|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 14, 2021 11:32:39 GMT -8
I was just thinking how nice it would be to have an occasional "specialist" article appear here on the forum (once or twice a month).
We have several notable members here on the forum who are specialists in their interests.
I think they could add richly to the content of the forum and an occasional article would reflect that best !
I enjoy being an avid contributor to the forum on a wide range of insect related topics. Wherever possible I try to interject personal observations and experiences into my articles.
However, mostly I bring my articles together through cross-research from books, magazine articles, and websites.
If I honestly gave credit to every tidbit of information I've ever cited; it would take me DOUBLE the time it already takes me to pull together an article (with some measure of interest).
So my articles (in short) are a reflection of my passion for the hobby and science. I try to make them condensed but, concise for simple reading pleasure.
But, as I have mentioned others with a much more focused interest (and years of experience behind them) could surely do something similar AND yet with much more depth than I could ever achieve in my cross-research.
It would be nice to hear from anyone on their thoughts about this and hopefully someone will be willing to add what they can; time willing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 15, 2021 8:57:51 GMT -8
LepSoc news offers publication of non-peer reviewed, generalist articles. Arguably, that would allow one then to be considered a published entomologist. Sadly, internet posts aren’t really recognized, so one may say aren’t worth the trouble.
Peer review is imperative. Look at my thread on Papilio glaucus in the Finger Lakes, where my peers have constantly and correctly called me out. Imagine the embarrassment, not to mention loss of credibility, if i had simply published it.
References to prior works IS a PITA. But it demonstrates one has done their research, not just thrown something out there. Reviews of recent pro publications have slaughtered publications that were poorly researched. In fact, and sadly, we’ve had posts where people refused to reference or even look at publicly available data!
Here, it would be best to build on past threads on a topic. Why people insist on starting a new thread on a previously discussed topic I can only guess.
Heppner wrote an editorial stating that online publications didn’t count. Zootaxa proved him wrong. This has happened with all manner of fields of study, some to the point that the long-held print authority has been effectively rendered dead. If there was sufficient publication of serious papers, even descriptions, here, insectnet would be in a position to say too bad, we are the authority now.
But I don’t see that happening. What could happen is that, like my thread on glaucus, info sharing “crowd sourced “ collaboration happens publicly, perhaps ultimately resulting in a formal publication. Lol. If some other authors had done that they’d not have had their rears handed to them. The risk of course is that someone swoops in and published early (which has happened) but I don’t personally care.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by yorky on Oct 15, 2021 9:22:10 GMT -8
What deters from undertaking such an endeavour is the blatant lack of participation now on insectnet except for a few main contributors. You ask yourself why go to all the trouble in your meagre spare time when most on here are not interested in the slightest.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 15, 2021 10:09:15 GMT -8
What deters from undertaking such an endeavour is the blatant lack of participation now on insectnet except for a few main contributors. You ask yourself why go to all the trouble in your meagre spare time when most on here are not interested in the slightest. I think this is unfair. In correspondence with a number of members, they are enthusiastic students of entomology, and happy to collaborate. Many though work full time, and with family or other elements, and correspond irregularly. As for contributing to posts, frankly many are rehash anyway- what’s there to say? And speaking only for myself, I tire of answering questions that may be found with a search of this forum, much less everywhere else. We do have a divide in interests, collectors vs field researchers (one could also add professionals) though it’s a division of interests more than animosity such as one finds between the birdshot sports and rifle shooters. Still, this means something of a division in what’s worth contributing to, or whether ones post is of any value. I read every post; I don’t always have something to say or ask. Chuck |
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 15, 2021 11:25:36 GMT -8
Hello Chuck, thank you for your reply on this request of mine. Though, your reply was candid and clarifies somewhat why we see little or no articles by our "specialist" members.
I was not looking necessarily for anyone to spank out any original type research or otherwise thoughts that they are working on; just perhaps a brief article on a given species of something they may have a particular fondness for.
Oftentimes, I find my article topics right there in my collection. All I have to do is slide a few drawers out of the insect cabinet and I spy something that says: Hey, why not talk about me ?
Now granted, I take a little time to find out more about something that I wish to discuss. My sorted research (on average) takes an hour to an hour and a half so that (I have clarity of thought) in pulling together a concise read.
I'm hardly a pro at this but, I enjoy it and it is part and parcel of my hobby time. Sure, I could spend such time spreading things, making labels, or curating (in some manner) my material but, for me I feel like I'm giving back (in a small way) through my passion for the hobby.
Your comments that some topics are rehashed or retreads of "Old Topics" maybe true to an extent however, not all of us may necessarily want to take the time to look through 20 or 30 pages of old threads to see if something has already been discussed. And, even if you do look back on some of those old threads they haven't even been touched for the last five or six years or more !
