Fear of Moths: Ridiculous or Reasonable?

Alright, confession time: one of my best friends is scared of moths. I know, it was a shock for me too. I found this out about two and a half years ago when I sent this friend (let’s call her Sarah because that is her name) pictures of a poplar hawk moth I’d caught. In hindsight, maybe I should have checked first.

Like all phobias, it can be really difficult for those of us without it to understand what the problem is so I asked Sarah exactly what she doesn’t like:

“I don’t like them cause they freak me out irl when they fly in my face and they’re fuzzy and look like death and just looking at them gives me shivers

That any good for your blog?”

Although we often refer to it as lepidopterophobia (the irrational fear of all Lepidoptera), its true form is actually very rare. Many people are terrified of moths but have no problem at all with butterflies, leading to mottephobia (the irrational fear of moths) being increasingly common.

cof

The picture that started it all.

 

Specific phobias” are an intense and persistent fear of a certain object or situation, most of which are thought to develop in childhood as a result of a traumatic experiences and/or genetic predisposition, and usually go away by adulthood. In the case of a lot of common fears, such as arachnophobia or cynophobia (fear of spiders and dogs, respectively), it is thought that they might be an evolutionary adaptation to things which were once dangerous for us, even if they aren’t any more. Both of these factors make sense for fears of things which can hurt you, bees and wasps for example, but what possible harm can moths do?

According to some sources, it seems Sarah is not alone, the fear is mostly linked to movement. Some find the unpredictable fluttering flight patterns unsettling, feeling uncomfortable when a butterfly or moth flies near them in case it lands on them or brushes against their skin. These fears are multiplied when the insects are swarming in groups, something which must make lepdiopterophobes who live in monarch butterfly migratory “highways” somewhat uncomfortable. At the end of the day, it seems to be the unpredictability which is especially fear-provoking, which ties in with the fear of the unknown. This still doesn’t answer why more people are scared of moths than butterflies and it doesn’t seem that clear. My best guess is that is has something to do with the fact that we mostly encounter moths by night as they try to get into our houses – a distinctly creepy scenario.

Although it is important to be understanding of people with true mottephobia, there is a greater issue here: that of irrational disgust and dislike of interests, without the excusable irrational fear and panic of a phobia. A third of fear of British animals in UK adults was of “fear-relevant animals” (snakes etc.) and invertebrates. Not of fear relevant invertebrates like wasps and bees, or even disease relevant invertebrates like mosquitos and cockroaches, just “invertebrates”. The paper even lists slugs and worms as given examples of feared invertebrates, suggesting that the disgust the great British public feels about “creepy crawlies” is entirely without logical reason.

To a certain extent it can be argued that fears develop because of a lack of exposure: students from urban areas on field trips to wildland areas were recorded as frequently expressing a fear and disgust of insects, as well as snakes, plants, and “getting lost”. Fear of the unknown is considered by some researchers to be “the fundamental fear”; what you don’t know can, in fact, hurt you. To link this back to mottephobia, if the only exposure you have to moths is them flapping in your face on summer evenings, I can see why it would be annoying, even distressing and how that could develop into a fully blown phobia.

flesh moth.jpg

Even by the BBC’s standards this was a weird one

The idea for this article was sparked by an episode of Doctor Who back in November where the Doctor and her companions ended up in an anti-zone between universes infested with flesh moths: enormous carnivorous moths which are attracted to light and movement and could strip the flesh from prey in moments. Look, don’t ask me, ask the BBC.In order to reduce and remove specific phobias, exposure therapy is used to gradually reduce the amount of fear associated with a trigger.  But how are people supposed to ‘grow out’ of their childhood fears if the media constantly feeds us negative images of insects?

Now whilst some moths do, as Sarah said, “look like death” (I’m looking at

death's head hawk moth.jpg

Acheronita atropos, the Death’s Head Hawk Moth with its distinctive skull-shaped marking

you, Death’s Head Hawk Moth), there are many more which are beautiful and play incredibly important roles in their ecosystems – one of the best well known being the obligate mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths. Maybe the fact we never see these moths represented in the media but are regularly exposed to butterflies in a positive context also contributes to the difference in attitudes.

atlas moth.jpg

The truly beautiful, and somewhat butterfly-like, atlas moth (Attacus atlas) defies all preconceptions about moths’ small and dowdy nature.

 

Sometimes we have a tendency, as people who know about and spend time with insects, to find the level of disgust the British public feel towards invertebrates frustrating. That’s fair enough, but what scares people, scares them, and there’s nothing we can do except try to support those with true phobias and educate those who just don’t understand.

