[Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae
kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au
Fri Oct 24 16:54:40 CDT 2014
If nothing else, your post has created an interesting citizen science trail of discussion.
I do agree with you about the decline of engagement between nature loving people. In Australia, many Field Naturalists Clubs and similar nature clubs are in decline. I give talks to many such clubs and I rarely see the younger generation attending these monthly evening meetings.
I guess this is why I am trying to engage the younger generation through social media - their playground and somewhere they feel comfortable. It is interesting to note that many commentators blame the internet for engagement isolation, but I am finding the internet is bringing like minded people together through citizen science websites.
>why do they need to ask a curator in a Museum about a common insect they photographed?
To me, Biodiversity tracks species in Time and Space. Even records of common species over time is useful information. However, as a curator, I am happy to identify 99 common insects if the 100th photo brings a species back from presumed extinction or records a species 1,000 outside of its known distribution. I try to encourage people to submit any record as they then become my "eye". I am often interviewed about sudden population explosions of insects in some part of our state and usually the only knowledge I have of such events are records submitted to me.
>The response is often 'I don't collect, I only take pictures'.
But at least you know where to go to collect if it is important to you. I work on small bees which if they are not pinned soon after collection are almost impossible to relax and repin. I prefer to collect fresh specimens myself but know that a population is about at a certain time and visiting certain flowers has often helped me enormously.
Thanks for beginning this thread.
Sent from my iPad
> On 25 Oct 2014, at 2:59 am, "John Grehan" <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
> For me, what can sometimes be really frustrating is that someone take a
> picture of something that is really, really, really interesting
> photogenically (as far as I am concerned). So I make contact (where
> possible) and ask if they might keep an eye out in the future and collect a
> specimen. The response is often 'I don't collect, I only take pictures'.
> And these are people for whom identification is important, but they have no
> interest in making that identification possible. Nothing intrinsically
> wrong with that, just something I have to live with.
> John Grehan
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:45 AM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Only John and Doug seem to have actually understood what I meant in my
>> original email, so I will paraphrase my opinion:
>> social media is not, on its own, enough to arrest the loss of amateur
>> ´natural historians´ that I have seen over the last couple of decades.
>> How this statement can be confused with criticizing scientific public
>> engagement is beyond me. I think it is probably due to the confusion
>> over the term ´Citizen Science´. Citizen science is older than real
>> science itself. Decartes, Darwin, Newton, Einstein and many more were
>> ´Citizen Scientists´, but they were called "Amateurs".
>> Amateurs were the original scientists and much of science until the
>> mid 1800´s was done by amateurs. Because science was mostly
>> gratuitous, most amateurs had to have alternate sources of income and
>> at least some spare time, so most amateurs were either gentlemen or
>> professionals (doctors, vicars, landed gentry, etc). Afterwards
>> working as a patent clerk was an option, but in general a stigma of
>> elitism and flippancy (maybe some of it earnt) was attached to
>> So, as science became more complex, specialized and costly, different
>> fields moved beyond the grasp of private individuals and into the
>> realm of professional science, where institutions could pool resources
>> to tackle increasingly complex questions. However ´natural history´
>> retained a sizeable (and often preponderant) proportion of amateurs.
>> These amateurs produced most of the taxon records, were the local
>> "go-to person" to identify some plant or animal and often became
>> authorities on their own in particular groups. These are the people
>> who are disappearing fast.
>> I have no doubt that the individuals posting pictures online are
>> indeed ´biophiliacs´ and that engaging with them is positive but one
>> has to wonder, why do they need to ask a curator in a Museum about a
>> common insect they photographed? If you look through the images you
>> will notice that the majority are common things, stuff that you can
>> work to at least family with any picture guide book or that appears
>> several times (and has been identified already) in the same site. Its
>> like if an amateur astronomer sent posted a picture of the moon or
>> mars asking to have it identified. Or a birdwatcher a picture of a
>> starling. I think that BowerBird, ProjectNoah etc are just the symptom
>> that many people love nature, but they don´t really want to go any
>> deeper than labelling pictures.
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
This e-mail is solely for the named addressee and may be confidential. You should only read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on or commercialise the contents if you are authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify mailto:postmaster at museum.vic.gov.au by email immediately, or notify the sender and then destroy any copy of this message. Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where specifically stated to be those of an officer of Museum Victoria. Museum Victoria does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free from errors, virus or interference.
More information about the Taxacom