(Note: the English version follows)
Guillaume Dury, Étudiant à la maîtrise, Université McGill
_______________________________
Dessous de Chrysiridia rhipheus, photo par Cody Hough sur Wikimedia Commons.
Le 7 avril 2012, l’article du jour sur Wikipédia était Chrysiridia rhipheus.
C’était un grand jour pour moi : j’ai écrit la majorité de l’article. Ce n’est pas pour autant mon article; dire cela irait à l’encontre de l’étiquette de Wikipédia. J’y ai tout de même passé des heures de recherche et j’ai écrit la majorité de l’article.
Tout comme des millions de personnes, j’utilise Wikipédia pour étancher ma soif de connaissances rapides. À juste titre, “«wiki»” est Hawaïen pour rapide. Seulement, il n’y avait pas de wiki-connaissances sur ce papillon de nuit qu’est l’Uranie riphée (Chrysiridia rhipheus).
J’étais toujours curieux; cette soif particulière ne resterait pas inassouvie. Puisque j’allais faire une recherche de littérature, aussi bien écrire un résumé au bénéfice des autres. Voilà comment je suis devenu un éditeur sur Wikipédia.
J’ai créé l’article le 5 août 2006, un peu avant de commencer mon baccalauréat en biologie. En tant que biologiste de formation, j’avais besoin de pratiquer les tâches concernées dans l’écriture de l’article. Le plus important fut de trouver l’information. J’ai pu trouver beaucoup d’information en ligne : dans les articles scientifiques et dans des livres numérisés par Google Books ou Internet Archive. J’ai aussi appris que, parfois, des références ne sont tout simplement pas disponibles en ligne. C’est alors que j’ai utilisé les prêts entre bibliothèques pour la première fois. Peu a peu, une référence à la fois, j’ai rempli les différentes sections de l’article.
La partie sur la taxonomie et la description de l’espèce fut beaucoup plus intéressante à écrire que je l’aurais cru. L’Uranie rhiphée, ou le “«papillon coucher de soleil malgache»” (de l’anglais “Madagascan sunset moth”) a toute une histoire derrière ses noms. Il est décrit pour la première fois, en 1773, sous le nom de Papilio rhipheus. C’est-à-dire qu’il avait été placé parmi les papillons de jour et non de nuit. Capitaine May de Hammersmith avait donné le spécimen à l’entomologiste britannique Dru Drury. Ce spécimen avait été “«réparé»” avec une tête de papillon de jour et ses antennes en massue. (NB : ne pas coller la mauvaise tête sur votre spécimen cassé!) En 1831, René Primevère Lesson l’avait décrit sous le nom Urania ripheus var. madagascarensis. Ce papillon a toujours plusieurs autres synonymes.
En utilisant les guides sur Wikipédia, en demandant d’autres éditeurs et en m’inspirant de d’autres articles, j’ai rassemblé et résumé de plus en plus d’information. J’ai fait passer l’article par le processus interne d’évaluation par les pairs dans Wikipédia en janvier 2007. Sur Wikipédia, les pairs sont d’autres éditeurs et pas nécessairement des entomologistes. Cela a aidé un peu, surtout pour le format article, mais je devais surtout trouver d’autres sources d’information à inclure.
Puis, j’ai contacté l’un des experts mondiaux sur Chrysiridia rhipheus, le Dr David C. Lees du Musée d’Histoire naturelle de Londres. J’ai été agréablement surpris; il était déjà éditeur sur Wikipédia. Il m’a dirigé vers des références importantes que j’avais manquées et a ajouté des informations lui-même. J’étais ravi.
Carte de cigarettes dépeignant une fée « Chrysiridia madagascariensis » en 1928, compagnie John Player & Sons.
En mars 2008, je jugeais que mon article avait atteint le niveau de “«bon article»”. Pour être reconnu comme tel, un article doit répondre à certains critères et passer avec succès le processus de mise en candidature de bon article. Avec l’examen et des suggestions de l’utilisateur Casliber, c’est ce qui s’est passé le 22 mars 2008 : j’avais écrit un “«bon»” article sur Wikipédia.
J’ai continué; j’ai fait des modifications, j’ai ajouté des références, des images, y compris une carte de cigarettes datant de 1928, et j’ai ajouté ce qui est probablement la seule photo de la chenille de cette espèce sur Internet. J’ai eu l’aide de l’un des principaux éditeurs des articles sur l’optique et la polarisation des articles afin de clarifier pour moi la polarisation de la lumière. Les écailles sur les ailes du papillon produisent les couleurs à travers deux phénomènes optiques, l’un dépend de polarisation. Le papillon ne dispose de pigment que dans les régions noires de ses ailes.
Ensuite, le 18 juin 2008, j’ai fait la mise en candidature de l’article pour qu’il soit reconnu comme article de qualité. Les articles de qualité sont considérés comme représentant le meilleur de ce que Wikipédia a à offrir, comme déterminé par les éditeurs de Wikipédia. Lors de ce processus, de nombreux éditeurs font des suggestions et demandent des changements à l’article. J’ai fait la plupart de ces changements et fait de mon mieux pour répondre aux questions. Le 4 juillet 2008, Chrysiridia rhipheus a été promu au statut d’article de qualité. Featured article en anglais; ce statut exceptionnel est signifié par une petite étoile dans le coin supérieur à droit! :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysiridia_rhipheus
En moyenne, l’article Chrysiridia rhipheus est visité à peu près une centaine de fois par jour. Le 7 avril 2012, il a été visité plus de 20 000 fois. Au cours des 90 derniers jours, cela fait un total de 37614 fois. C’est de la bonne diffusion!
