|
Post by wolf on Sept 27, 2011 12:10:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Khalid Fadil on Sept 27, 2011 22:48:25 GMT -8
@ wolf, Nicolas stop posting when you are drunk You better wait another week to get sober again from that party @ Dave, of course they are not worthless as the children will have their fun... but here a specific and sad example: Staurophora celsia was never reported from my country, the western distribution ends somewhere 300km from here in middle of Germany. I sorted out an old collection by a lady that lived in my country 100 ago and found 2 Staurophora celsia without data. The data of the collection somehow got lost and I was sad as I could not confirm if this species ever was here or not. That's what is annoying me in doing that work. lucanidae25, I wouldn't even want specimen without data for free, so worthless hits the nail. Human labour is only worth as much as somebody is willing to pay for. I too have done work in the past that people had no interest in and so my time got wasted for nothing, it can happen. @khalid why not? Equal stuff for equal stuff, if you offer data you should ask the same or better data in exchange. I always ask people when I trade if they got a GPS or a possibility to determine lat./long., if they say no I ask them if they could try to provide that information by getting a device, if they say no again I tell them that I am not interested in any trade. You, my friend, are a very, very tough customer. Not only do you want data, you want GPS data! Unfortunately, I'm not like you. The mixes I trade are a mix of specimens with data and without. The same goes for the other side. That's fair, isn't it? With or without data, I'll always be interested in them. I admire their beauty regardless. Data is a much appreciated bonus. Is data all that matters to you? What about the actual specimens themselves? Their shapes, colors, and sizes. The patterns that adorn them. Doesn't any of that interest you at all? If you can simply toss a specimen without data into the trash, I don't understand how... I just don't understand! You collect them, but yet, you pay no attention whatsoever to specimens without data. Doesn't collecting them basically mean you, in a way, love them? Sounds more like data-loving to me... If all you want is the data, why not just photograph them in the wild? Even the late Alfred Russell Wallace stopped and admired the specimens he collected. If you read his books about his voyages, you can clearly see how passionate he was. He not only wanted data, but also admired the insects' beauty. He'd gladly accept a data-less specimen any day! A lot of people in this forum would, too... Its one of the many wonderful things to be experienced as a collector... Being able to witness something beautiful from Mother Nature... Being able to collect it and preserve it for future generations to see... Data is just for the scientific aspects. Its the aesthetics that have always and will always mesmerize from all aspects. A specimen with data: Wonderful! People can admire it and scientists and researchers can acquire helpful information from it. A specimen without data: A lot of people are still gonna look at it and say, ''Wow... Look at that...'' A specimen in the trash: Nobody will ever get to see it. Its completely discarded and unappreciated. Why? Because it didn't have a little 'black 'n' white'... A pretty little gift from Mother Nature WASTED. If you won't appreciate what she has to offer, then you're just using her to gain access to her treasures. That's terrible, nomi...
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on Sept 30, 2011 3:08:29 GMT -8
Without data:
1. Can be used in art. 2. Can be used in research where collection data is not relevant (like scale structure, light refraction, dissection). 3. Can be used in the classroom for study/training. 4. Can be used in public to teach children and hopefully inspire a new generation of insect collectors to collect, study, and breed insects. Perhaps if there are many more people exposed and educated about insects, then there will be better laws allowing collecting or exporting or breeding. Then there would be conservation and maybe even better prices for the species you want........with data.
|
|
|
Post by zdenol123 on Sept 30, 2011 5:32:16 GMT -8
just wanna remind you guys...entomology is science if you agree or not. This kind of " collecting " happened XY hundreads of years ago and what caused extincion of XY thousands animals. I want this put on my wall...well....its nice to look at, but then you can put tiger in your room, even nicer, isnt it ? I know, I cant compare Insect with tigers, but its still a living creature....So for me, butterflies hanging on the wall without data or without using it for scientific study is worthless and have moral inhibitions against it. If you trade, sell, buy, whatever....I should expect all my stuff what goes out from my hands will be used better, than like this.... . In this case, I would reccomend collect insect digi pictures or butterfly stamps....after reading some posts here, I m not surprised, that everyone is against us. Real entomology getting extinct
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Sept 30, 2011 7:46:36 GMT -8
You edited your post so I did not see the questions you asked Khalid look here: insectnet.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=favoritesand check how many posts there are by me. I do love looking at specimen and their shapes, I can go crazy about small variations in Noctuids that look all the same for other people... but for a dead bug I only appreciate it with data too. Otherwise I take a picture like zdenol123 said as insects are much nicer alive than dead. I attached a picture of James (I named him like that ), a butterfly that I met in the jungle of Java, I didn't want to collect him as his wings were damaged. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Sept 30, 2011 13:54:03 GMT -8
Btw, 'James' = Lebadea alankara (Nymphalidae,Limenitidinae), male .
