[Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 11:52:34 CDT 2014


John :
>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.

Ken

If only I could get there. I already know where to go to collect. Just
cannot afford the cost!

John Grehan

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Mike Sadka <sadkamike at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John
>
> > 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.
>
> I suspect many such are people who do not like the idea of killing insects,
> so photograph them instead.
>
> These are very likely the same people that would have been assiduous insect
> collectors 50 - 100 years ago, when it was a much more popular hobby, and
> few would have questioned its ethics or impact.
>
> And even though I don't collect insects either, I know from experience that
> possession of an insect net does sometimes bring very disapproving looks
> from members of the nature-loving public!
>
> Cheerio, Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:59 PM, 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
> > > amateurs.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > Jason
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >
> > > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list