To kill or not to kill?

[Paul mabbott]

And that's great! We all want to help and appreciate your contribution!
Cheers, Paul

Originally Posted by Wild-Woman

I shall keep plugging away at it because 'I' want and need to learn. I love insects and like other things it's almost obsessive now. I want to learn and notice everything around me now. So even if I do get things wrong I'll take a shot.Julie

[Paul mabbott]

That's fine - no problem as long as you say "probably", "possibly" "like" XXXX.sp. That's useful and interesting *but* there are people who label internet images as XXXX.sp (often wrongly) and then other people do the same thing &c and thus faulty data enters the system but, more to the point, *useful* data is lost. If dubious records are referred to an authority, especially if a specimen is available, then we have useful information.
Incidentally, maybe worth noting that in the case of at least one order, it is possible send specimens to specialists without killing them. Most hard-bodied beetles travel quite well in the post, so you can send ground beetles, ladybirds, scarabs off for identification knowing that they will not necessarily die!

Originally Posted by jezlee

I have just been having a conversation on another thread regarding killing specimens for definite identification, using microscopic (or hand lens) investigation of such things as genitalia etc.
I, for one, don't want to take my interest to this degree .... if I can identify what I see from photographs and descriptions of habitat, food, time of year etc, then all well and good, but if I can't then it will just have to be the ubiquitous "XXXX sp." label for me!
I'd be interested to hear other members' views on this topic ....

[PMG]

Have to agree - won't kill anything just for ID. I do quite a bit of moth trapping (mercury vapour lamp) which doesn't kill and I go to great lengths to release moths safely later the next day. I'm well aware that many micro moths need their genitalia photographing to confirm ID and this involves killing - and there's just no way - I'm not that interested that something should die just so I know what it was - seems ludicrous to me and totally unfair.

Pauline

[Paul mabbott]

I have already responded to Julie who has graciously accepted my apologies for *seeming* to criticise attempts to identify insects. Far from my intention, as I noted. However, I don't think that "a "wild guess" or inaccurate identification is better than none at all ...". Attempt an id, fine but why make wild guesses? I'm sure our wild woman won't give up ... and don't condescend to people who are trying to make accurate observations, please..........

Originally Posted by eeyore

I agree julie - I can see what paul is trying to say but that could have been said with a bit of consideration for other people feelings.
Surely a "wild guess" or inaccurate identification is better than none at all , at least it shows that people are trying to ID stuff rather than sitting back and waiting for someone to do it for them.
oh and julie dont give up - one day you too may be able to identify things by the 16th segment of the thorax (or whatever) - as it zooms past on the wing , then you can condecend to us lesser mortals too.

[Paul mabbott]

On that basis, how would you decide how to conserve species or habitats? There are bumble bees present that may be rare, may be endangered or not (for instance) ... unless you know which species is *definitely* there or not you can't usefully plan ....
I think there is a strange misconception that people collect specimens just to look at them (may even be true with some lepidopterists?) but most ecological entomologists just take specimens when they need to identify them and there is no other way to assess insect communities ....

Originally Posted by Hornbeam

Don't give up, Julie Unless you are a professional bug researcher, then exact identification doesn't matter at all. Working it out, taking a guess, deciding on the basis of probability rather than disected certainty is the fun and interest. Having said that, I agree with the view that killing for collections and identication is a drop in the ocean compared to chemical sprays and road slaughter. Personally, I don't take a high moral stand - I just don't want to look at or collect dead animals. They are dull, dusty and dead. If I can't see all that I need to see in a photo of live creatures in their natural environment - so what?

[Airehead]

Originally Posted by scholesy

Whats the point?

There obviously is one, or no-one would ever have done it.
I see that several people have made the point that there is less incentive to kill now, since photography is much more efficient than before. On the other hand, collecting (as a generality) is as popular as it ever was.

My own opinion is that our collective attitude to this subject, as to the subject of animal rights, is very much a matter of current fashion (which nowadays is almost dictated by television). And why do we agonize over it so very much? Because some of us find a need to do it for one reason or another, in spite of the fashion saying "No". If it were not so, there would be no need to agonize.

But I further believe that there is nothing fundamental about "right and wrong", that it is a fabrication of the human imagination and the whole concept is subject to fashion. This is not to say that we should therefore ignore it when it happens to be incovenient, but if you perceive a need to kill then I see no logical reason why you should not do so with a clear conscience.

I have a small collection of insects gathered when I was in my teens. My interest in the subject would have been much diminished without that boost. I have not collected since then but would not hesitate to do so if I saw any reason.

[Airehead]

Come to think of it, I have been slaughtering lily beetles as fast as I could find them all summer. Slugs also. Was I 'wrong'? And if anyone should say 'Yes', should I let it worry me? I don't think so.

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by Airehead

Come to think of it, I have been slaughtering lily beetles as fast as I could find them all summer. Slugs also. Was I 'wrong'? And if anyone should say 'Yes', should I let it worry me? I don't think so.