And whatever you do, don’t send mottephobes pictures of hawk moths!

 

 

Advertisements

In defence of common names

In our Dipteran discussions on Tuesday last week, the idea of doing away with all insect common names was mooted. While this may have had some support from MSc colleagues in the room, I think the majority were probably with me in internally screaming “NOOOOOOOO!”.

Let’s be frank from the start: yes, our good old Anglicised common names are mostly easier to remember than scientific names, unless you’re a fluent Greek or Latin speaker. But that’s not why I’m here to stick up for the commoner.

Arescon_(fairyfly,_Thailand)

It’s well worth first acknowledging that there are problems with common names. Many are seemingly endless variations on a pretty loose theme (see the myriad ground beetles or hoverflies), and they can be different at national and even local level, de-standardising what is an internationally-agreed nomenclature and even muddying the waters of the body of research on given species.

But it’s not like the waters aren’t muddy enough in the first place. It’s arguable that things haven’t changed that much since 1942, when the Journal of Economic Entomology published an editorial stating:

With the scientific names of insects in perpetual chaos, due to the application of the law of priority, the splitting of species and generic concepts, and the endless shuffling of species from one genus to another, common names have come to have much more significance and importance than formerly.”

Common names have a tendency to cut through the noisy clanging of taxonomic debates – but they can do more than that: evoke, romanticise, or simply tell it like it is. On the latter, common names can tell you what an insect feeds on (pollen beetle, currant aphid, fungus gnat, dog tick), give you a crystal clear idea what an insect looks like (scorpionfly, giraffe weevil, orchid mantis, violin beetle), and let you know where it likes to hang out (larder beetle, house fly, museum beetle, bedbug).

Ocypus_olens_-_Devil's_coach-horse_beetle_(Cocktail_beetle)_-_Късокрил_бръмбар_-_Schwarzer_Moderkäfer_(22007628019)

Devil’s coach horse beetle – Ocypus olens (Wikimedia Commons)

They can also simply bring a bit of fun to what can seem to outsiders like a dry discipline. Science is not forever vanquished by the simple admission that talk of fairyflies, ugly nest caterpillar moths, assassin bugs, beautiful demoiselle darters and bombardier beetles makes the world a slightly lighter, more wonder-filled place.

Common names can even reveal a bit about our culture. Why on earth shouldn’t Britain, a country steeped in existential angst and the occult, have brought its language to bear on the death’s head hawk moth, devil’s coach horse and deathwatch beetles?

As if to prove the joy of an apt common name, when Tuesday turned to Wednesday and we were introduced to the Lepidoptera via a photo of the Picasso moth, there was a notable instant improvement in the mood of the room, previously somewhat tense ahead of the afternoon’s assessed practical.

The power to evoke should not be underestimated in the communication of science. From a personal perspective, a life-long love of beetles would have been far less likely sparked by Lucanus cervus than stag beetle. The public are not a bunch to be sneered at for their failure to appreciate scientific correctness – and what’s more, need to be brought along as the pivotal role of insects in supporting human life becomes ever clearer.

Picasso moth M Greeshma

Picasso moth – Baorissa hieroglyphica (photo: M. Greeshma)

I agree wholeheartedly with Michael J. Samways, who in his 2005 book Insect Diversity Conservation urged experts not to shy away from charismatic ‘icon’ species and to use their common names, “so as to give the conservation mission warmth and familiarity”.

In case I haven’t made myself quite clear, I’m not just trying to make life more difficult for Giannis, Cyprus’s representative on the course, who’s been sitting through the Hellenic-monikered species being reeled off as part of our Biology and Taxonomy of Insects module with a distinct air of ‘heard it all before’.

And all of this is absolutely no argument against scientific names per se. Of course, they will always have primacy – but they shouldn’t sit on their own, or they might just find themselves in sparse company.

Behind the Moth Meme

Mothmeme1

Unless you’ve digitally cleansed your life recently, you’ll probably be aware that moth memes have taken over the internet – so much so that there is now, inevitably, a Reddit page dedicated to this unique sub-group of social media fodder.

The focus of this frenzy of meme-making has been moths’ famed love of artificial light. But here at Mastering Entomology, we’ve decided to delve a little deeper.

First and foremost, though, it’s worth pointing out that there are plenty of moths that fly during the day – so aren’t the types to be suckered into the seductive glow of a lamp. A study by Florida Museum of Natural History suggested that 15-25% of all Lepidoptera are day-flyers, while Butterfly Conservation has helpfully produced an overview of the UK’s non-nocturnal moths.