So, I suppose we all do our best in our own ways to keep the forum lively/fluid. Time factors affect everyone in different ways and hobby time is a "few rungs down the ladder" from other more important things in life.
I still enjoy it all just the same and I will continue to be contributing factor here to the best of my abilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 15, 2021 15:42:33 GMT -8
I should add, it’s difficult and time consuming to add photos here. One research website I frequent I can take a photo right from a post and it autosizes as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Oct 15, 2021 16:15:20 GMT -8
I am with Chuck. I also read many of the posts here, and enjoy them I might add. I don’t contribute often because I don’t think I have anything worth posting. I don’t consider myself an expert at anything. Most of my time is spent raising local butterflies and moths, and that’s pretty much where my knowledge ends. I have written a couple of published articles for the Toronto Ento Assoc. However, with a full time job and a toddler, bug stuff takes a back seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 15, 2021 16:54:53 GMT -8
some topics are rehashed or retreads of "Old Topics" maybe true to an extent however, not all of us may necessarily want to take the time to look through 20 or 30 pages of old threads to see if something has already been discussed. And, even if you do look back on some of those old threads they haven't even been touched for the last five or six years or more ! This is a pet peeve of mine- people who just have to say something, or have a question, and won’t bother to search to see if there is prior work. I’m not talking about digging through annals of obscure publications, but searching the forum or using google. Fortunately, this forum is far from the worst! On a couple websites I captured thread titles with questions asked and the answer immediately below. The problem does arise often (here too, but not so bad) from new people who “just gotta say something” and provide bad info, info that’s already been corrected or debunked. This bad info has a habit of promulgation somehow; it was so bad on one topic it forced me to write a 240 page, 1200 image reference book to over-ride all the lazy, crappy info on the internet. Multiple threads on the same topic also make info hard to find later. As a researcher, having to dig through multiple threads is a real pain. Why not just put everything in one thread? Is it because it’s too much trouble to search, or is it some sort of pride in ownership? My other pet peeve, if anyone cares, is thread titles that indicate nothing about the topic. Chuck |
|
|
|
Post by kevinkk on Oct 15, 2021 19:15:33 GMT -8
I am with Chuck. I also read many of the posts here, and enjoy them I might add. I don’t contribute often because I don’t think I have anything worth posting. I don’t consider myself an expert at anything. Most of my time is spent raising local butterflies and moths, and that’s pretty much where my knowledge ends. I have written a couple of published articles for the Toronto Ento Assoc. However, with a full time job and a toddler, bug stuff takes a back seat. Exactly. I read and enjoy reading everything here. Everything. Comparatively, I'm a rank amateur to what I see posted, and that's just the way it has turned out. My best contribution was to the blog for rearing tips, and I was glad to do it, and see it put up- but an article of interest, unlikely from this hobbyist. I have learned a lot here- so please don't give up. |
|
|
|
Post by bandrow on Oct 16, 2021 10:01:47 GMT -8
Hi All, I think Chuck covered a lot of the issues concerning the various avenues of publishing, and the pros and cons involved in some, so I won't muddle that part of the conversation. I will say that, personally, InsectNet provides a bit of respite from all the formal research papers I have to read due to my job responsibilities, and research interests. I see it as a bridge between the professional and avocational entomological worlds (I hate the word "amateur" - I see it as elitist, especially considering that many renowned specialists in a wide variety of groups are 'non-professionals'). I like logging in and reading all the posts, and taking a "joy ride" through a variety of topics, which may or may not be up my personal alley. I particularly enjoy the eclectic "vignettes" posted by Trehopr1 - while they are random in nature, it is that randomness that makes them interesting - lots of species that I've either never seen, or that I'd not focused on recently simply because they were so familiar. I would love to have the time to post such stories about the things I collect, but time is at a premium for me, and I can afford to only bounce in here once in a while. I am also a Contributing Editor on BugGuide, and that also consumes time doing identifications and scanning for mis-IDs. I just posted a link to a paper in the 'Coleoptera' forum that I wrote a few years ago, describing a new species of May beetle in the genus Phyllophaga. While it's a focused paper on a single species, I thought it may be interesting for folks here to see an example of some work I've done (and see another example of how 'dry' the research literature can be  ). So, I think the variety of interests here on InsectNet are its greatest strength, and hopefully I can find ways to contribute in the future to keep things interesting... Cheers! Bandrow |
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 16, 2021 10:28:21 GMT -8
Thank you "immensely" Bob for being the 1st to "step in to the waters" of my recent request for (occasional) articles by specialist members.
That sure was a Herculean effort on your part to do nearly 4,000 dissections for the love of science, research, and personal passion.
It was a truly wonderful reward of sorts to have your name forever engraved in the annals of science on a new species of beetle; to add to the 350,000+ species already described !
I remain hopeful that other intrepid researchers like you may take that "first step" as you have in showing us another "level" of even more passionate thinking.
|
|
).