Hi Rosemary, Royal, Craig, etc,. etc.
I have most all, if not all, of the published literature on Louisiana
butterflies and moths going back to the Civil War years. I have mistakenly
provided such records and information to a certain few individuals decades
back, and those persons turned around, and removed my name, and reported
this information as their own. What is most comical about all of this, is
that not one of those persons verified even one of the species I have here,
and placed this information lists. Now, I have allowed numerous dozens of
persons to view my actual research collection over the decades. I have also
personally collected over much of the entire state for its butterflies and
its moths, and other insects, for over 63 years here in Louisiana. What
most of you apparently are not bothering considering is that a significant
percentage of all of these unverified records on these websites is totally
bogus, and some other records very suspect. These records are all temporary
and essentially useless; can and do appear, and disappear numerous times in
a single day. All of these sites, 100% of them allow any persons, children,
and other non-taxonomical persons to add such meaningless information as
valid, potentially damaging to our taxonomical literature for all future
time. I have allowed Craig to access all of my records for Louisiana
butterflies, as I have personally collected butterflies every single day for
over 60 years here in Louisiana. I have recorded a lot of butterflies, e.g.
just during one eight year period, late 80s-early 90s, I operated 8
fermenting fruit bait traps 365-366/ days of each and every year. On every
one of these years, I specifically logged more than 40,000 individual
butterflies just using these 8 bait traps, just here at my home property.
Consider I have actually operated bait traps for about 45 years at this
point. This quantity of 40,000/yr does not include the considerable
quantities of butterflies I capture (as bycatch) in my 7-8 light traps for
the past near 49 years in Louisiana, sometimes capturing over 200
butterflies, in a single light trap, during a single night.
By using unverified sources for these, which none of you personally seen, is
scientific heresy. By republishing this information elsewhere as valid,
destroys our scientific literature for the future. I know, because I have
personally seen (in-person) some of these unverified records published in
every one of these stated venues, and they were ramped misidentifications,
even by so-called expert PhDs. You say, so what, small number of errors are
expected. I recall one box of 14 specimens representing 14 different
species I reviewed previously for a well noted PhD. This person reporting
these (a well noted PhD author of numerous butterfly and moth state
publications in journals, newsletters, books, etc. ). This person was mad
as hell that I disagreed with him concerning these species determinations,
so he packaged them up and sent them off to the American Museum of Natural
History. The following month, this person sent me his letter and a copy of
the AMNH determinations. It appears all 14 were indeed misidentified by
this (PhD expert) So I say, no, not one error is acceptable, not when you
all are 100% personally in control of preventing this. I don't claim to be
all-knowing, nor an expert in anything; just stating this example here to
exemplify the problem.
What happens when some future authors who are concerned about such drivel
being documented as valid, is that they will simply ignore this nonsensical
published effort outlined here using data from BAMONA, LEPSOC Season
Summaries, So. Lepid. Soc. Zone Reports, Bug Guide, personal data, and data
from other individuals. Essentially, the only persons who think these
sources are meaningful are wanna-be lepidopterists and persons having a half
filled shoe box of a collection under their bed. Even more ridiculous are
those that do no collecting, and mistakenly assume that determining most
species by using images is meaningful. None of these such reports are
verified by any of you, if that was the case you would reconsider these very
real meaningless sources. Ask yourself, just what are you reporting by
adding your name to passing on such less than dubious scientific records
that none of you actually know anything about.
The 'Golden Rule' concerning these matters is that one never, ever report
even a single record that each of you personally has not verified. I'm sure
most of you, if not all will ignore my warning here. Once your name is
attached to any such 'Fake Records' you cannot recall those publications. My
extensive entomological library is filled with such misinformation going
back a century and a half.
It is not my purpose to denigrate any of you, as I consider most of you
friends; but only to think about what you are doing. I do not think that
placing images and determinations on personal websites on the web, (a
fleeting existence), is a bad thing, as these currently easily allow for
further verification and revision of potential errors, and are not published
in permanent scientific literature.
Lastly, consider I helped start several such websites concerning moths,
butterflies, etc., including MPG long ago with hundreds of images of species
not available through anyone or any other source. Last year, I had all of
my hundreds of images removed from that site, as I don't want to be
associated with sites which still currently display hundreds of improper
species identifications there.
And Rosemary, on your spreadsheet list, I note hundreds of species/parish
records that are missing, which I have actual specimens here in my research
collection. You may ask, why have I not reported a revised listing of the
butterflies of Louisiana. I proposed doing this with Gayle Strickland
decades back, but there was just to many issues to resolve in doing this
accurately. Though, I have published upon more than a dozen individual
butterfly species accounts as is well known by many of you.