But of the nocturnal species, is there really a deep craving driving moth orientation towards our light sources? The fun-killing simple answer is probably no. The expert consensus seems to be that it’s all a misunderstanding; that they’re actually looking to orient themselves by the moon, and they’re simply drawn to alternatives because they’re brighter. As they move closer, their ability to triangulate is thrown off kilter, resulting in them returning to the light repeatedly.

Mothmeme3

But given the distraction, as opposed to attraction, our light sources bring, are all moths equally likely to zone in on the bright lights, and are all electric lighting types equally likely to bring lepidopterans into their glow? That’s another no and no.

The tendency to head for the light could be greater for moths from areas with little light pollution. Altermatt and Ebert (2016) found that in the case of the small ermine moth (Yponomeuta cagnagella), ‘city moths’ from populations that had experienced high amounts of artificial light were less likely to fly to light under lab conditions than those from ‘dark sky’ populations. It has been suggested by several studies that natural selection should favour those less drawn to artificial light – pretty logical stuff – and this research provides some evidence that such selection may indeed be happening.

Altermatt and Ebert have serious form when it comes to advancing knowledge on moths and light. In their 2009 study with Adrian Baumeyer, male Yponomeuta cagnagella and Ligdia adustata were seen to be 1.6 times more likely to make a beeline for an artificial light source than females. A good argument to settle the ‘smarter sex’ debate, perhaps.

A PhD study in Exeter has recently shed further light (pardon the pun) on the type of illumination most attractive to larger moths, finding that short wave lighting attracts both greater numbers of species and individuals than long wave.

Mothmeme2

The interplay of moths and light is, alas, not all online laughs and levity. There is growing evidence that artificial light may be having deeper effects on moth numbers than simply the deletion of those flying at speed towards the lamp. While the fact they are drawn to light is firmly established, there is evidence that it could be reducing moths’ attraction to each other.

A 2015 study in the Netherlands by van Geffen et al looked at the mating habits of Operophtera brumata, a member of the Geometridae family, when tree trunks were lit with different-coloured LED lighting. What the first phase of the research discovered was two-fold, and fascinating: a significant reduction in females on the illuminated trunks, again suggesting a sex bias in light attraction, and an inhibition of mating when they were under the lights. A side note, though: perhaps appropriately for this sexy moth discussion, more females caught on trunks lit with red light had mated than those with green or white light.

Mating is not the only matter that will pique concern amongst conservationists. Other research has found links between feeding and artificial light (they appeared to do less when subjected to it) and caterpillar development (they reached lower mass under white light and pupated earlier under green and white).

There is clearly multi-faceted interplay between moths and light, and a sense that we’re only beginning to understand the mechanics and effects of it. The ability of species to coexist with increasingly dense human habitation is a hot topic, so knowledge in this area is only set to grow in the coming years. Far from every aspect of this issue has been covered in this blog, but in the interests of brevity, it might be best to wrap up (although most of those readers who came for the memes have probably gone already).

Final note: this week and next we’re doing the taught elements of Biology and Taxonomy of Insects, the second module of the Entomology Masters here at Harper. Next Wednesday we’ll be looking at Lepidoptera, increasing our knowledge of these complex yet internet content-friendly insects.

Shropshire Entomology Day – 04/02/2018

Yesterday, me (@EntoAqib) and three fellow entomologists (@pseudoliam, @ento_the_wild and @Apis_linzi) began our journey to the Shropshire Entomology Day at the Field Studies Council centre at Preston Montford, bright and early *shudders*. Upon arrival we were greeted with tea and biscuits, alas, we felt alive once more. After signing in and a warm welcome from Sue Townsend (the FSC chair) we saddled up and waited patiently for the talks to begin.

Starting off was Peter Boardman, a dipterist with a particular fondness for craneflies. He gave us an overview of his past year working for Natural England. He began with tales of traversing the country, sampling at stunning SSSI’s (Sites of Special Scientific Interest); accompanied with pictures of beautiful critters. However, it’s not always sunny days spent sweep netting, there’s also an immense amount of post-fieldwork time and effort that goes into sorting, identifying and then recording specimens!