Je répondrai avec plaisir aux questions de ceux qui s’intéressent à l’écriture de « leur propre » article Wikipédia. Tout commence par le bouton [modifier]…
Pour les professeurs : “«dans le cours ENTO 431 entomologie médico-légale, à l’université du Texas A & M, les étudiants ont la tâche d’écrire plusieurs articles sur Wikipédia concernant les espèces de mouches d’importance médico-légale.»” Le travail des étudiants sert alors leur cours et sert le but de Wikipédia de créer un résumé de toutes les connaissances humaines dans une encyclopédie libre et en ligne. (Pour plus d’informations, voir la page du cours sur Wikipédia (en anglais))
____________________________
By Guillaume Dury, M.Sc. student, McGill University
____________________________
Engraving captioned Urania riphaeus from Charles D. d’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire universel d’histoire naturelle (1849)
On April 7th 2012, on Wikipedia, Today’s Featured Article was Chrysiridia rhipheus.
It was an exciting day for me: I wrote most of the article. It isn’t my article; it would be against Wikipedia etiquette to say so. Still, I spent hours researching and wrote most of it.
Just like millions of people, I use Wikipedia to quench my thirst for quick knowledge. Appropriately, “wiki” is Hawaiian for quick. Only there was no wiki-knowledge on the Madagascan sunset moth (Chrysiridia rhipheus).
I was still curious; this particular thirst wouldn’t be left unquenched. Since I would search the literature, I thought I might as well write a summary for the benefit of others. That is how I became an editor on Wikipedia.
I created the article on August 5th 2006, a little before starting my bachelor’s in biology. As a biologist in training, I needed to practice the tasks involved, most importantly: finding information. I was able to find a lot online: in scientific articles and scanned books in Google Books or Internet Archives. I also learned that sometimes, references are simply not available online. That is when I used interlibrary loans for the first time. Little by little, one reference at a time, I filled the different sections of the article.
The section on taxonomy and naming of the species was a lot more interesting to write than I initially thought it would be. The Madagascan sunset moth has quite a story behind its names. It was first described, in 1773, as Papilio rhipheus. That is to say, it was described as a butterfly and not a moth. Captain May of the Hammersmith gave the specimen to the British entomologist Dru Drury, only that specimen had been “repaired” with a butterfly head that had clubbed antennae. (N.B.: don’t glue the wrong head on your broken insect specimen!) In 1831, René Primevère Lesson described Urania ripheus var. madagascarensis. The moth also has a number of other junior synonyms.
Using guides on Wikipedia, asking other editors and inspiring myself with other articles, I gathered and summarized more and more information. I went through Wikipedia’s internal process of peer review in January 2007. On Wikipedia, peers are other Wikipedia editors, not necessarily entomologists. This helped somewhat, especially for article format, but I really had to look for more sources and information to include.
I contacted one of the world experts on the Madagascan sunset moth, Dr. David C. Lees of the London Natural History Museum. I was pleasantly surprised he was already an editor on Wikipedia. He pointed me towards important references I had missed and added information himself. I was delighted.
A cigarette card featuring a “Chrysiridia madagascariensis” fairy in 1928 from John Player & Sons.
In March 2008, I felt my article was close to the level of “Good article”. To be recognized as such, an article needs to meet the good article criteria and to successfully pass the good article nomination process. With the review and suggestions of user Casliber, this happened on March 22nd 2008: I had written a “Good” article on Wikipedia.
I kept going, did more editing, added references and pictures, including a cigarette card from 1928, and what is probably the only photo of this species’ caterpillar on the Internet. I got help from one of the main editor of the articles Optics and Polarization to clarify light polarization for me. The scales on the moth’s wings use two optical phenomena to produce the colours, one of which is polarization dependent. The moth only has pigment in the black regions of its wings.
On June 18th 2008, I proposed the article for evaluation to be recognized as Featured. Featured articles are considered to be the best Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia’s editors. In this review process, various editors make suggestions and ask for changes to the article. I made most of those changes and answered questions to the best of my knowledge. On July 4th 2008, Chrysiridia rhipheus was promoted to Featured Article, this exceptional status is signified by a little star in the top-right corner!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysiridia_rhipheus
On an average day, the article Chrysiridia rhipheus is viewed roughly a hundred times. On April 7th 2012, it was viewed over 20 000 times. In the last 90 days, that makes a total of 37 614 times. Good exposure!
I’ll happily answer the questions of anyone interested in writing “their own” Wikipedia article. It all start with the [edit] button…
Lastly, a note for the professors: “As a part of the ENTO 431, forensic entomology course at Texas A&M University students are assigned the task of writing several articles at Wikipedia pertaining to forensically important fly species.” The students’ work serves their course, and Wikipedia’s goal to create a summary of all human knowledge in an online encyclopedia. (For more information see the course’s Wikipedia page)
A little weekend entomology
By Laura Timms, Postdoctoral Researcher (McGill University), Chair of ESC Common Names Committee
_____________________________________
I’ve just come back from a weekend at my parents’ house, celebrating my Dad’s birthday and enjoying the beautiful early summer weather. My parents live on the Oak Ridges Moraine in Ontario – they have a gorgeous piece of property they’ve named Hawksview because of the panoramic vistas you get from on top of a large pile of old glacier scrapings.
View from my parents’ house – on clear days you can see all the way to Lake Ontario. Photo: Kathleen Timms
Coming from my shamefully barren urban yard, I am always amazed at the diversity of insect life on my parents’ property. Saturday morning I went outside with a cup of coffee to sit and enjoy the gardens, and within minutes was amazed at the amount of flower visiting taking place in front of me. I did a quick and unscientific count and came up with at least four species of big bees, six species of butterfly and who knows how many smaller flies and sundries buzzing in and out of the Weigela, Salvia, and Allium flowers.
