Review: Butterflies (Toy Major)

bmathison1972 wrote:

I am sure if they were modeled after actual species, they are butterflies and not moths, but who knows. Call them whatever you want for your personal collections.

Maybe the workers of Toy Major didn't know the difference between a butterfly and a moth when they made their models. Don't forget Toy Major is a way more generic company than Safari ltd, and that is one of my points, if you read my messages entirely. If they really were lépidoptères from imagination, the green one with purple and white dots wouldn't look like a luna moth that much. The resemblance is, to my eyes, way too close to the real thing to be just random.

You see, I studied art and I know what artworks look like when the artist makes Something he/she knows the existence of by memory, but doesn't know everything about it, the artist will miss a few détails. When compared to the actual thing, the artwork sure shows mistakes or flaws, but still shows resemblance to the real model. And that is exactly what appens with the green butterfly with dots... and the luna moth.

It is very interesting to read two different positions from two people with different perceptions of the same figure. It is actually very nice to read these opinions and see how differently something could be interpreted. I don't know what is that strange butterflybut it surely has something to tell.

Roger wrote:

It is very interesting to read two different positions from two people with different perceptions of the same figure. It is actually very nice to read these opinions and see how differently something could be interpreted. I don't know what is that strange butterflybut it surely has something to tell.

Did you know that in toy buisiness, the paint scheme artists ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE as the sculptors? That is the main reason why many sculpted animal figures are painted as a different species or, more simply, MISIDENTIFIED BY NAME. Remember the Toy Major Mandrill that was painted and identified as a chimpanzee? This is exactly what I'm trying to explain, here. And the very same thing happenned here for that BUTTERFLY PAINTED AS A MOTH. There is absolutely no butterfly species on Earth that is all green with purple and white dots, at least not a species known by toy makers, but not by enthomologists! That would be a miracle. So, it has to be Something else! In this case: a moth! The painter who created that scheme clearly had the idea of a Luna Moth in mind, but simply made the mistake of putting it on a butterfly model! Get it, now? That kind of thing happens ALL THE TIME in art, and in toy making! Speaking by experience as an art teacher! I've seen teenagers coloring puma drawings as tigers and, in a store, I saw, packaged, bottlenose dolphins painted as killer whales! Blaine, don't tell me you've never seen anything like this before! I wouldn't believe you! It's the same thing that happened here.

Look, I know I may sound agressive here, but the fact is, last winter, I spent hours and hours, divided in several days, looking at every single species of Papillionidea butterfly on Wikipédia, trying hard to identify this little green guy. When I saw that my research was going nowhere, I tried a different approach, and I started a new research using the key words "green butterfly species". And there were not that many. Not only that, but none of them was entirely green with ocellated wings; they all had more or less wide black borders on their wings, with black stripes.   No match with our figure.
However, there was ONE species of Lepidoptera that matched the colors of that green TM butterfly: and that was ACTIAS LUNA. Almost a perfect match in colors and motifs. Only one catch: Actias Luna colors were put on a butterfly mold. So, I asked myself: why in the world would the colors of a moth would be put on a butterfly mold? The answer finally came to mind: that is because the Toy Major painter didn't know the difference between a butterfly and a moth! In my mind, it was clear as day. Especially when we know that in my art courses at the university, we students were trained to reconstruct the thinking and way of working of artists by studying their works, quotes and their surroundings. And I presented my conclusion with you, Roger. First, you did show skepticism; but you let me explain to you my reasoning step by step, and you understood me.

And I waited patiently for Blaine's response.

Imagine how angry and sad I was when I saw he simply replied:"no, it's a butterfly. Call it a moth if you like, but it's not". I said to myself: HE DIDN'T EVEN READ MY TEXTS!!!  Because if he had read me line by line, he would have said Something like: "Are you sure there is no known butterfly with green ocellated wings"? or maybe:"I admit the colors kind of match, but I'll do more research just to be sure". If he read me, he would have seen that I already know the mold is a butterfly. The fact that he didn't catch that clearly shows he didn't care whatsoever how I came with my conclusion.