Next up, was Mike Shurmer, a micromoth super-fan and recorder. Turns out micromoths aren’t just boring brown things, they come in a bunch of different colours and patterns. They are the most diverse of UK Lepidoptera, trumping the substantially more popular butterflies and macro-moths, highlighting their importance and need for attention. Some notable records were mentioned, one of which was Crambus ulliginosellus:

Crambus uliginosellus

Crambus ulliginosellus © Jens Christian Schou

 

,this funky looking moth, with an equally funky name, was recorded in Shropshire recently for the first time in 50 years! The presentation ended with a challenge, so I’m going to re-present you guys with the same challenge:

Look out for these two micromoths:-

Twenty-plume moth

  • Keep a look out indoors, in wood stores, garden sheds and in garages.

Twenty-plume moth ©RodBaker

Ectodemia septembrella (slightly trickier)

  • Has leaf mining larvae (the larvae feed within the leaves).
  • Look out for feeding signs on Hypericum spp., commonly known as St. Johns Wort.

    42-Ectoedemia-septembrella-1JPEG

    Feeding signs of the leaf mining larvae of Ectodemia septembrella ©BarryDickerson

If you do find them (or any other micromoth) remember to submit a record on iRecord!

Third on the agenda was a short presentation by Keiron Brown about BioLinks, a project being ran by the FSC which aims to train individuals of varying expertise in the identification and recording of several invertebrate groups, including relatively overlooked ones.

IMG_20180205_025941[1]

Focus species groups of the BioLinks project ©HeatherCampbell

Following suit was a talk by Godfrey Blunt on the problems associated with mapping invertebrates. He began by highlighting the problems with current record mapping. Firstly, just because an organism was once there it doesn’t mean it’s still there now. Current mapping uses the botanists approach, but unlike plants, inverts can move. So, if something was found in a spot away from it’s range it doesn’t mean it’s expanding its natural range, it’s very likely that it’s just a chance recording. Therefore, it is important to note that record maps depict static resident population not mobile ones. He also stated that it shouldn’t just be about simply putting a blob on a map, we should be selective in the data we input (especially with old records), as too many inputs may make a map difficult to interpret. The other side of this problem coin is that not having enough records, which is just as bad. He offered an adequate manner (he stressed that this isn’t a solution) of addressing this problem by adopting the mapping approach used by ornithologists; using different sizes of dots and different shapes depending on the record. This provides a visual source of information which is clearer and substantially easier to interpret. Richard Burkmar gave a demonstration on how to use nifty QGIS to produce a base map with the necessary information and then overlaid the records onto it, followed by a resounding “ooooo” from the audience at the pretty result.

Lawrence Bee followed up with a presentation on what went into the making of the British Spiders Field Guide which he co-authored. It’s a handy dandy book jam-packed with lots of info and tons of gorgeous photographs of spiders. I just couldn’t resist grabbing myself a copy!

 

Lunch break!

With our stomachs full, we were ready for another round of talks. It was time for a talk which I was really looking forward to- rearing bushcrickets in captivity! Jon Delf talked through several aspects of rearing: starting a culture, suitable housing, feeding requirements, mating and how to treat their eggs. Everything you need to know to rear bushcrickets in the comfort of your own home.

Next up was fellow entomologist and @EntoMasters student, Liam Andrews. His talk was titled: “Pseudoscorpions of Shropshire”. He started off by informing the crowd about this understudied group with an overview. There’s only 27 species in the UK, but about 3500 worldwide (probably substantially more). He then went on to talk about their physiology and behaviour. Pseudoscorpions display phoretic behaviour- they hitch a ride on other organisms such as flies and beetles to disperse. Their physiology is pretty awesome, these little predators are armed with venomous pedipalps (but some don’t have any venom) and chelicerae which they use to subdue their prey. The chelicerae are also tipped with silk producing structures called the galea. The audience was also informed on how to sample for them. A Tullgren funnel can be used, however these aren’t readily accessible, but you can make your own (pic below)! Sieving compost heaps and leaf litter may also expose these elusive critters, as well as scouring under rocks and logs. The informative presentation came to a close with a run through all the species recorded within Shropshire.

 

Viv Marsh then delivered a talk on siting and managing artificial bee hotels, with a focus on Osmia bicornis, a stingless bee species which is an effective pollinator. The last presentation of the day was by dipterist Nigel Jones, on the insects which he found sweep netting a single ash tree in his back garden. His finds were very interesting to say the least, including a potentially new species to science! It’s incredible how a single tree can boast such diversity.

Aaaaand that’s a wrap! I’d like to thank the organisers and the speakers for such a fantastic day! Hopefully I can make it next year for another day full of ento-goodness.

