File talk:Van Gogh - Totenkopfschwärmer auf Aronstab.jpeg
The animal motif of the painting is not Acherontia atropos, regardless of what confusion and/or general ignorance went into naming it. While the species isn't obvious in identification, it's definitely in the genus Saturnia (Saturniidae); most likely either S. pavonia or S. pyri as they are the more recognisable species. I suggest removing it from the two pages in question. Perhaps it has use in the page for Saturniidae. Snjón (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think we need to be a bit careful here. We know that the Van Gogh Museum has identified the species as the Giant Peacock Moth (presumably S. pyri); we don't know why the painting has a death's head in the manner of A. atropos - it could be either that the painter confused the two insects, or that he liked the motif and added it to a big moth that was to hand, or that he "saw" the mottled body of S. pyri as a death's head, having perhaps seen or heard of the death's head hawkmoth. Thus both the reasoning and the attribution to any single species are in some doubt, whatever the museum says. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- If I come across something that might be helpful, I'll make a note here. Lotje (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Chiswick Chap. The abdominal "skull" might be too prominent to consider this a settled matter, specifically because the supposed skull in A. atropos is thoracic. This isn't a painting from a naturalist and should not be treated as such. For use in A. atropos page: suggest a trivial reference considering the German title, however bearing relation to saturniid moths/Saturniidae. For S. pavonia: obvious removal, and for S. pyri: suggest artistic influence due to the title in English. For Saturniidae page, suggest trivia for artistic influence as well by its obvious similarity to these moths. By the way, Lotje, Arum is not a known hostplant for S. pyri. Snjón (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- FYI: In Dutch culture Arum (Aronskelk) is associated with funerals and thus with death. Which could explain the addition of a death's head bij the artist. Balko Kabo (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's likely the reason. Agree with User:Snjón about actions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- If I come across something that might be helpful, I'll make a note here. Lotje (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think we need to be a bit careful here. We know that the Van Gogh Museum has identified the species as the Giant Peacock Moth (presumably S. pyri); we don't know why the painting has a death's head in the manner of A. atropos - it could be either that the painter confused the two insects, or that he liked the motif and added it to a big moth that was to hand, or that he "saw" the mottled body of S. pyri as a death's head, having perhaps seen or heard of the death's head hawkmoth. Thus both the reasoning and the attribution to any single species are in some doubt, whatever the museum says. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