In other words, being skeptical in one thing. Not listening at all to the other part is another. And this, I'm sorry, I cannot take it.

Valérie, sorry for taking so long to reply. I think things are not so serious as you assumed.
Some years ago, I decided to give something new to this community, I was just a member, a little crazy perhaps. So, I used my ridiculous English to contact a company to give a new interaction and partnership to this community. I felt that Mojö Fun, a starting company with a very friendly manager, could be a good start. So, with a weird eloquence, I could bring Mojö to the forum and James, the manager, gave us the chance of choosing a species of our choice to be included in their future range. How incredible it was then. All previous boards never had a similar chance before. A poll was made, very exciting, it was until the last day to know who would be the winner, a gaur or a sable. Two animals that were never made by a major company. Britains' versions, were the best known among us.
The sable was the winner and I wanted to envolve again the STS community in the development process of the figure. From choosing the pose to every detail of it. James' again accepte the challenge and after a really long time and a lot of work to keep everyone in touch and give the best feedback to the company, the Mojö sable, got finished. I even contacted a conservacionist of the species to give his imput to the final details and it worked. Completely exaust but very happy for such project. It was presented, I wanted everyone happy.... and, one of the good friends of the forum just said after all this work: - Sorry, but it is a disappointing figure.
I got really sad, I didn't want any personal recognition, I just wanted to see everyone happyOur community had a fantastic experience, a desired figure was created... and tired but happy of all the owrk, I read it. Obviously, I got really angry and my reply was not friendly at all. After all these years, I feel I shouldn't had replied like that. It was just an opinion and not a personal thing. Though, it is easy to tell now but surely it was not possible at the moment.
Here, I also understand your point, you are a very dedicated member, I have no doubts that you've spent hours trying to identify this figure to share a relevant information to us. I appreciate really your effort and it is good to have you with us.
Blaine is a sporadic visitor of our forum and rarely Blain reads all comments. I also know him well enough to know that when he said:

bmathison1972 wrote:

I am sure if they were modeled after actual species, they are butterflies and not moths, but who knows. Call them whatever you want for your personal collections.

He was just referring to something that he really does to his own collection. When he finds a buvious figure, he tends to choose the species of his personal convenience. I think most of us do it. Take as example the PV beluga - if you read the footnote of that page, you'll understand what I mean.
Blaine's comment sounds rude to you, but I am sure there was not anything personal on it. Just a quick comment in a short visit to the topic.
I am glad that you are doing a good partnership on other topics.

Thank you for your understanding, Roger. That experience with the Sable antelope must have really been heart-breaking: so much work, hope and parnership for almost Nothing in the end...

That PV Beluga is an excellent example of what I meant in my "Papiluna Motherfly" conclusion: A MOLD OF A SPECIES THAT WAS PAINTED AS A DIFFERENT SPECIES. My only wish and concern was that Blaine understood my point. It didn't really matter if he agreed with me or not, actually. I hope he doesn't do that too often in his personal life, though (I mean, not really taking the time to listen to the other part), because that will lead him to a few problems...

Roger wrote:

Your points are very reasonable and I hate to do what I did. I told you could be wrong but I am not able of offering a better approach. Though, I wanted your effort didn't get unreplied.
The variations you are mentioning is much probably this one from Fernando's collection, already on TAI too.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Man, some people take this stuff way too personally. I actually do not subscribe to any of my posts because I do not want to be bombarded with emails every time someone comments. Sometimes it seems half the comments on this forum are nothing but series of emojees and I can't be bothered with checking every email alert I get for such things. So, I unsubscribe and come back periodically to check.

Now back to the topic at hand. While the first green butterfly (Beatrice's figure) didn't not strike me for a luna moth, I have to admit this second variant by Roger (Fernando's figure) does certainly look like it was painted as such. I don't have this figure among mine so I never really gave it much attention until now.

[quote="bmathison1972"]

Roger wrote:

Your points are very reasonable and I hate to do what I did. I told you could be wrong but I am not able of offering a better approach. Though, I wanted your effort didn't get unreplied.
The variations you are mentioning is much probably this one from Fernando's collection, already on TAI too.