My husband has done research on Bayesian learning in bumblebee foraging, and so the two of us often get caught up in watching bees drink nectar and thinking about their decision-making. As we were doing so this time, he noticed that one of the bee species was acting as a nectar robber – in other words, it was cutting a hole in the bottom of the flower and drinking the nectar through this hole instead of entering the flower in the usual way.
A carpenter bee, Xylocopa virginica, sitting on a Weigela flower and taking nectar through a hole it has cut in the base of the corolla. Photo: Laura Timms
This kind of interaction is referred to as nectar robbing because the bee is getting what it is after – the nectar – without paying the price of taking pollen along with it to the next bloom. Nectar robbing is often used as an example of how a mutualism like pollination, where both parties are supposed to benefit, can be subject to cheating. Charles Darwin speculated on the harm that nectar robbing must cause to plant fitness in his book The effects of cross and self-fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom (1877). I have to admit I didn’t know much about nectar robbing beyond the basics, and I also didn’t know what the species of bee was doing the robbing. A quick online search gave me answers on both counts.
The bee had a big, shiny black abdomen and a black spot on a fuzzy yellow thorax – had to be the eastern carpenter bee, Xylocopa virginica. It turns out carpenter bees are among the most common nectar robbers out there – they have short tongues, and can’t reach the nectar in flowers with long corollas, like my mother’s Weigela. But, it also turns out that nectar robbing isn’t necessarily always cheating, and may not be bad for the plant. Maloof and Inouye (2000) reviewed the literature on nectar robbing and found that there was more evidence for positive or neutral effects of nectar robbing on plant fitness than for negative effects. This is because other pollinators may still visit robbed flowers, some nectar robbers do actually pollinate, and nectar robbing can actually result in greater amounts of pollen flow between different plants and thus increase outcrossing. Fascinating!
I passed on this information to my parents, and resumed my garden sitting and coffee drinking. My attention was soon diverted again, this time by a bright red beetle on my Mom’s lilies. I didn’t need the internet to identify this beetle – it is an old friend of mine from when I worked in Switzerland at the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International. The lily leaf beetle, Lilioceris lilii, is an invasive species in North America and a voracious consumer of lilies. While the adult beetles are quite attractive the larvae have the gross habit of carrying around their frass on their backs, using it as a shield to deter predators and parasitoids (which is not always effective – see Schaffner and Müller 2001 for example).
A lily leaf beetle, Lilioceris lilii, surveys the garden. Photo: C. Ernst
I started scanning the lilies for beetles and larvae and removing them by hand – by far the best control method for a home gardener. I started squishing beetles and tossing them aside, when I remembered a recent email from a graduate student at the Université de Montréal. Alessandro Dieni is a student in Jacques Brodeur’s lab, and his research involves reconstructing the path of invasion of the lily leaf beetle using population genetics. Alessandro is looking for samples of the beetle from all over North America for his analysis, and so I stopped throwing the beetles away and started putting them in a jar of rubbing alcohol – the best collecting supplies I had on hand. I included the larvae too, after removing their fecal shields (for which my Mom made me wash my hands outside before coming in the house). It turns out that Alessandro can only use adults for his analysis, so the larvae aren’t much help. If you have lilies and have noticed these beetles in your garden, Alessandro would appreciate samples of adult beetles. You can contact him at alessandro.dieni-lafrance@umontreal.ca, and he will send you all the information you need, including a kit for collecting and preserving them.
One of the side effects of being an entomologist is being frequently asked the question: “What is this on my plant?” My dad asked me a few weeks ago about some galls he had noticed an oak tree, but I told him I couldn’t help him much without seeing them. So, one of my final tasks of the weekend was to check out the tree. This is what I saw:
Galls on a red oak, Quercus rubra, tree. Most are at the base of a branch. Some of the galls have had lots of adults emerge (note the emergence holes), and some have not. Photo: Laura Timms
My basic knowledge of oak galls told me that these galls were probably caused by cynipid wasps, but I wasn’t sure. We cut one open, and sure enough there was an almost fully developed wasp inside a chamber. Gall wasps lay their eggs in plant tissue, and the presence of the eggs induces the plant to produce the special types of highly nutritious cells that make up the gall. Larvae feed in chambers inside the gall, pupate, and then emerge out of small holes like the ones in the picture. I haven’t gotten very far with the identification of exactly which species of wasp is affecting my parents’ tree, although I’ve promised to look into it further and let them know if their tree is in serious trouble. I’m also curious to know if there are any other species inside the gall – oak galls are a fascinating system for work in community ecology, with a cast of cynipid wasps, parasitoids, predators and inquilines (e.g. Stone et al. 2002).
I’ve always said that my parents’ place would be a great field station. I’ve only mentioned three of the ecological tidbits that caught my eye this weekend, but I could go on about the way that dog-strangling vine is taking over the meadow and forest floor, our observations of caterpillars brought to the nest by purple martins, or the cool moths that show up at night by the outside lights. For the sake of brevity, I think those will all have to wait. In the mean time, now that my weekend entomology is over, I’m going to return to my regularly scheduled entomology and hit the microscope!
Literature cited
Darwin, C. 1877. The effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom. D. Appleton and Co., New York.