And here is the crux of the matter, it seems we in Britain are able to handily partition our fauna into 'bad' species which are OK to kill-especially in the garden. Things like slugs, lily beetles, any biting insect and (for some) spiders and 'good' species which we must treat with kid gloves - butterlies & moths, dragonflies etc.
I think it is a sad reflection on our culture that the words 'it doesn't matter if we get it wrong' (or something to that effect) is an accepted comment in any section of society-but then we have dumbed down so much these days, long gone is the intellectual rigour that characterised Britain at its peak.
Personally I find it an interesting exercise Id'ing from photographs, but it is nothing like 'the real thing'. I am aware that my fascination for getting a real proper close-up view of things (show me the camera that can get up to x100+ like my microscope) is not something that appeals to everyone, but I do find it insulting to be labelled ludicrous, or condescending when trying to put across a point of view in odds with some.
Is a wild guess as good as the real thing? I think not, especially when the wild guess goes as far as species, from a photo, in groups where specific identification is close to impossible even with all the necessary kit and preparation (lacewings and scorpion flies to give a couple of examples). I do appreciate people are trying to learn and getting things wrong is part of the process, however if you are trying to learn about insects, and you are serious about the pursuit then you must accept that a modicum of collecting is a necessary part of it.
Taxonomic entomology is a skill (some would call it an art), as with other pursuits you do need a requisite amount of tools- and the killing bottle always has, and always will be, one of them. Without it would be like birdwatching without binoculars-possible, but you miss a lot.
It should possibly be remebered that Darwin came up with his theory of evolution not on the Beagle on its voyage, although the first intimations may have planted their seeds then, but at home among his collection of skins of mockingbirds and finches, from which he could take measurements and compare them side by side; something impossible without collecting and something which is still done in taxonomy today.

[Captain Kev]

I'm currently wondering what the effect would be on this thread if insects were tasty?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

I have already responded to Julie who has graciously accepted my apologies for *seeming* to criticise attempts to identify insects. Far from my intention, as I noted. However, I don't think that "a "wild guess" or inaccurate identification is better than none at all ...". .

I think you will find paul that i put my post up before you apologised to julie, and I too recognise your apology

Originally Posted by Paul Mabbot

and don't condescend to people who are trying to make accurate observations, please.......

Fine , just so you dont condescend to those who dont have your degree of knowledge about the arcanity of specialist insect indentication

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Captain Kev

I'm currently wondering what the effect would be on this thread if insects were tasty?

you mean they aren't and there i was planning to woo a fair lady with a gnat lasagne followed by dessert of chocolate coated moth

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by jimfoxy

A good post, Imaginos. I heard a rumour that female moths are more likely to come to light after they have mated and laid eggs; is there any truth in that?.

Ummm. Not sure that is the case to be honest. In my experience you get plenty of gravid females coming to light.

[Captain Kev]

Originally Posted by eeyore

you mean they aren't and there i was planning to woo a fair lady with a gnat lasagne followed by dessert of chocolate coated moth

I didn't know you were French Eeyore!

try the delicious Snails and have the deep fried Locusts for entree, mouth watering.

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by Wild-Woman

I think us lesser knowlegeable non entomologists do ok actually. Lots are correctly id'd from the superb photographs posted on this site.
We are all trying to learn and at least show some effort as to what some species are.

Julie you are right-I have been pleasantly surprised at how well many of the 'laymen' (and women of course) have done. It has also been nice to see a marked improvement in some contributors during my time here on WAB.
However (there had to be a 'but' didn't there ) problems can occur when a bad identification gets through the net, a quick google of insect names often turns up WAB gallery entries now, which is good if the ID is correct, but if its wrong then that is false information being given out by WAB which anyone should be able to see is not a good thing-reputations are easily gained and not so easily shaken.
Of course WAB is not alone in putting up mis-labelled insect pictures, which should sound a note of caution to anyone looking to ID their pictures using online resources...

On a side note it should be recognised that, despite the war raged on insects by agrochemical companies, most arable species (those who's habitat is not diminishing hand over fist), such as aphids, are showing similar population levels to 30+ years ago. Millions of pounds are spent every year on wiping out insect pests with little or no success, again I state that collecting will not impact on insect populations in most cases.

On another side note, it's difficult to get across any level of knowledge without appearing to be condecending in some respects-especially on a written forum. I think this is too important an issue on this site to accept a descent into catty name-calling

[Gill Catton]

On another side note, it's difficult to get across any level of knowledge without appearing to be condecending in some respects-especially on a written forum. I think this is too important an issue on this site to accept a descent into catty name-calling

I think you're 100% right .

Plus I had a tutor at Uni who often came accross as a bit condecending - often a bit sharp tongued, but he was such a good tutor, I learnt soooo much from him and it was just his way, he wasnt being malicious it's just how he was - a bit querky and if you were able to see past this, he was brilliant to work with. It's always worth focussing on the positive in people I reckon!

and as for the killing of insects so long as it is for a real reason, pest control, survey or research or census or teaching or learning etc I don't see the problem - there are best practice guidelines for rarer species that most people will be made aware of once they get into learning seriously.

[Airehead]

I have for a long time been inclined to think of present times as 'the age of the expert'. We have so many of them, don't we?
Those who are in the fore-going discussion have been a little scathing of those with less objective knowledge would do well to consider two points.

Firstly, some of you don't spell very well.

Secondly, I think it was Somerset Maugham (but I might be wrong) who made the following observation (not verbatim, but in principle as I remember it):
That there are two ways of defining a fish. One is the scientific way - to dissect, describe every detail and categorise accordingly. The other is to catch one, cook and eat it. Both ways are equally valid.
Though he was applying this philosophy to fish, it has more general relevance.

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by Airehead

That there are two ways of defining a fish. One is the scientific way - to dissect, describe every detail and categorise accordingly. The other is to catch one, cook and eat it. Both ways are equally valid.

Might be a problem if it were a blowfish...

[jezlee]

Having been away for a couple of days, it was good to see this thread still going strong when I returned .... and a pleasure to see an open, considered debate on a subject which, in these days of the Animal Liberation movements, could have quite easily have degenerated into a cheap slanging match between opposing sides ...

Well done, WAB members, and long may such open debate remain firmly to the fore in our forums .... hmmmm, try saying THAT when you'd had a lemonade or two ....

[Airehead]

Originally Posted by Imaginos

Might be a problem if it were a blowfish...

On the contrary, I am sure you would be briefly credited with a level of expertise unsurpassed in living memory.