have no need for me.

Either way though, this is just my opinion and I respect all of your rights to have your own opinions as well.

 

[roach dude]

^^^ Fair enough ^^^

but dont you think it would be far easyier to just take photo's rather than needlessly killing beautiful insects?

 

[Waspman]

Identification plays a big part in collecting.

You can't always ID to species from a photo. Even getting the genus right can be tough depending on what the insect is. Some IDs even require the genitalia to be looked at.

Unless you chill the insect and take excellent macro shots of all the characters needed to make an ID, a picture doesn't do a whole lot. Plus, having the actual specimen in hand is the best for future reference rather than photographs.

I'd say the average person kills many more insects through pesticides and carelessness than a collector, who usually just takes what is needed.

 

[AviculariaLover]

Waspman is correct on all counts.

I have several professors who are studying a few families of very tiny flies. One of the only ways to identify them is by their internal genitalia. So obviously the insects must be collected and killed and dissected.

And personal collections can be extremely useful someday *IF* the proper information is recorded. The collection on my campus was started by a man who collected for his own pleasure, yet he had all the necessary information to make them valuable specimens after they were donated to the university. If the insects simply end up in someone's attic, and not much was gained from their deaths, then they were wasted. But even a child's butterfly collection can be useful if they are properly labeled and end up being donated to a university or museum collection.

So what I'm trying to say is... even if insects are taken and pinned simply as a hobby, or for personal knowledge, as long as they are properly labeled they have the potential to be useful if they are donated to a collection. And even if they aren't really useful, or are specimens most places have enough of, they could still be used for educational displays in museums.

 

[arachnocat]

Waspman is correct on all counts.
even if insects are taken and pinned simply as a hobby, or for personal knowledge, as long as they are properly labeled they have the potential to be useful if they are donated to a collection. And even if they aren't really useful, or are specimens most places have enough of, they could still be used for educational displays in museums.

I agree. Insect collections from years ago are highly sought after by researches because it gives them an overview of what species were around at the time. If you keep good records that is. A lot of people collect framed butterflies just because they are pretty. That's ok too I guess. A friend of mine has a huge butterfly display. It's pretty impressive. Also, bug collections are always educational. Some people who are afraid of live bugs find dead ones interesting.

 

[P.jasonius]

Wouldn't it be interesting if religious/moral/ethical doctrine prevented us from killing in order to study. We would be forced to progress technologically to satisfy our curiousity of the various life on our planet, creating new tools that allow us to observe the function of organisms as they live, not as they are dead or dying.
I believe that the information gained from studying the torture of life is no different than the information gained from Nazi scientists during and preceding WWII from human life.
To state that human life is higher than or more important than other life is based on the Abrahamic religions, where the belief is upheld that the animals on the planet were created for the use of man.
I also believe that it is ok to 'pin' an animal if you have observed its life cycle, given it an opportunity to perpetuate itself via procreation, and allowed for a natural death. I myself collect specimens for deadstock toward the end of the season (this is subjective), and usually find enough dead or dying specimens to satisfy a growing collection.
I read that entomologists recently 'fogged' a tree somewhere in S. America and found something like 80 new genera of beetle. They're all dead, though. Nothing can be learned from their behavior. "Waste of life is not logical." (Kirk to Mr. Spock)

 

[roach dude]

^ so right ^

 

[AviculariaLover]

I don't belive animals were put here for humans, not at all. Especially being an entirely unreligious person. But I think that since we have taken over the planet, it's our duty to learn about our responsibilities.

Let's face it, there are so many insects on the planet, with such high reproductive rates, that the amount taken for study have no effect on populations. What has *more* effect are things like logging, tourism, pollution, insecticide use, agriculture, and general habitat destruction. I guess theres a different between intentionally killing an animal and it happening as a byproduct of other behaviors, but to me, they amount to the same thing. I'd rather see an insect die for research, than see forests being logged or people casually throwing pesticides on their lawns to keep them a vibrant lush green. The more we know about insects, the more we can do to help them, and help save their environments. We need to test insects with insecticides to develop better pesticides for agriculture. We need to do tests to prove we should ban certain pesticides. We need to do tests and take samples to see how logging effects populations, in order to better advise logging companies about their practices (something one of my professors is working on).