Maloof, J.E., & Inouye, D.W. (2000). Are nectar robbers cheaters or mutualists? Ecology, 81, 2651-2661 DOI: 10.2307/177331
Schaffner, U., & Müller. C. (2001). Exploitation of the Fecal Shield of the Lily Leaf Beetle, Lilioceris lilii (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), by the Specialist Parasitoid Lemophagus pulcher (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) Journal of Insect Behavior, 14 (6), 739-757 DOI: 10.1023/A:1013085316606
Stone GN, Schonrogge K, Atkinson RJ, Bellido D, & Pujade-Villar J (2002). The population biology of oak gall wasps (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae). Annual review of entomology, 47, 633-68 PMID: 11729087
ESC Caption Contest – Cycle 1, Photo 1
Scientists are taught to remain objective about their study organisms and not anthropomorphize behaviours or biology. Sure, this might be useful for preventing bias in results, but it can suck the fun right out of day to day work!
Here’s your chance to act less like a scientist and have some fun with the insect world. Every 2 weeks we’ll post a new photo of an insect (or other arthropod), and your mission, should you choose to accept it, will be to come up with a witty/funny/clever caption.
Although being given the chance to showcase your witticism and comedic chops for everyone on the internet to see should be award enough, we know people really like prizes, so here’s how it’s going to work:
Think of it as American Idol meets The New Yorker, but with more insects and less Simon Cowell.
Also, if you took an insect photo which you think is just begging to be captioned, send it in to us and we’ll be happy to use it in the contest.
Without further ado, here’s photo #1! Good luck & have fun!
ESC Caption Contest C1 P1 – Photo by Morgan Jackson
Meet the ESC Blog admins (Part 1)
The ESC Blog is off to a fantastic start, and we admins couldn’t be more proud of our amazing bloggers. The response from the Canadian entomology community has been tremendous – which is really no surprise, but still wonderful! Readers have been joining us from all over the world (59 countries!) and we’re so pleased that some of you are engaging with us by leaving comments.
We thought that it would be a good time to introduce ourselves, so you know who’s working away behind the scenes: today you’ll meet Crystal.
___________________________________
In addition to my academic pursuits, I love to teach, take pictures of insects, and spend time outdoors exploring the natural world.
I’m also very interested in science education and outreach, which is why you’re finding me here at ESC Blog.
Online science communication is a big part of who I am and what I do, in addition to my normal grad student research activities. I have been blogging as “TGIQ” at www.thebuggeek.com since 2009. There, I write posts about insect natural history, insect photography, my own entomological research, and more broadly about my experiences as a graduate student interested in a career in academia. I am also an administrator at the research blog of The Northern Biodiversity Program (NBP), of which I am a student member, and I am a contributing authour at the Grad Life blog, where I write about the graduate student experience at McGill University.
In addition to blogging, I can usually be found posting tidbits of entomo-goodness on Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Networked Blogs, Nature Blog Network, and Research Blogging. I also have a YouTube channel that I use for teaching an undergraduate zoology lab.
Some people have tried to tell me that these activities are a waste of time, professionally. My personal experiences have shown this to be anything but true: I’ve established incredible networks of students, academics and other professionals; I’ve been exposed to fascinating cutting-edge science; and I’ve gained tangible professional benefits (think “publications” and “funding” and “collaborations”). None of these would have been possible without my online activities.
I also think that science outreach is an activity that all academics should make time for – after all, we are doing science for the general public, not just for our fellow researchers! Our knowledge of and passion for entomology is something that deserves to be shared with others. Blogs are wonderfully accessible outlets; they represent an unparalleled opportunity for folks from different sectors and backgrounds to participate and exchange their knowledge and experiences – something that is not often achieved through traditional venues such as conferences and journals.
I’ll leave you with some quotes from a talk that I attended in March, by researcher and science outreach proponent Nalini Nadkarni. I invite – and strongly encourage – you to join the incredible online science community and consider participating here as an ESC blogger.
Backyard moth’er
By Ian Maton, Member of the The Alberta Lepidopterists’ Guild and the Altaleps discussion list, BugGuide editor and contributor to the Moths Photographers Group (MPG)
__________________________________
Great Tiger (Arctia caja)
My two light traps
My journey into live moth trapping started a relatively short time ago towards the end of 2007. My brother, who lives in the UK and has been live moth trapping since 1999, frequently encouraged me to buy a light trap and in August of 2007 I finally gave in and purchased a small 12V portable, 6W Heath trap at the British Birdfair while on vacation in the UK. As this point I should explain that live moth trapping has become quite popular amongst bird watchers in the UK (my other hobby), to the extent that you can now purchase quite a lot of entomological paraphernalia at the annual Birdfair.
My backyard photographic setup
So it was, with some trepidation, that I put my light trap out for the first time in Lethbridge, Alberta, at the end of August 2007. My camera equipment was fairly basic but I did manage a few photographs and I think it is safe to say that I was completely hooked from that point on. I was able to identify a few of the moths but, although the situation has improved in recent years, identification guides were hard to find. In the UK there were already a good number of handbooks to help with moth identification but this did not appear to be the case in North America. I did buy some of the “Moths of North America North of Mexico” series and the Peterson guide “Moths of Eastern North America” but initially, my main aid to identification was BugGuide.net. Not being able to separate the moths into their respective families meant that identifying any moth could take me several hours and sometimes involved my scanning through 300 plus pages of Noctuids on BugGuide! This was not all bad as it forced me to become somewhat familiar with the family names and gave me a great sense of achievement when I did identify a moth. However, in April of 2010, something happened which dramatically changed all this.
