Condense Heteroptera?

Enough!

After pages and pages of argument, here's the result:

Joe did some things that just about everybody else found too hasty and/or wrong. Joe feels compelled to defend at least some of them, which causes others to contest his assertions, which causes him to defend them, etc., ad nauseam.

Now that Joe is no longer an editor, he can't do any of the things we objected to in the first place. Now that we have a list of the things he did that need to be fixed, there's really no point in discussing the matter further- all it does is generate ill will and make visitors uncomfortable.

I may be just one of 60-plus editors, but I would suggest to John that we should make notes of the information we need and delete the whole topic.

… Chuck Entz, 26 May, 2007 - 4:40pm

Heteroptera has been restored

to a list of 40 families, and higher classification info has been added to the Guide page.

I don't think it's wise to "delete the whole topic" lest history repeat itself and we end up rehashing everything.

… Robin McLeod, 26 May, 2007 - 10:32pm

new development

I was planning to wait two more days for additional comments/activities, and if none were forthcoming, was going to suggest that Joe reverse the changes he made to Heteroptera (in accordance with the wishes of multiple members who opposed the changes).

However, I just now noticed that Joe is no longer an editor, and therefore cannot make further changes. So I volunteer to return things to the way they were last week, and also propose to add higher classification info and links to the Heteroptera page, as mentioned in earlier comments.

… Robin McLeod, 11 May, 2007 - 9:06pm

I agree

This whole affair has gotten way out of hand, so it's probably better to put things back and let everything cool down.

There's also the matter of Joe's actions re: "Adalbert's Colorado Images", which will have to be resolved before everything goes over the edge in 30 days. I think, also, that some of the new guide pages Joe created as part of that project might need to be reexamined, since some seem to based on accepting Adelbert's IDs with the assumption that John Ascher or Eric Eaton would have objected if they were wrong.

Finding the changes shouldn't be too hard, since all of the images involved will have the phrase "Moved from Adalbert's Colorado Images" in a comment attached to them. The problem is just the sheer number of things to look at.

I've unfrassed a number of the images on the principal that an issue that's taken years without a consensus shouldn't be forced to resolution in 30 days- though some undoubtedly deserve oblivion. I'll probably do more, but I'm starting to get cross-eyed.

… Chuck Entz, 11 May, 2007 - 11:59pm

wise words from Chuck

"This whole affair has gotten way out of hand"

I agree

"some of the new guide pages Joe created as part of that project might need to be reexamined"

or better yet deleted

"some seem to based on accepting Adelbert's IDs with the assumption that John Ascher or Eric Eaton would have objected if they were wrong."

This was an incorrect assumption. Some of the IDs may or may not be correct. I can't and don't have time to refute them all but making a guide page for unverified IDs of usually poor images seems like a bad idea.

"an issue that's taken years without a consensus"

My suggestions:

-Keep all the decent field shot photos of wild insects on flowers
-Consider frassing many of the low-res, ill-lit images of dead bees in petri dishes
-Don't believe any of the IDs and don't create guide pages based on them!

… John S. Ascher, 24 May, 2007 - 4:10pm

I for one am certainly in fav

I for one am certainly in favor of frassing the Adalbert images, as you suggest. I hope now that you've weighed in on this that some action will be taken. I'll be happy to track down the pages I created for deletion, as I created them only as a stopgap towards eliminating the Adelbert folder.

… Joe, Entomologist (in training), 24 May, 2007 - 7:15pm

I did not suggest or endorse frassing all of his images

I cannot possibly see why you thought it useful to add taxa to bugguide and then create species pages for Adalbert's images if your goal was to delete his entire folder.

Please do delete the invalid taxa and erroneous species pages.

… John S. Ascher, 25 May, 2007 - 2:36pm

List

Here are the guide pages I created. Since I cannot delete these myself someone else will have to take on this project. Just to clarify for whomever does this, you are in favor of frassing Adelbert's images of dead specimens and saving his images of live specimens? This would include all the images listed below and most everything in 'Adelberts Colorado Images'.

Thanks for weighing in on this, as yours is likely the only voice that could help resolve this issue.