If we can show people specimens, up close, and impress them, and interest them, they might start to take notice. People want to save whales because they're cool and big and impressive. They want to save panda bears because they're cute, they want to save tigers because they're beautiful. Most people don't give a crap about insects. But with educational programs, with museums, with collections that can impress people, and with researchers to provide more and more information, who knows what kinds of progress can be made. There are so many beautiful insects in tropical regions that will be lost along with all the trees. Yes some of this can be accomplished with photography, but when you actually see something with your own eyes it means so much more. Yes a lot of research being done is simply for our own selfish gain of knowledge, our own curiosity. But take this into account as well: with global warming, the earth is going to go through hell in the next few hundred years. And a lot of these animals might not be around anymore. And wouldn't it be nice to have a few on hand, to remember what once was? Could you imagine a museum filled simply with photographs? Nearly anyone will tell you that it's nearly impossible to identify something to species with a photograph, they always ask to see the actual specimen. With what we want to know, we have to do things people may find morally objectional. I love insects, and I honestly don't have a problem seeing a few die in order to potentially help others. It's so fascinating to walk into the insect museum here, to look at the specimens, to get a feel for the real diversity. It's mind blowing, really. And that's what we need to do, if we are to get more people interested enough in entomology to perhaps use it as a conservationalist standpoint. And reading numbers, ho hum, who cares. But *seeing* the numbers... is different.

There are so many other problems we need to address, like logging and tourism in mexico that's killing off the monarch butterflies, like rampant pesticide use in developing countries, that its hardly worth it to attack researchers. Because face it, the world isnt going to step up to some magical moral high ground overnight. I spend some time on the animal liberation front website, browsing around, and they have plenty of ideas that could never happen in the real world, no matter how grand and moral they might be, no matter how perfect the world would then become.

No, animals werent put here for us. No, we shouldnt torture them. However, we're torturing many of them simply with our existence. And I think any knowledge gained can be useful.

So perhaps the average collecter should lay off the pins and pick up a camera instead. Thats what I did. But not all the knowledge we need can be learned simply from behavior. We need DNA, we need to learn about morphology. You could know everything about human behavior but until you cut one up, you won't know how a person really ticks.

And if entomologists simply waited around to find dead specimens, well, nothing would get accomplished. That is unless they would just sit there neatly and not decompose :}

 

[xelda]

I think a few of you are neglecting a few major points here. Entomology fundamentally rests on being able to have preserved specimens for study. Without these specimens, we would not be able to differentiate between species.

It's hard to think about that when you might just be used to seeing the giant bugs of the world, but the vast majority of insects are actually pretty darn small. They have to be looked at under a microscope just to identify them down to the family. That includes having to count the number of tarsi on the legs, compare wing veins, mouthparts, and a lot of other itty bitty details. When that's not good enough, sometimes you have to cut them up to do molecular analysis. And that's just getting it down to the family level, which in itself is very broad. For example, look at the cockroach family Blaberidae. It encompasses a HUGE variety of roaches of all different colors, shapes, and sizes. Probably all of the cockroaches you own belong to this family. Green banana roaches, lobster roaches, Blaptica dubia, Eublaberus, Surinam roaches, and all of the hissers are in the family Blaberidae. But Blaberidae is only one family out of several families of cockroaches.

You know when you walk outside on a hot day and see a ton of little flies all over the place? You're probably seeing at least a dozen different fly familes right there even though they all look the same with the naked eye. Like I said. You already have to look under a microscope most of the time just to identify insects down to the family level. If you want to identify down to the species level, you have to look at their genitalia. This is not the kind of information you can get just from looking at a picture, no matter how good you are with macro.

Let's say you're out bug collecting and you discover a new species of insect. You're going to have to collect and preserve specimens in order to catalog them; otherwise, there won't be an official record of that species. You also won't be able to prove that it indeed is a new species unless you've got preserved specimens so people can look at their genitalia and make sketches for future reference.

Yes, insect behavior is a fantastic thing to study, but it's only a small branch of entomology. Try browsing websites of the different entomology departments in the U.S. Very, very few of them even have anybody who works specifically on studying behavior. The reason why is because it's not a field that easily gets enough funding unless the research is pest-related.

If you plan on studying entomology when you get to college, you may want to think twice. Your lab grade is going to depend entirely on collecting and killing hundreds of insects. If you have no experience with pinning or mounting insects, then you're going to mess up several times and have to go catch more. It's sad, but it's entomology. It's also not going to change because as we learn more and more about insects, it becomes even more important to have well-preserved and well-documented specimens. Everything we know scientifically about insects depends on it.

