Entomology: science or art?

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → Entomology: science or art?

c clegg, 23.10.2009 19:46

Entomology: it's either science or art.
Where did this question come from?
Although I was educated, we will say, to some extent special, I was not familiar with the entomological environment, and my occupation for the last 20 years was very far from entomology, I slowly caught diurnal butterflies (a group that was already considered unfashionable and unpopular two hundred years ago), determined by the old determinants, slowly got involved, I needed information, network, articles, websites, forums, dating...
And what did I encounter?
Inaccuracies, to put it mildly, and roughly speaking, errors.
The publications are full of incorrect definitions (in this group), other articles refer to this definition, these types are included in the lists, and so on. And no one is bothered by this, does not care, I have never met a protest or refutation in the literature, it seems that everyone is satisfied with this state of affairs. Yes, I understand that entomology is not a rich "science", that few people care whether this or that butterfly flies in this or that area, but still… It is difficult for me to imagine such a state of affairs, for example, in chemistry.
Taxonomy.
To paraphrase one participant: two taxonomists – three opinions.
I read: the latest research-satirids, a subfamily of nymphalids.
In another work: as it was clearly shown (you can not satirize in the nymphalids). It remains only to agree with the other participant: and I like what I like – I choose this one!!!!!
As another participant said: it's bitter for me-it's bitter...

Comments

25.10.2009 22:05, palvasru4ko

Dear c clegg,
You are absolutely right - in taxonomy, anarchy has settled down seriously and for a long time. But there's nothing you can do about it. Imagine a cabinet with books - how to arrange books? By theme, size, color, and "age"... You set it up like this, the other one came and did it in his own way. This is normal! There are refutations, sometimes quite cruel (but fair). One Lavr Bolshakov with his reviews in the magazine EVERSMANNIA is worth something! For example, it used to be believed that the Crimea is home to the pigeon Plebejus argyrognomon. And all the famous entomologists copied: argyrognomon, argyrognomon, argyrognomon... And krymchanik Vova Savchuk just carefully looked at the underside of the wing and it turned out that this is Plebejus idas! Exactly the same applies to some thickheads. This is normal! Yuri Pavlovich Nekrutenko once said: there are no authorities for a real scientist, he checks everything himself. Agree, although you can't check everything, but there is something in this. For example, the ornithologist Spangenberg published only what he saw himself. That is, there are primitive exceptions. It is worse when the truth is DELIBERATELY distorted - they catch Apollo in the Caucasus, and write the label "Crimea, Perevalnoye". Such comrades should be feared and deprived of communication.

Likes: 6

Likes: 2

28.10.2009 15:07, Dmitry Vlasov

"Bookcase".
Of course, I would like a competent librarian to have access to this cabinet...
"Eminent entomologists".
I would like, of course, to see some continuity...
And then how does it happen?
A famous entomologist will release a list of the region you've visited once and a half, and you look at this list and wonder: where did it come from? And instead of clarifying, deepening, going further, you start everything from the very beginning, even though they say that a bad list is better than no list, but a dishonest list does so much harm that it would be better if it didn't exist at all.
But what motivated this entomologist? How much more honest and useful it would be for science to write that there is no up-to-date data for this region (region, district, etc.)!

And I want money ... (contract with IE for examination - no time, etc...., so such "lists" come out from the pen of "IE")

Likes: 2