Vernon Antoine Brou Jr. & Charlotte D. Brou
Abita Entomological Study Site (The most intensely studied entomological
location in North America)
74320 Jack Loyd Road
Abita Springs, Louisiana 70420 USA
Vernon's cell # 985-264-5381
Charlotte's cell # 985-630-6679
vabrou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:vabrou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> primary E-mail
Lepidopterists Society member since 1968
Research Associate, Florida State Collection of Arthropods since 1972
Southern Lepidopterists Society charter member since 1978
Entomological Society of Washington member since 1985
Research Associate, McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity,
Florida Museum of Natural History since 2010
[mailto:louisianaleps-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosemary Seidler
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 8:41 PM
Subject: [louisianaleps] Re: [LNPS] Re: Parish butterfly species records
Craig, Royal, et. al.,
Attached is a spreadsheet of butterflies vs parishes that I started using
data from BAMONA, LEPSOC Season Summaries, BugGuide, personal data, and data
from a few other individuals. I would occasionally travel to parishes with
few records and send new species for the parish to the LEPSOC Season
When Craig started his book on Louisiana butterflies I stopped updating the
spreadsheet since Craig was gathering this same information. Last time I
updated the spreadsheet was July, 2008.
Personally, I find it more useful/interesting to see what butterflies are
seen in each parish rather than what parishes have reported an individual
So, Craig, can you fill in some "X's" and send the list back to us? I may
also be missing a few species. Or you can send me the data and I will update
Royal, I could do the same with moths but is a much more daunting project.
<mailto:louisianaleps-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > on behalf of Craig Marks
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 3:26:47 PM
To: whitefringetree@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:whitefringetree@xxxxxxxxx> ;
Cc: louisianaleps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:louisianaleps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [louisianaleps] Re: [LNPS] Re: Parish butterfly species records
I know Jeff Trahan has a website with a list of butterflies/skippers for
Caddo. He also has a website for NW LA moths with many pictures. You should
also look at the many articles and other items on the internet by Vernon
Brou as he is the "go to guy" for moths here in LA.
From: Royal Tyler <whitefringetree@xxxxxxxxx
To: Louisiana Native Plant Society <lnps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: louisianaleps <louisianaleps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, Jul 31, 2017 3:13 pm
Subject: [LNPS] Re: Parish butterfly species records
I am curious if there is an official species list of any kind for all Leps.
I have about 600 for Caddo parish if you include moths, and I know Jeff has
a good many also.
On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 11:24:10 AM UTC-5, Craig Marks wrote:
I thought that some additional prospective might be helpful to generate
interest in increasing our knowledge of what is present in LA and where.
Specifically, only 3 parishes have over 100 species recorded, St. Tammany
(primarily thru the efforts of Vernon Brou), Caddo (primarily thru the
efforts of Jean, Rosemary, Vickie and Jeff) and Natchitoches (thru the
efforts of many), with 110, 106 and 101 reported respectively. Only 2 have
over 90 recorded, West Feliciana (primarily thru the efforts of Dr. M.
Israel) and Rapides (again, due to the efforts of several), both with 95
reported. E. Baton Rouge (88), E. Feliciana (87), Bossier (87), Vernon (85)
and Tangipahoa (84) round at the top 10.
So, even some of the parishes at the top of the list are missing some
species that should be there in the right habitat.
My book will include species specific parish range maps which will identify
in which parishes each species has been recorded. I'd like to supplement
those current maps (if possible). If anyone is interested, send me an e-mail
and I will provide the number for your parish.
From: Craig Marks <cwm...@xxxxxxx <about:blank> >
To: louisianaleps <louisi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <about:blank> >; lnps
<ln...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <about:blank> >
Sent: Wed, Jun 28, 2017 8:29 am
Subject: Parish butterfly species records
Not sure if anyone has noticed, but there is an effort underway in Arkansas,
spearheaded by Herschel Raney, to increase the species counts for various
under-reported counties in that State. So, and this time not sure if anyone
is interested, I thought I would post a list of the 10 least reported
parishes w/i our State.
St. Bernard 19
E. Carroll 20
W. Carroll 22
By my calculations and research, 154 butterflies and skippers have been
reported as found at least once w/i LA. Of that number, 129 appear to be or
to have been permanent residents of this State. So, the simple math suggests
there are a lot of unreported butterflies in the parishes listed above. If
you live in or near any of those parishes, or if you have plans to visit any
of them this summer, spend a little time looking for butterflies, and send
me your list. At this point, even common butterflies will probably increase
these parish lists.
In that regard, no individual butterfly has been reported in all 64 of LA's
parishes. Cloudless Sulphurs and Little Yellows top the list w/ reports from
62 parishes. Other notables include Pearl Cres in 60, Buckeyes in 58, Tiger
and Pipevine STs in 57 and Carolina Satyrs in 55. So, another effort would
be to try and find these common butterflies in all 64 parishes since there
is no doubt they are in all of them.
By the way, all of these statistics, and many more, will be included in my
book, now scheduled for release in early 2018.
If anyone has questions, or would like some more details, let me know.
To post to this group, send email to lnps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Administrator: beth.erwin1@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:beth.erwin1@xxxxxxxxx>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Louisiana Native Plant Society" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lnps+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.