What if I said that the above statement is true, would you believe me?
If the answer is no I don't blame you.
Think about it like the mathematical relationship between rectangles and squares. Squares are rectangles, but rectangles aren't squares. So technically, squares don't exist. In the same respect, butterflies are moths, but moths aren't butterflies, therefore butterflies don't exist. At least that's the argument.
In my opinion, butterfly is the common word not only because it sound's prettier, but because the word moth conjures images of bland brown powdery things that eat the coats in your attic. While there are plenty pesky brown moths that do indeed do things such as eat clothing, I'd like to vouch for the larger proportion of moths that cotninue on being beautiful despite little recognition.
I'll begin with silkmoths.
Wild of course, not the flightless, sightless, overly bred species that we boil inside their cocoons, mid metamorphisis, to harvest silk for textile goods.
The wild silk moths, made up of over 700 different species worldwide, deserve more recognition.
Comentários