Delphinium Leaftier (Polychrysia esmeralda)
I had started to submit one or two photographs to BugGuide and one of these was Delphinium Leaftier (Polychrysia esmeralda). While there were pinned images of this moth, there were very few live images in North America and I was contacted by Bob Patterson who asked for permission to display my photographs on the Moth Photographers Group (MPG) website. Shortly after this it became apparent that I was photographing some moths that were not yet in BugGuide. Bob created a couple of guide pages for me so that I could upload my photographs to the correct taxonomic spot but quickly suggested that I be given editor privileges on BugGuide. All this was extremely exciting to me and added an entirely new dimension to my hobby. In addition to this, Bob put me in contact with Gary Anweiler who, based in Alberta, is one of the premier experts on Noctuids in North America. Since then Gary has been instrumental in helping me to identify moths. Always patient and quick to respond I can’t thank Gary enough for his help and advice over the last few years.
Bilobed Looper (Megalographa biloba)
2010 was a very big year for me with regards to moth trapping. A major highlight occurred in October of 2010 when my wife (I was then working long hours and had convinced her to help out with the moths) picked a Bilobed Looper (Megalographa biloba) out of the trap. It was immediately identifiable and seemed to be an unusual sighting. Indeed, Gary Anweiler confirmed that there had been only two previous records in Alberta and only two additional records for western Canada. I can’t think of a better way to end the 2010 mothing year!
White-lined-Sphinx-(Hyles-lineata)
Since then I have continued to add photographs to BugGuide and I am pleased to say that a good number of them have been picked up and added to the MPG website. I have also pieced together a database of the moths I’ve seen which now includes 245 species. 2011 was another landmark year when I attempted to record the number of each moth species that had been in my trap. This had been practically impossible until I become familiar with the more common species I was getting. Consequently, I can now say that my most common moth in 2011 was, by far, Thoughtful Apamea, followed by Glassy Cutworm, Olive Arches, Bronzed Cutworm and Bristly Cutworm. This was a very nice personal achievement. Most recently I have started a blog “Moths of Calgary”. I have to admit that I got the idea from my brother who created a blog “Moths of Boughton-under-Blean”. Apart from the enjoyment I get from posting my latest sightings, I’m hoping that it may help to advertise live moth trapping as an interesting hobby in Canada.
So far, the highlight of 2012 was my first Silkmoth seen in the Twin Butte area of Southern Alberta while on a short vacation. Glover’s Silkmoth (Hyalophora gloveri) is a species that I’ve been trying to see for a number of years and there they were, in daylight, perched on the side of our cabin when we arrived! Other colourful and unexpected species that I’ve seen include my first backyard Sphinx moth, a White-lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata) and a Great Tiger Moth (Arctia caja).
Glover’s Silkmoth (Hyalophora gloveri)
For me there are two things which make live moth trapping a really great hobby. Firstly, you never know what you are going to get! It may be a while before you see some of the more eye-catching moth species but that’s all part of the appeal. Secondly, it’s something that you can do without venturing further than your own backyard!
While, at first, identification was a bit of a struggle, the sense of achievement gained when I did identify a new moth, for me, more than compensated for the time spent getting there. Live moth trapping is a fascinating hobby and it is my hope that, over time, it will become a more popular, eventually contributing to the knowledge of moth movements and distribution throughout Canada.
An Insect for Canada
Happy Canada Day!
To celebrate, Crystal & I thought we would highlight Canada’s official insect, because a country with the rich entomological heritage that Canada has must have one. As we began researching further however, we were dismayed to discover that Canada doesn’t have an official insect!
White Admiral (Limenitis arthemis) – photo by Tom Murray and used under Creative Commons License
In fact, the only province or territory to adopt an official insect is Quebec. After a public vote held by the Montreal Insectarium in 1998, the White Admiral butterfly (Limenitis arthemis) was selected as the provincial insect, which was later ratified by the National Assembly of Quebec.
It seems only two nations have insects as officially recognized symbols: Mexico with the grasshopper as its National Arthropod (perhaps in honour of Chapulines, grasshoppers in the genus Sphenarium which are a common food item in several regions) and Sri Lanka, which designated a National Butterfly (an endemic swallowtail butterfly, Troides darsius).
As the Entomological Society of Canada & the Entomological Society of Ontario approach their joint 150th anniversary, perhaps it’s time we start thinking about choosing an official insect for Canada.
Other choices might include any of the insects featured on the logos of the provincial/regional entomological societies in Canada:
Entomological Society of British Columbia – Boreus elegans a winter scorpionfly.
Entomological Society of Alberta – a moth (if anyone knows the species, let us know).
Entomological Society of Saskatchewan – a short-horned grasshopper (if anyone knows the species, let us know).
Entomological Society of Manitoba – Big Sand Tiger Beetle (Cicindela formosa).
Entomological Society of Ontario – Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus).
Société d’entomologie du Québec – White Admiral Butterfly (Limenitis arthemis)(?).
Acadian Entomological Society – Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella).
We don’t want to limit your imagination to just these insects of course! Perhaps you think our national insect should tie in with other national symbols, like the beaver. In that case, the Beaver Parasite Beetle (Platypsyllus castoris) might make an excellent candidate. An insect unique to the Canadian territories might also be a good idea as they aren’t represented among regional societies.
Platypsyllus castoris – photo by Joyce Gross, used with permission
What do you think, should Canada have an official insect? If you have other suggestions for an insect that you believe represents our fair nation, or would like to place your vote for any of those already mentioned, let us know in the comments. If we receive enough feedback, we can take your ideas and the project to the Entomological Society of Canada governing board and maybe one day have an insect officially recognized by the government of Canada!
Écrivons sur Wikipedia! Let’s write on Wikipedia!
(Note: the English version follows)
Guillaume Dury, Étudiant à la maîtrise, Université McGill
_______________________________
Dessous de Chrysiridia rhipheus, photo par Cody Hough sur Wikimedia Commons.
