This is one of the most interesting articles I've read this year: the subject matter is really intriguing (I had never thought about this being the reason butterflies in pictures look so clinical and saddening, but it completely makes sense!), and almost more intriguing is that the author is passionate enough about this to write such a wonderfully extensive article about it.
Recently Behringer, a musician's audio equipment manufacturer, teased a clone of the Wasp, a historic synthesizer. They copied the design language down to the original wasp icon as can be seen in this image.
Seeing this announcement immediately reminded me of this article. A strange wing position for a wasp. So far as I know, that wasp is dead and mounted, for the same reason that the butterflies are dead.
I can't find the article that I thought had been linked to in the previous thread, but there was a similar article about depictions of the Moon that I read around the same time as the first postings of this. The point of that article was that people are really bad at depicting correct combinations of phase, orientation, and position for the Moon. It's actually pretty straightforward to get it right once you think about what the phase and position tells you about the Sun's position.
It seems to me, actually, the body position that seems most incorrect (eg in the Monarch poster). The body remains largely horizontal, and "above" the wings.
I saw this post first time around (on HN) and bought the complaint completely. But, having now looked at lots of slow motion butterfly flight pictures I think she's over-stating it a little.
Look at this [1], or a slow-mo of Monarchs: the white & black Tree Nymph (I think it's called) in particular, especially at first take off, or when gliding, has quite a swept forward wing. Perhaps about 120deg spacing.
Other butterflies, of the ones I saw it was smaller ones but the OP observes the contrary, have greater than 180deg spacing. That made me wonder if the wing sweep was more to do with flight conditions (wind speed, etc.)?
Projection, the angle you observe from, is a key factor in the apparent shape too.
I dunno, to me it makes the most sense to portray an at-rest butterfly as it would appear by choice, when it is resting with its wings fully extended (whether for display, or to soak up sunlight, I don't know). And those seem to nearly universally have overlapped wings, as the author describes.
As for snapshotting a butterfly in flight, the wings are so briefly spread fully that it seems more problematic to show such a brief, flat angle all the time.
All in all, though, I kinda hate this post. I can't unsee it now.
I still find it to be a great, well-stated, and thought provoking, though.
Overall though all the positions seem good and it's more of an artistic choice. The "dead butterfly" pose shows off the wing patterns better and it's close enough to positions the butterflies assume in daily life. You don't often see spread-eagle positions in photos either but nobody would mind using it to show off some full-body tattoos.
Looks like they move their wings like birds, there is a forward movement that avoids pushing any air, and a backwards movement where they push the air back. If so, the more effort they are making (so, at take off, hoovering, and against the wind), the longer they will push their wings ahead.
(I did never notice this before, and it's kind of surprising because most insects move differently. But it does make a lot of sense, because they have large wings and can not really fly like a mosquito.)
Just going from that video, it seems to me that the wings are inly really forward for the upwards portion of when they flap their wings, which is only a portion of the positioning while flapping, and that at-rest the wings are not forward. (I only watched that one video and only once, though, so perhaps I’m incorrect)
Oh no! Another thing to get head-aches from. I alread get head-aches from bad kerning and badly tied shoe laces, and now I'll have to watch out for badly depicted butterflies.
I dunno. I read about this when this article was posted before and totally forgot about it until just now. Then again, I don't have a lot of stuff with images of butterflies. I do have a friend who is obsessed with them who I sent the same article. I wonder if it's stuck with her.
Wonderful write-up! I just love articles like this, when a person takes a tiny thing and examines it as if under a microscope. Not only have I learned something about butterflies today and gotten a grim chuckle out of thinking about all those gaudy dead butterfly products, I've also gained a bit of appreciation for butterflies and I'm sure this will lead to me looking up scientific papers about them.
The best way to get realistic pictures of butterflies is to use a camera. As a kid I had a fascination with collecting butterflies, and would chase them with a net and kill them. Once I grew up I realized the pictures were much better.
What an interesting bit of trivia. It's also very different to see a non pinned butterfly since I see this as a flying lifeform, it has aerodynamics.. (bioengineering early years)