 

[P.jasonius]

What I'm saying is that if we had a different mindset, and were limited by ethics and values, we would develop newer and more sophisticated technology to study within those parameters. For instance, you need a fly specimen documented, a scanning microscope with MRI capabilities could detail the specimen throughout, all while the subject is unconscious from 'fly nap'. Think of the databases that could be compiled if this were to transcend to other animals. This is just an example, and one that is realistic with current technology, just not economically viable. I am not deluding myself into thinking that we live in a world that understands this way of thinking, no. We live in a world where budget determines what is studied, and therefore those with money decide what is and is not significant (does this make sense?). Everything we know has depended on [preservation], but to suggest that this way is not to be called into question is against the scientific process. I wasn't even suggesting that we don't preserve specimens, nor was I questioning its validity. I am suggesting that it is an antiquated and barbaric practice, that should and would become obsolete if our society were based on something more logical than the acquisition of money.
This hypothetical philosophy would slow our progression, this is true, but would also push it forward into a new tangent. To clarify, my interjection was a hypothetical, just something to think about. Food for the open mind, if you will.

Avic lover: -I wasn't suggesting that entomologists sit around and wait for dead or dying specimens, I was suggesting that collector's do this.
-Don't even get me started on the logging industry.
-I can't agree more that indiscriminate use of lawn pesticides has a tremendous impact on the ecology. I've witnessed the end of the texas based horned lizard in my area due to this. Very disheartening. I agree with you that education can diminish this somewhat, but by using dead specimens to educate may be sending a profound message, in a psychological sense: the only good insect is a dead insect. There is a science museum in Seattle (can't remember the name off the top of my head) which has a live exhibit. Again, money comes into play; who has the budget to maintain this when deadstock is cheap.

 

[P.jasonius]

Ughh. I forgot why I was even looking at this thread.
Does anyone know exactly what is needed to make clear acrylic specimen mounts?

 

[Ganoderma]

Anyone here have any opinions or experience dry mounting grasshoppers? what do you do to fix the colours, i don't like black specimens. would soakign in formalin for a day or 2 help? any thoughts would be great.

i have got some uropygi, scorpions, beetles, and hoppers in my collection. i usually only pin larger insects and preserve most small and all spiders in liquids.

PS. the first poster, look into labelling. i know its probably just for fun but "front yard" isn't good enough for locality If you are sending to museum i think most prefer you not to ID it as it could be wrong and misleading. i usually just write location, date, name and soemtimes breif habitat description.

i would really like to find a way of dry mounting spiders withough shriveling, if someone can show me that i would be VERY greatfull! plasticising, not making casts, sounds interesting but i dont know how.

 

[Mr. Mordax]

I know you can cut some things open (from the underside), gut them, and stuff them full of cotton. Also helps with preventing decomposition. I think I red somewhere that boiling water, taking it off the heat, and placing a specimen in the hot-but-not-boiling water fixes the exoskeleton protiens and prevents them from turning black. Worth a try, I suppose.

And as for label locality, most collections I see list the state and county.

 

[Ganoderma]

i have heard that as well, but never tried it with anything other than beetle larva. i shall try it.

county is a little vague as i see it. from what i understand mst places want directions to the spot "XX KM from *landmark*". people i have talked to say ultimatly GPS coords are best, but not always feasible. still, front yard copuld be anywhere on this globe

 

[AviculariaLover]

As a little kid my dad told me to write my name, date, location (and since the butterflies were pretty much all caught at home, I simply wrote my full address), and the common and scientific name. Volunteering at the lyman museum I now know how to make labels correctly, but since I have enough information glued inside the boxes, if I wish to do something with my collection, I could type up new labels to put on the pins. Though a quick description of the habitat would help as well.

 

[myrmecophile]

State and county for labels is for the most part totally unacceptable these days. Such information would be considered of little to no value. The problem with using locations which are too general is that there are often times several locations with the same name within a state or even given county, sometimes with entirely different habitats. Additionally many of these older collecting sites no longer exist as they once did having been overcome by urban cancer. For my labels I use country state county then a more specific location then Lat/Long plus date elevation Since I deal mostly with ants a sample gets pinned along with additional in alcohol. Because it is necessary to relate the dry material with the wet each sample gets a unique collecting number.
As for retaining color, you can try acetone, Dragon fly collectors often soak their specimens in it to retain color.