Le 7 avril 2012, l’article du jour sur Wikipédia était Chrysiridia rhipheus.
C’était un grand jour pour moi : j’ai écrit la majorité de l’article. Ce n’est pas pour autant mon article; dire cela irait à l’encontre de l’étiquette de Wikipédia. J’y ai tout de même passé des heures de recherche et j’ai écrit la majorité de l’article.
Tout comme des millions de personnes, j’utilise Wikipédia pour étancher ma soif de connaissances rapides. À juste titre, “«wiki»” est Hawaïen pour rapide. Seulement, il n’y avait pas de wiki-connaissances sur ce papillon de nuit qu’est l’Uranie riphée (Chrysiridia rhipheus).
J’étais toujours curieux; cette soif particulière ne resterait pas inassouvie. Puisque j’allais faire une recherche de littérature, aussi bien écrire un résumé au bénéfice des autres. Voilà comment je suis devenu un éditeur sur Wikipédia.
J’ai créé l’article le 5 août 2006, un peu avant de commencer mon baccalauréat en biologie. En tant que biologiste de formation, j’avais besoin de pratiquer les tâches concernées dans l’écriture de l’article. Le plus important fut de trouver l’information. J’ai pu trouver beaucoup d’information en ligne : dans les articles scientifiques et dans des livres numérisés par Google Books ou Internet Archive. J’ai aussi appris que, parfois, des références ne sont tout simplement pas disponibles en ligne. C’est alors que j’ai utilisé les prêts entre bibliothèques pour la première fois. Peu a peu, une référence à la fois, j’ai rempli les différentes sections de l’article.
La partie sur la taxonomie et la description de l’espèce fut beaucoup plus intéressante à écrire que je l’aurais cru. L’Uranie rhiphée, ou le “«papillon coucher de soleil malgache»” (de l’anglais “Madagascan sunset moth”) a toute une histoire derrière ses noms. Il est décrit pour la première fois, en 1773, sous le nom de Papilio rhipheus. C’est-à-dire qu’il avait été placé parmi les papillons de jour et non de nuit. Capitaine May de Hammersmith avait donné le spécimen à l’entomologiste britannique Dru Drury. Ce spécimen avait été “«réparé»” avec une tête de papillon de jour et ses antennes en massue. (NB : ne pas coller la mauvaise tête sur votre spécimen cassé!) En 1831, René Primevère Lesson l’avait décrit sous le nom Urania ripheus var. madagascarensis. Ce papillon a toujours plusieurs autres synonymes.
En utilisant les guides sur Wikipédia, en demandant d’autres éditeurs et en m’inspirant de d’autres articles, j’ai rassemblé et résumé de plus en plus d’information. J’ai fait passer l’article par le processus interne d’évaluation par les pairs dans Wikipédia en janvier 2007. Sur Wikipédia, les pairs sont d’autres éditeurs et pas nécessairement des entomologistes. Cela a aidé un peu, surtout pour le format article, mais je devais surtout trouver d’autres sources d’information à inclure.
Puis, j’ai contacté l’un des experts mondiaux sur Chrysiridia rhipheus, le Dr David C. Lees du Musée d’Histoire naturelle de Londres. J’ai été agréablement surpris; il était déjà éditeur sur Wikipédia. Il m’a dirigé vers des références importantes que j’avais manquées et a ajouté des informations lui-même. J’étais ravi.
Carte de cigarettes dépeignant une fée « Chrysiridia madagascariensis » en 1928, compagnie John Player & Sons.
En mars 2008, je jugeais que mon article avait atteint le niveau de “«bon article»”. Pour être reconnu comme tel, un article doit répondre à certains critères et passer avec succès le processus de mise en candidature de bon article. Avec l’examen et des suggestions de l’utilisateur Casliber, c’est ce qui s’est passé le 22 mars 2008 : j’avais écrit un “«bon»” article sur Wikipédia.
J’ai continué; j’ai fait des modifications, j’ai ajouté des références, des images, y compris une carte de cigarettes datant de 1928, et j’ai ajouté ce qui est probablement la seule photo de la chenille de cette espèce sur Internet. J’ai eu l’aide de l’un des principaux éditeurs des articles sur l’optique et la polarisation des articles afin de clarifier pour moi la polarisation de la lumière. Les écailles sur les ailes du papillon produisent les couleurs à travers deux phénomènes optiques, l’un dépend de polarisation. Le papillon ne dispose de pigment que dans les régions noires de ses ailes.
Ensuite, le 18 juin 2008, j’ai fait la mise en candidature de l’article pour qu’il soit reconnu comme article de qualité. Les articles de qualité sont considérés comme représentant le meilleur de ce que Wikipédia a à offrir, comme déterminé par les éditeurs de Wikipédia. Lors de ce processus, de nombreux éditeurs font des suggestions et demandent des changements à l’article. J’ai fait la plupart de ces changements et fait de mon mieux pour répondre aux questions. Le 4 juillet 2008, Chrysiridia rhipheus a été promu au statut d’article de qualité. Featured article en anglais; ce statut exceptionnel est signifié par une petite étoile dans le coin supérieur à droit! :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysiridia_rhipheus
En moyenne, l’article Chrysiridia rhipheus est visité à peu près une centaine de fois par jour. Le 7 avril 2012, il a été visité plus de 20 000 fois. Au cours des 90 derniers jours, cela fait un total de 37614 fois. C’est de la bonne diffusion!