Follow these folks on twitter:

FSC Centre Preston Montford: @PrestonMontford

FSC Preston Montford chair: @SueTownsend3

Peter Boardman: @pebo22 who runs the cranefly recording scheme @CRStipula

Keiron Brown: @KeironDBrown and the official BioLinks twitter account @FSCBioLinks

Mike Shurmer: @mike_shurmer

Liam Andrews: @pseudoliam who also runs @PseudoscorpUK

Lawrence Bee: @LawrenceBee

Richard Burkmar: @burkmarr

 

By Aqib Ali  (Twitter:@EntoAqib, Email: Aqib1996@hotmail.co.uk, Linkedin: Aqib Ali)

MSc Entomology Twitter: @EntoMasters

An Update (Part 1)

It has been a hot minute since we posted the last article which introduced us, so a little update about what us budding entomologists have been getting up to on the course so far and my thoughts on it seemed rather apt. I present to you part one of the overview/highlights of what we’ve done so far:

Module 1: Biology & Taxonomy of Insects

Following the introductory Research & Information Skills module, this was the first entomology module with two weeks of entomological goodness for the cohort to get stuck into, and boy, we weren’t left disappointed. The module started with a session on Orthoptera and a general run through of insect anatomy led by Dr. Andy Cherrill. This was followed by practical session which involved a delightful dissection of the desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria).

 

The next day we covered the order Thysanoptera (thrips) with Dr Tom Pope (@ipm_tom), followed by a zoom through the superorder Dictyoptera (comprising of the orders Mantodea (mantids) and Blattodea (cockroaches and termites)) with Dr. Rob Graham. With everyone on the course being from varied backgrounds and holding different levels of experience within different things, the session on insect pinning and curation was extremely useful for everyone. The cohort spent the afternoon pinning, micropinning and carding insects in a thrilling practical session led by PhD student Francisca Sconce (@FranciscaSconce).

received_10212882523289166[1]

Pinned 3rd instar desert locust nymph and carabid (specimens pinned and photographed by Linzi (@Apis_linzi)).

After a whizz through a lecture on sampling methods by Prof. Simon Leather (@EntoProf) we covered a range of methods, ranging from beating to sweep netting and from pitfall traps to malaise traps. The afternoon was spent in the great outdoors sweep netting and getting to use the Vortistm, a vacuum used to suck up and sample insects (and relatives).

20171004_145807[1]

Fellow entomologist Brinna (@BrinnaBarlow) trying her hand at sampling some insects using the Vortis suction sampler.

The first week of this module ended with a bang, with the first guest speaker from the Natural History Museum: hymenopterist Dr. Andy Polaszek (@AndyPolaszek)! In a blitz through the hyper diverse Hymenoptera, we covered several groups, focusing on their identification as well as some tidbits on their biology. We put what we learnt during the morning lecture to test in an intense identification practical.

 

 

 

Week two of the module started with an aphid-packed day on Hemiptera. The next day was Lepidoptera-filled. We had a practical session which involved taking morphometric measurments in waxmoths (Galleria mellonella) and dissecting out the females ovarioles to count the number of eggs.

20171010_150657[1]

A female wax moth (Galleria mellonella) dissected with ovarioles spread out, as part of the Lepidoptera class practical.

Speaker number two from NHM was THE fly girl herself, Dr. Erica McAllister (@flygirlNHM)! She vividly captured our interest and introduced us to the weird and wonderful world of flies. Leading on nicely from the zoom through Diptera, we had a session on Forensic Entomology, full of murder (not literally of course…that’d be bad) and maggots with one of the UK’s leading forensic entomologist’s Dr. Amoret Whitaker. The module ended with shimmer and shine a.k.a beetles, with coleopterist Dr. Max Barclay (@Coleopterist)!

 

This module was certainly a personal favourite of mine (so far), we covered SOOO MUCH in a relatively short space of time. With informative lectures from the university lecturers, plenty of hands on practicals, combined with several external speakers who are experts within their respective fields; I feel as though we thoroughly covered the major insect orders in a very engaging manner! A truly fantastic start to the course!

Make sure to check out the next post “An Update (Part 2)” on Saturday!

 

By Aqib Ali  (Twitter:@EntoAqib , Email: Aqib1996@hotmail.co.uk , Linkedin: Aqib Ali)

MSc Entomology Twitter: @EntoMasters

It’s the final essay! Also: What can you expect to see from us in the future?

Greetings readership.

Here we have the final scholarship essay, soon be published in the Royal Entomological Society’s members’ magazine, Antenna. Its author is Siobhan Anne-Marie Hillman. She developed her love of entomology whilst studying at the University of Derby, graduating with a BSc in Zoology. Siobhan’s main interests are in Continue reading