Thanos
|
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on Oct 3, 2011 2:03:56 GMT -8
Well Zdeno, if you have moral problems with that then you should: Stop using fossil fuels. Fossil fuel extraction, refinement, and use is terribly bad for the environment and destroys species habitat. I am not aware of simple collecting having done that. In fact, I rasie tens of thousands of moths and butterflies and keep only what I need. I buy or trade with those who claim to do the same. I know there may be some who lie though. Lep farms do much less damage than the strip mining which produced the metal for your car, the plastic industry which made your computer, or the air pollution created by the fuels which generate the power for both. Even the paper mills which make the paper for butterfly stamps do more damage than a simple collector. I'm curious, what "XY" insect species went extinct from collecting hundreds of years ago?
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on Oct 3, 2011 2:07:52 GMT -8
BTW - don't worry about insect study becoming extinct. Some of us take "worthless" insects to talk to schools and inspire kids so that there will be another generation of people interested in more than.... well, I hope you get the picture.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 3, 2011 5:17:40 GMT -8
Yes, there is a distinction between insects and tigers that should be fairly obvious. I think/hope we would all have different feelings about collecting insects as amateurs or business people if butterflies had only a single offspring or two per annum. I think of groupers- some are farmed and a highly prolific (in fact invasive- C. argus, for example) while others are very slow reproducers and are very threatened, like the Nassau where fishing of even a few individuals can really hurt the fecundity of the species at large. Generally insects are the former, not the latter (are there examples of insects with extremely small broods? I can't think of any, would be curious to know). Those which are at a point where collectors really could impact them are noted and theoretically left alone. Of course there are poachers out there, still people who hunt tigers after all. But generally, outside of those people who have no regard for the natural world no matter what particular area we are discussing, even taking a few insects that are "pretty" is not going to cause the extinction of anything. I would wonder how many "decorative" Victorian specimens ultimately were of great value, there must be at least a few examples of something taken without the proper collection data that ended up being quite useful. There are a good number of specimens like this at many institutions for some reason and it's got to be more than just to irritate the person who has to sort them. They don't all get thrown away out of frustration, I have seen them in the archives myself. Winged is right, there are plenty of things to do with insect specimens beyond population modeling that might not require full collection data.
|
|
|
Post by zdenol123 on Oct 3, 2011 12:30:32 GMT -8
BTW - don't worry about insect study becoming extinct. Some of us take "worthless" insects to talk to schools and inspire kids so that there will be another generation of people interested in more than.... well, I hope you get the picture. No, I m sorry, I didnt get it. Just try to do some taxonomical work without reliable data...then we can talk on the same level. Breeding specimens...well I like that. I used to do it, but what it has to do with my reply about not accepting specimens without data ? I dont mind kill, take, prepare Insect. But I do mind do it for the sake of " putting it in the frame " and making another " tick " on my list and without further use . Yes, I' m agains it ! If the Insect reproducts quicker than another living creature doesnt really matter to me, still a living creature, isnt ? So why kill it just because I like it on my wall ? Would you kill some nice mammal for the sake of I like it ? No ? Moral aspect ? So, why you do it with butterflies ? If 1 specie or another can get extinct by collecting ( personally I' m sure that some specimens can) is another story. I was talking about importance of collecting data, not fuel, not a cars, not about dogs dont like cats, just about data. For you Winged - change what you can and forget things what you cant change....you will have better sleep then. I know, I can do f all about fossil fuel, but I know I can change the way I do the entomology or at least tell you that this way is for me a wrong way. Like I said, the stamps are a way out if you dont wanna do it correctly. Or just be a hobbyist and dont talk about important things, like proper collecting data or gps coords or similar things ( this aint addressed to you Winged ). Howgh !