Je répondrai avec plaisir aux questions de ceux qui s’intéressent à l’écriture de « leur propre » article Wikipédia. Tout commence par le bouton [modifier]…
Pour les professeurs : “«dans le cours ENTO 431 entomologie médico-légale, à l’université du Texas A & M, les étudiants ont la tâche d’écrire plusieurs articles sur Wikipédia concernant les espèces de mouches d’importance médico-légale.»” Le travail des étudiants sert alors leur cours et sert le but de Wikipédia de créer un résumé de toutes les connaissances humaines dans une encyclopédie libre et en ligne. (Pour plus d’informations, voir la page du cours sur Wikipédia (en anglais))
____________________________
By Guillaume Dury, M.Sc. student, McGill University
____________________________
Engraving captioned Urania riphaeus from Charles D. d’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire universel d’histoire naturelle (1849)
On April 7th 2012, on Wikipedia, Today’s Featured Article was Chrysiridia rhipheus.
It was an exciting day for me: I wrote most of the article. It isn’t my article; it would be against Wikipedia etiquette to say so. Still, I spent hours researching and wrote most of it.
Just like millions of people, I use Wikipedia to quench my thirst for quick knowledge. Appropriately, “wiki” is Hawaiian for quick. Only there was no wiki-knowledge on the Madagascan sunset moth (Chrysiridia rhipheus).
I was still curious; this particular thirst wouldn’t be left unquenched. Since I would search the literature, I thought I might as well write a summary for the benefit of others. That is how I became an editor on Wikipedia.
I created the article on August 5th 2006, a little before starting my bachelor’s in biology. As a biologist in training, I needed to practice the tasks involved, most importantly: finding information. I was able to find a lot online: in scientific articles and scanned books in Google Books or Internet Archives. I also learned that sometimes, references are simply not available online. That is when I used interlibrary loans for the first time. Little by little, one reference at a time, I filled the different sections of the article.
The section on taxonomy and naming of the species was a lot more interesting to write than I initially thought it would be. The Madagascan sunset moth has quite a story behind its names. It was first described, in 1773, as Papilio rhipheus. That is to say, it was described as a butterfly and not a moth. Captain May of the Hammersmith gave the specimen to the British entomologist Dru Drury, only that specimen had been “repaired” with a butterfly head that had clubbed antennae. (N.B.: don’t glue the wrong head on your broken insect specimen!) In 1831, René Primevère Lesson described Urania ripheus var. madagascarensis. The moth also has a number of other junior synonyms.
Using guides on Wikipedia, asking other editors and inspiring myself with other articles, I gathered and summarized more and more information. I went through Wikipedia’s internal process of peer review in January 2007. On Wikipedia, peers are other Wikipedia editors, not necessarily entomologists. This helped somewhat, especially for article format, but I really had to look for more sources and information to include.
I contacted one of the world experts on the Madagascan sunset moth, Dr. David C. Lees of the London Natural History Museum. I was pleasantly surprised he was already an editor on Wikipedia. He pointed me towards important references I had missed and added information himself. I was delighted.
A cigarette card featuring a “Chrysiridia madagascariensis” fairy in 1928 from John Player & Sons.
In March 2008, I felt my article was close to the level of “Good article”. To be recognized as such, an article needs to meet the good article criteria and to successfully pass the good article nomination process. With the review and suggestions of user Casliber, this happened on March 22nd 2008: I had written a “Good” article on Wikipedia.
I kept going, did more editing, added references and pictures, including a cigarette card from 1928, and what is probably the only photo of this species’ caterpillar on the Internet. I got help from one of the main editor of the articles Optics and Polarization to clarify light polarization for me. The scales on the moth’s wings use two optical phenomena to produce the colours, one of which is polarization dependent. The moth only has pigment in the black regions of its wings.
On June 18th 2008, I proposed the article for evaluation to be recognized as Featured. Featured articles are considered to be the best Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia’s editors. In this review process, various editors make suggestions and ask for changes to the article. I made most of those changes and answered questions to the best of my knowledge. On July 4th 2008, Chrysiridia rhipheus was promoted to Featured Article, this exceptional status is signified by a little star in the top-right corner!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysiridia_rhipheus
On an average day, the article Chrysiridia rhipheus is viewed roughly a hundred times. On April 7th 2012, it was viewed over 20 000 times. In the last 90 days, that makes a total of 37 614 times. Good exposure!
I’ll happily answer the questions of anyone interested in writing “their own” Wikipedia article. It all start with the [edit] button…
Lastly, a note for the professors: “As a part of the ENTO 431, forensic entomology course at Texas A&M University students are assigned the task of writing several articles at Wikipedia pertaining to forensically important fly species.” The students’ work serves their course, and Wikipedia’s goal to create a summary of all human knowledge in an online encyclopedia. (For more information see the course’s Wikipedia page)
News from the Entomological Society of Manitoba
By Matt Yunik, Public Education, Entomological Society of Manitoba
____________________________________
After a slow start, I can finally say that spring is in the air here in Manitoba. Summer students have started their work in the various labs and grad students are chomping at the bit to get back into the field. After the devastating flooding followed by unquenchable drought of last year, this field season shows promise for being more successful.
Memorial in the J.B. Wallis and R.E. Roughley Museum of Entomology, with a case of Dr. Roughley’s Dytiscid beetles.
The entomology museum here at the University of Manitoba has recently undergone some transformations. A modest but fitting re-dedication ceremony was held on March 27th for our newly named J.B. Wallis/R.E. Roughley Museum of Entomology. Dr. Roughley had always been a big promoter of the museum, earning it the status of being the largest insect museum in Western Canada and the first bar-coded database system for entomological collections in Canada.
