Here's a link to a research paper on the mating behaviour of the Marsh Fritillary, in case anyone finds it interesting. Originally published by The European Zoological Journal, 2019. Open access.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 19.1629030
Cheers,
Phil.
Mating Behaviour of Marsh Fritillary
-
Pete Eeles
- Administrator & Stock Contributor
- Posts: 6869
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:10 pm
- Location: Thatcham, Berkshire
- Contact:
Re: Mating Behaviour of Marsh Fritillary
Thanks for posting this, Phil - I personally find such detail absolutely fascinating!
In this particular instance, I do wonder if the observations would translate to those in the wild where plexiglass is nowhere to be seen
Cheers,
- Pete
In this particular instance, I do wonder if the observations would translate to those in the wild where plexiglass is nowhere to be seen
Cheers,
- Pete
Life Cycles of British & Irish Butterflies: http://www.butterflylifecycles.com
British & Irish Butterflies Rarities: http://www.butterflyrarities.com
British & Irish Butterflies Rarities: http://www.butterflyrarities.com
Re: Mating Behaviour of Marsh Fritillary
Indeed. A high level of control is often needed when studying behaviour at scientific level but I'm sure there must be other more natural ways of captive observation. I know I wouldn't perform easily under plexiglass! 
Cheers,
Phil.
Cheers,
Phil.
Re: Mating Behaviour of Marsh Fritillary
Hi David,
I've been thinking about this a lot overnight. It comes down to whether we are prepared to except that scientific study necessitates some deviations from what goes on in nature or not.
For any given fact to be proven, a controlled experiment that can be repeated and then challenged or agreed by others needs to take place. In the paper in question, there is no doubt that some of the environments the butterflies were observed in were artificial and therefore not what is found in nature. In these artificial environments (the domes) behaviour was able to be observed and recorded in detail, repeatedly, and statistics were gathered and evaluated. The 'domed' butterflies had very little outside distractions such as wind, temperature variation, vegetation or a potential predator or other species (other than the human observers) to distract them, so mating behaviour was likely the only thing on their minds. It is likely that more accurate observations and stats on such things as wing beating behaviour, body posture, flight etc were possible because of this.
I was pleased to read that experiments in the wild also formed a large part of the research, it wasn't all about the butterflies observed under domes. I was also pleased to read that proper permissions from the appropriate ministry in Italy were also obtained before collecting any live specimens from the wild.
On balance, I don't think I have a problem with research such as this - it furthers human knowledge and increases our ability to encourage and protect the species as a whole. But it still could not have been a comfortable experience for those individuals that were observed under plexiglass though.
Interestingly, there has been another post on my website regarding courtship behaviour, this time with the Common Blue. In this second case it was observations done purely in the wild by an enthusiast. Although both are interesting, the Common Blue observations are not as detailed, nor are they proven, because the events could not be controlled.
For me, I think I've decided there is a place for both approaches.
Cheers,
Phil.
I've been thinking about this a lot overnight. It comes down to whether we are prepared to except that scientific study necessitates some deviations from what goes on in nature or not.
For any given fact to be proven, a controlled experiment that can be repeated and then challenged or agreed by others needs to take place. In the paper in question, there is no doubt that some of the environments the butterflies were observed in were artificial and therefore not what is found in nature. In these artificial environments (the domes) behaviour was able to be observed and recorded in detail, repeatedly, and statistics were gathered and evaluated. The 'domed' butterflies had very little outside distractions such as wind, temperature variation, vegetation or a potential predator or other species (other than the human observers) to distract them, so mating behaviour was likely the only thing on their minds. It is likely that more accurate observations and stats on such things as wing beating behaviour, body posture, flight etc were possible because of this.
I was pleased to read that experiments in the wild also formed a large part of the research, it wasn't all about the butterflies observed under domes. I was also pleased to read that proper permissions from the appropriate ministry in Italy were also obtained before collecting any live specimens from the wild.
On balance, I don't think I have a problem with research such as this - it furthers human knowledge and increases our ability to encourage and protect the species as a whole. But it still could not have been a comfortable experience for those individuals that were observed under plexiglass though.
Interestingly, there has been another post on my website regarding courtship behaviour, this time with the Common Blue. In this second case it was observations done purely in the wild by an enthusiast. Although both are interesting, the Common Blue observations are not as detailed, nor are they proven, because the events could not be controlled.
For me, I think I've decided there is a place for both approaches.
Cheers,
Phil.