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on Oct 4, 2011 3:04:47 GMT -8
I'm ok with your response but I stand by what I wrote. So do other species....... Bower birds decorate their homes with insects too. Now that I think about it, only the male ones do this too. I should point out that you (paraphrasing) write about morality when that has no basis in science either. I value Mark Twain who said "Humans are the only creatures that blushe, or need to." True - other creatures blush but the point is taken. The male Bower Bird is not concerned with data or blushing. It is mainly concerned with a pretty place to live so it can get laid. I have absolutely no problem with you making a moral decision and standing by it (though there is no science in morality that I know of). I really respect that. I have made a decision too. I will continue to breed insects, live simply, and communicate with those interested in learning about insects or any other interests I have. It seems to me that we seem to have like destinations but different roads. I do take a small amount of umbrage with the comment you made: "Or just be a hobbyist and dont talk about important things." ANYONE can talk about important things. I don't think you meant it that way though.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Oct 4, 2011 8:12:42 GMT -8
No morality in science ? Once again you show perfectly that you have no scientific education as you are continuisly faced with ethical problems in science. The students of my faculty once were asked in a referendum if military research should be banned by law and we all voted 'no'... not because of the research grants but because in our eyes no law was needed to give you personnaly enough morality to say no to the money.
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on Oct 4, 2011 15:19:37 GMT -8
You misread ( as you have again perfectly demonstrated) what I wrote. But perhaps I misunderstood. Tell me what science text did your students utilize to come to an ethical/moral decision? What science (other than perhaps psychology) did your students utilize to come to that conclusion? I don't want to stoop to the similar arrogance you demonstrated (which some believe to be evidence of lack of training as well). I stated: morality has no basis in science. You dispute that. Ok - explain how morality is extrapolated from science and which moral set emerged from it. Are you sure you did not mean to say that morals exist in scientists? In that we agree. Scientists are faced with ethical problems. Science has no ethics or morality because it is does not determine right from wrong. It determines fact. Look up the words ethical or moral and you will learn that they essentially mean choosing right over wrong. You can use science to make a determination of right or wrong but if we sink to the level of using what is believed "right" to base science then we risk corrupting the scientific method.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Redmond Farrier on Oct 4, 2011 16:24:29 GMT -8
Normally, I wouldn't chime in on a debate like this, especially being as new to the field as I am. Seeing the arguments for both sides here, I would like to point out that both are correct, but neither are absolute.
Different people collect for different reasons. I started collecting beetles long before I actually got into the hobby. In my case of beetles there isn't one with collection data. My favorite specimen cannot even be narrowed down to a year of capture. Still, you could not convince me to part with it. For me, it has more value than all my specimens with data combined. It was the very first of my collection, the one that sparked my interest in the field. I say that to point out that value is relative. Yes, to a museum it would be nearly worthless, but I never anticipate it going to a museum. To me, it is priceless. I have no problem with anyone who refuses to own a specimen without data. I also have no problem with someone who doesn't bother with data and only collects because they think the bugs are interesting. From what I have seen, most of the people here fall somewhere between the two. I started out without data, but now I am striving to attach proper data to each new specimen I collect though I am still quite disorganized with it and many still go without data. If I forget the data, I only throw it out if it is an uninteresting specimen. If it has aesthetic appeal to me, I still keep it.
From what I have seen here, most here prefer to have the data and some just want a beautiful specimen in their collection. I do not believe either side should see the other as wrong since we do this for our own personal reasons.
I started collecting for the aesthetics of the displays. After I completed a couple of beetle displays and started on a moth display, the scientific side sparked my interest. Having been on both sides, I can say that if you are collecting for the scientific value, data is an absolute must. For those who collect for the aesthetics, data is a pleasant bonus. Since it is our personal hobby, the way we approach it is our choice.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Oct 5, 2011 1:05:54 GMT -8
Oh, now you start with pettifoggery ? Well then I would maybe suggest you to acquire a life and stop stealing my time?
Of course the basis of ethics and morals is not rooted in science but they are important decisions the scientist frequently faces in his life. Writting a book isn't rooted in science either yet many scientists do so.
You dispute Zdenos post by saying: you can't talk about morals and science together. Of course he can, maybe it would be reasonable if you start doing it too.
|
|