The department’s Graduate Student Association, with the assistance of the current curator Dr. Barb Sharanowski, has secured funding and are assembling a stereoscope with digital imaging system that will provide stellar images that will be shown on later blog posts.
Finally, there are two points of interest to report from the ESM front. On April 18th the ESM held our new member social. Dinner and drinks were served with admission covered for all new members of the society. I personally enjoyed meeting other newcomers while spending time with some of the more senior members.
Also, the ESM youth encouragement and public awareness team is getting ramped up for the multitude of presentations through the summer months. We typically conduct over 60 presentations a year, the majority of which are for summer youth camps. It will be exciting to see how the influx of new faces in the society will add to these presentations.
ESC Joins Effort to Save the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA)
On June 15, 2012, Rebecca Hallett, Chair of the Science Policy & Education Committee, sent a letter on behalf of the ESC to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) and Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment) asking the Government to reverse their decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area. You can read the full text of the letter attached here. The letter was cc’d to Save ELA, and MPs Elizabeth May (Green Party Leader), Tom Mulcair (New Democratic Party Leader) and Hon. Bob Rae (Liberal Party Leader). The ESC was also added as a signator to an ad in support of saving the ELA printed in the Globe & Mail and the Winnipeg Free Press on Saturday June 16.
You can read the ESC’s letter to the government here.
Anyone interested in learning more about the ELA and/or adding your individual support to this initiative, should visit the Save ELA site.
Responses:
On Monday June 19, a reply was received from Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, expressing her dismay at the closure of the ELA and her intention to table petitions in the House of Commons supporting the continued operation of the ELA in hopes of reversing the government’s decision.
You can read Elizabeth May’s response here.
On Friday June 29, a reply was received from Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans).
You can read Hon. Keith Ashfield’s response here (PDF)
Exceptional Canadian Entomologists Recognized with ESC’s Top Honours
By Rose De Clerck-Floate, Chair of the ESC Achievement Awards Committee
______________________________________
On June 4 I was on a high despite it being the end of a long work day, and a Monday no less. This is because I had the pleasure of informing two distinguished Canadian entomologists that they will be this year’s recipients of our Society’s most prestigious awards; the Gold Medal and the C. Gordon Hewitt Award.
Last December when embarking on my duties as Chair of the Achievement Awards Committee, I had no idea of how the whole process of serving on the Committee which receives and reviews the nominations and then selects the nominees for final ESC Board vote, would profoundly expand my understanding and appreciation of both our entomologist colleagues and our Society. First, I thoroughly enjoyed working with the Committee, which was made up of well-respected and accomplished entomologists in their own right. Secondly, I was taken aback by the quality of candidates, which made our job of choosing only one nominee per award challenging. Finally, I was impressed with the nomination packages themselves, and by how eagerly and selflessly our members rose to the large task of pulling together these rather detailed and long documents during their busy lives. It spoke volumes of the dedication, volunteerism, and team-work of our members, and ultimately, how vibrant we are as a Society.
When I placed the calls, I was both excited and nervous; the latter because there is a fair dash of humility that comes with realizing that these people, even though they are acquaintances and I have interacted with them in the past, all of a sudden stand out as amazing both academically and in their capacity for giving back to the communities they are part of. I honestly had no idea how accomplished they were until reading the nomination packages. Wow! Quickly though, their own humility shone through the phone call; both were thrilled and honored by the news, with one blurting with heartfelt candor, “I have always so loved entomology, and to be recognized by my fellow entomologists means a great deal to me”.
So what our current Prez, Michel Cusson, told me in December is very true. Having the opportunity to tell someone that they are being honored by peers for their contributions to science and society is really a very special moment. And for someone (i.e., me) who has never taken the time to nominate another for one of the awards our Society has to offer annually, this experience also has transformed me. I am now looking more closely at my colleagues; appreciating who they are and what they are contributing to Canadian entomology, and seeing future nominations everywhere! My hope is that others will be inspired down the same fulfilling path of recognizing and giving on behalf of our Society.
After all this, I guess I should let you know who the recipients of this year’s honors are: congratulations to Dr. Felix Sperling for being the awardee of the Gold Medal, and Dr. Brent Sinclair, awardee of the C. Gordon Hewitt Award…….more details to come.
Dr. Felix Sperling, recipient of the ESC Gold Medal
Dr. Brent Sinclair, recipient of the ESC C. Gordon Hewitt Award
Mise à jour/Update: Societé d’Entomologie du Québec
Les 1 et 2 novembre 2012, la SEQ tiendra à Boucherville sa 139e réunion annuelle sous le thème « Entomologie et agriculture biologique : de l’écologie à la pratique ». Lors du symposium, plusieurs conférenciers de prestiges viendront présenter les dernières avancées en agriculture biologique, les applications de leurs recherches ainsi que les défis à relever dans le futur en agriculture biologique. En plus du symposium, plus d’une trentaine de présentations étudiantes et professionnelles seront données sur différents aspects de l’entomologie agricole et forestière lors de la première journée du congrès. Pour plus de détails sur le programme et pour vous inscrire, consultez notre site Web à www.seq.qc.ca
An event not to miss!
On November 1st and 2nd 2012, the SEQ will hold its 139e annual meeting in Boucherville under the theme of “Entomology and organic agriculture: from ecology to practice”. During the symposium, prestigious speakers will present the latest advances in organic agriculture, practical applications of their research and challenges in the future of organic agriculture. In addition to the symposium, more than thirty talks from students and professionals on agricultural and forest entomology research will be given during the first day of the meeting. For more details about the program and to register visit our website at www.seq.qc.ca
__________________________________
Sophie Rochefort
Présidente, Societé d’Entomologie du Québec