Man, some people take this stuff way too personally. I actually do not subscribe to any of my posts because I do not want to be bombarded with emails every time someone comments. Sometimes it seems half the comments on this forum are nothing but series of emojees and I can't be bothered with checking every email alert I get for such things. So, I unsubscribe and come back periodically to check.

Now back to the topic at hand. While the first green butterfly (Beatrice's figure) didn't not strike me for a luna moth, I have to admit this second variant by Roger (Fernando's figure) does certainly look like it was painted as such. I don't have this figure among mine so I never really gave it much attention until now.

I am glad you watched it now. The Toy Major brand is actually very complex. They surely intend to be reasonable with their depictions but they're often very rudimentar in terms of scientific acuraccy. I agree that this version is enough different from Beatrice's to give us a different interpretation of which exact species it represents.

Blaine, it is possible to deactivate e-mail allerts. Just to to your profile, click preferences and eactivate it. I can do it for you if you wish. Then, when visiting the forum, just click the "view posts since last visit" on main page. I am sure this method will work perfectly with the way you visit this forum.
Behind these posts with emoticons, there are often very dedicated collectors and people that love to help and interact with other members of the community. It is not always easy to express ourselves in a very eloquent way when English is not our native language. So, a single post with some emoticons, while not very interesting to the topic, is a simple way to someone tells that loved to read yor topic.

I'm sorry I acted so emotionnally. Yet the fact is, in the past, I had a lot of bad experiences where I was not taken seriously, despite the arguments that I had on my side. For example, in my philosophy courses back in 1994, my teacher didn't stop telling animals didn't think. Everytime ai tried pointing out that facts didn't show such thing, he always said that I was just referring to Walt Disney movies... So, obviously, I felt angry and frustrated. And I developped a trauma following that, and other similar experiences. So, in this case, when this discussion occured, my trauma came visibly back...

However, I admit I have no idea of what you are talking about when it comes to emails with justbemoticons... I don't recall sending you anything like this. What are those, exactly?

By the way, Blaine... no hard feelings?

Thanks to WhiteLightningWolf, I now have EIGHT new species of Toy Major butterflies. These things just keep coming out of nowhere! I have confident identifications on six of them, a good idea for one, and a tentative ID for one. In no particular order (the letters are the letters that are stamped on them). Also, all figures are also marked 1996.

C. star saphire, Asterope sapphira.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

E. Ancyluris formosissima
This is a relatively good ID based on color, although the blue spots are a little misleading. A possible differential is  Palla ussheri (although I like my first choice better).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

K. Paris swallowtail, Papilio paris.
If not this species, than certainly something in the paris-group

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

H. TENTATIVE ID: lesser purple emperor, Apatura ilia (female)
This is the one I am least confident on. A possible differential is a member of the genus Asterocampa, such as the hackberry butterfly A. celtis.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

L. Claudina agrias, Agrias claudina

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

D. California dogface, Zerene eurydice
I was most-excited for this one!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

B. common buckeye, Junonia coenia
There appears to be at least two different paint jobs for this species.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

G. Wallace's golden birdwing, Ornithoptera croesus.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

These butterflies found the right owner. I added them on TAI, not an easy work, shall I say.
The ussher's palla was already listed on TAI as an unidentified species. I agree about the spots, why do they would put spots on it, turning the painting more complicated if the species do not have it? The diagonal white band on real animals are also quite differently positioned. Maybe they want to represent another species indeed.
I haven't introduced the California dogface yet, not because it is missing one antennae but because O letter doesn't work at all, I suppose it is marked D instead, the mould looks clearly D and it is easy to mix both letters.
We have another common buckeye that you identified, I guess, but with a completely different painting and different mould. Is it what you are referring on your post?
Another interesting aspect that results from your new additions is that now some moulds are used to 4 different species instead of the 3 I suspected before. It means more butterfflies than I thought.

hey Roger, yes the California dogface is 'D' not 'O'; sorry I was being hasty (also in a couple of these, the letters are morphed, and the 'B' might be something else as well...