Perdita kiowi
Andrena accepta
Andrena anograe
Andrena carlini
Andrena frigida
Andrena helianthi
Andrena lewisii
Andrena melanochroa
Andrena mentzeliae
Andrena perarmata
Andrena sieverti

Augochlorella striata
Agapostemon angelicum
Evylaeus inconditus
Evylaeus ovaliceps
Evylaeus supranitens
Lasioglossum sisymbrii
Lasioglossum trizonatum
Sphecodes eustictus
Sphecodes sophiae
Sphecodes nitidissimus
Chloralictus {Genus}

Coelioxys sayi {created by someone else based on Adelbert's ID}
Coelioxys funeraria
Megachile perihirta {tentatively IDed by Dr. Ascher}
Megachile brevis
Megachile melanophaea
Megachile giliae
Megachile fortis
Megachile townsendiana
Megachile frigida
Megachile parallela
Stelis lateralis
Osmia cobaltina
Osmia brevis
Osmia calla
Osmia nanula
Hoplitis pilosifrons
Hoplitis albifrons
Heriades carinata

Ceratina nanula
Melissodes grindeliae
Melissodes menuachus
Melissodes agilis
Diadasia australis
Svastra atripes
Svastra obliqua
Bombus centralis
Bombus flavifrons
Bombus frigidus
Bombus nevadensis
Bombus appositus
Bombus mixtus
Bombus balteatus
Nomada modesta
Nomada sayi
Nomada scita
Nomada zebrata
Oreopasites scituli
Epeolus americanus

Colletes nigrifrons
Colletes kinkaidi
Colletes petalostemonis
Colletes salicicola
Hylaeus mesillae
Hylaeus modestus

… Joe, Entomologist (in training), 25 May, 2007 - 3:33pm

it is a lot of unnecessary work for someone

to deal with all of those pages

"you are in favor of frassing Adelbert's images of dead specimens and saving his images of live specimens?"

Its not that simple. In general his images of live specimens are more valuable in my opinion, and many of his images of dead specimens are very poor, but I don't think they should all be deleted, especially without consulting other editors.

… John S. Ascher, 25 May, 2007 - 6:13pm

Please be sure not to unmove

Please be sure not to unmove pics that WERE identified by the experts, as that would be a bit silly :) ...

and one final heteropteran thought, how about at least ordering phylogenetically (like has been done with the insect orders)

… Joe, Entomologist (in training), 12 May, 2007 - 12:02pm

new statements

Hi Joe,

I´m happy you engage yourself in buguide, first to tell. I also agree that it would be a pity to reduce the educational value of this site.

My position on higher classification is ambigous. Concerning taxonomy, you´ll always have to keep in mind that the only taxa EXISTING are species - and every grouping of them is something scientists have undertaken either to order that mass of species in a way that facilitates orientation, understanding of phylogenetical relationships, or both. Not always both, the targets may conflict - in this case, scientific reason has to dominate pragmacy (e.g. legless lizards not being classified as snakes)

Taxonomic LEVELS are completely arbitrary! You don´t believe?
Then just imagine that us, gorilla, and baboon were insects, and the way taxonomy would treat us then. I think it is safe to postulate, that evolutionary distance between these mammals is less than most tribe or subfamily distinctions in Pterygota. So, in case question only is about taxonomic rank, I prefer to leave debate on it for others, and to follow pragmacy - whether, e.g. Scarab subtaxa are regarded as tribes, subfamilies, or families is nothing I worry about, as long the whole group stays united.

To reach taxonomic uniformity is a nice task, but I guess one not to be realized. Not only in bugguide. Too much different opinions, too much forth-and-back, too much taxa based on questionable characters! And never ranking will be accepted, that is based on evolutionary distance, even in case you have the best arguments. Just synonymize Pan, Pongo and Gorilla with Homo, and try to get this published . . .

Chuck´s proposal to include any such stuff into a newly edited info page is fine - I really admire the one on Coleoptera!

You wrote a sentence, implications of which I worry about:

"Roy was against it as well, but admittedly I gave that opinion less consideration than the others based on his self-professsed status as "less than an amateur"

Its the amateurs (of variable degree), bugguide is for, and by which contributions mainly the site grows! I think, an amateurs´ statement should be given MORE consideration, in this case.
One reason of bugguide (and for me, besides fun, the most important to take part) is to propagate interest in "creepy crawlers". Today beginners are the entomologists of tomorrow, and every measure that may disencourage them we´ll have to think over.

… Boris Büche, 10 May, 2007 - 7:35am

Clarify

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said... especially regarding uniformity... it's really quite silly how some groups (moth superfamilies, acalyptrata families) have been split ad nauseum to the detriment of most everyone.