Also Roger, your blue unidentified 'I' butterfly I think is Morpho diana.

After some more snooping, I changed E back to Ancyluris formosissima.

bmathison1972 wrote:

hey Roger, yes the California dogface is 'D' not 'O'; sorry I was being hasty (also in a couple of these, the letters are morphed, and the 'B' might be something else as well...

Also Roger, your blue unidentified 'I' butterfly I think is Morpho diana.

Maybe you are right, identifying butterflies is really a hard job. I also think it looks somewhat like the dorsal side of the male Morpho rhetenor.

Bowhead Whale wrote:

bmathison1972 wrote:

Toy Major Butterflies

Review of Butterflies produced by Toy Major in 1996. OK, butterfly sets have been made multiple times. Club Earth did a set, Safari LTD did at least three (Collectors Case, Authentics, TOOB), K&M did a tube, US Toy did a small set, and I have figures from sets not attributable to manufacturers.

All of these below are marked ‘TM’ and ‘1996’. They have letters on the underside, but the letters are duplicated and not just on a figure of the same sculpt. Makes me wonder if TM produced two sets of 12 in 1996. I probably bought these in the early 2000s and honestly cannot remember where I bought them. My numbering below is random and not how the figures are marked or marketed.

Because they were not marketed as specific species (to my knowledge) the identifications are all mine. Several are based on the Club Earth set (these companies all had habit of copying one another) but many are from my deductions, often by using ‘The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Butterfly World’ by Paul Smart in conjunction with Google searches.

I am sure these are not all the best identifications possible. If anyone has a better idea, PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS. If anything, I hope this thread will initiate discussion on these and other figures…

Several factors were taken into consideration when making an ID. Shape and color were the big ones, but sometimes you have to ‘read between the lines’ and note that a prominent color on the figure might be a minor accent on the real thing. Think of it this way, if some painted a toy zebra, the way it was painted could determine if it appeared to be white with black stripes or black with white stripes. So, at times you have to be creative and try to get into the mind of the artist.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]image uploading

I think I finally found it: it seems to represent EREBIA TYNDARUS. I found it when I started reading a newly bought book about european butterflies a few days ago. On one page, there was that dark grey, roundish-winged butterfly with metallic reflections in the colors orange and green on its wings.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What do you think?

OK I screw the previous post by writing this, sorry; but still: here is EREBIA TYNDARUS, the species I found in my book a few days ago.

I find it a very good guess and if there's no objection from anyone, I can do the job on TAW.

Roger wrote:

I find it a very good guess and if there's no objection from anyone, I can do the job on TAW.

Blaine doesn't look very much interested, since he didn't reply to me, although having been logged in the forum yesterday. To me, it is worth doing the change on TAW right now.

Bowhead Whale wrote:

Roger wrote:

I find it a very good guess and if there's no objection from anyone, I can do the job on TAW.

Blaine doesn't look very much interested, since he didn't reply to me, although having been logged in the forum yesterday. To me, it is worth doing the change on TAW right now.

These identifications always require some time to confirm. There are multiple possible reasons why Blaine hasn't replied yet and we can wait for sure.
I will try to use your identification on TAW tomorrow if I have the chance, it can be modified if a better guess is offered meanwhile.

You-hou! Blai-aine! We need your opinion here!

Bowhead Whale wrote:

You-hou! Blai-aine! We need your opinion here!

Valérie, I already used your identification for this butterfly on TAW. All these butterflies are identified by the collecting community so there's no reason to keep this one without identification if your suggestion looks good.

Huh... and where is it? It is still unidentified on TAW and Erebia tyndarus is nowhere to be seen on the site...

OK, I just linked everything there. Now, only one butterfly remains to be identified. I will try to find what species the company meant to represent with it.

Beatrice [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] found one more butterfly color for D mould. Could please someone help me with species identfication?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Pretty generic; might take a while to hunt down. The wing shape (which doesn't necessarily mean anything with TM butterflies) is suggestive of Hesperiidae or Lycaenidae, so you may want to start with one of those families.

Thanks Blaine, I will list it just as a generic butterfly until someone find a reasonable identification.