But I would like to clarify my words on Roy, as I may not have presented my point clearly on that... namely, that if we catered this site solely to the most neophytic of amateur entomologists we wouldn't include any taxonomy outside of order/family/genus/species... but for large groups (like heteroptera) this is clearly not the best course of action... we've already set this precedent with groups like coleoptera & Diptera, which often are broken down to tribal level... and while Roy isn't likely to appreciate the difference between Lebiini and Harpalini, many of us do and greatly benefit from this organization.

I personally don't know every familial placement in heteroptera, but having that information readily apparent (and not just blurbed in the info page) greatly helps in facilitating an increase in knowledge... of course no taxa above species level is ever uniform, but they do represent important monophyletic groups, and disseminating information about these is just as vital a goal for this site as any other.

Hope to hear from more on this. Cheers, Joe :)

… Joe, Entomologist (in training), 10 May, 2007 - 11:41am

A Compromise

Keep the actual flat family structure, but arrange the families in a special way:

Create a guide for the higher taxon, but as a No Taxon with a title like this: "Superfamily Lygaeoidea (For Information Only). On the info page for that guide, have a list of its subtaxa with links and representative thumbnails, like the Coleoptera page Reorder the families so that each of these special guide pages is followed by the families that belong to it. The BugGuide system sees them all as children of the same parent taxon, but to the eye the superfamily entry followed by family entries will be recognizable as one unit (at least in Tree View).

The drawbacks have to do with this system's informal nature: since the families are only next to the superfamily rather than under it in the taxonomic tree, the superfamily won't show up on the system-generated tree displays on pages "below" it on the tree, and I'm not sure how it would look in Browse or Image View.

We'll also have to figure out what to do when people post images to these dummy guides. And then, there's always the posibility of our nice system being alphabetized into oblivion, as recently happened to the Pterygota node.

On balance, though, I think it should be an improvement.

… Chuck Entz, 9 May, 2007 - 11:47pm

This seems like a taxonomic m

This seems like a taxonomic middleman that would make the list of taxa that much more long/unwieldy... the only arguments against a phylogenetic approach that I've heard so far is that it's unfamiliar... surely we are not incapable of learning a few extra names.

… Joe, Entomologist (in training), 10 May, 2007 - 12:55am

We?

Remember that this is a site for the general public. The problem isn't just about learning the extra names, it's about not having the families visible. That's like having a dictionary with the entries arranged by etymological origin: "Taxonomy"? Look in the chapter under latinized Greek. "Approach"? Look in the chapter under Old French.

… Chuck Entz, 10 May, 2007 - 7:54am

Test

I took the initiative and tweaked the taxonomy... I followed Boris' suggestion and refrained from creating higher-level taxa for monofamilial groups... but contrary to Boris I kept the Infraorder Cimicomorpha, mostly because the hodgepodge of families seemed out of place among the neat, concise infraorders around them...

I hope this isn't too controversial a change to the guide... I would have liked to have heard from more of our experts on this... if there is a horrendous outcry over the change I will put everything back to the ole status quo... but I urge all the heteropteran minded folks to give this new classification a try... compared to the dipteran/coleopteran/moth taxa this isn't that hard to wrap one's brain around.

Cheers, Joe.

… Joe, Entomologist (in training), 9 May, 2007 - 11:20pm

Four people disagreed

with your proposal in just over 24 hours, yet you made the unwanted changes anyway.

Could it be that because John and Jane Balaban, Roy Sigafus, and I are not "experts", our opinions don't count?

Say it aint so, Joe.

… Robin McLeod, 10 May, 2007 - 1:48am

By my count it was John/Jane

By my count it was John/Jane & Robin against... Boris for (but with modifications)... Chuck for some form of organization... and me for it of course

That's 3 for some change, 2 against... Roy was against it as well, but admittedly I gave that opinion less consideration than the others based on his self-professsed status as "less than an amateur"; I would presume he has just as much difficulty with families as superfamiies.

I'm actually a bit suprised you're so against this change, for, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not the one who added the Superfamily pages to Acalyptrata... surely those are far more arbitrary and unnecessary than what I've suggested.

Anywho, I'd like to hear more opinions on this matter (from experts and non). It can always be changed back if the bugguide community objects.

… Joe, Entomologist (in training), 10 May, 2007 - 2:37am

Please change it back

Your reckless additions, deletions, and changes are not helpful and have caused people a lot of unnecessary frustration.

… John S. Ascher, 25 May, 2007 - 2:39pm

There's definitely a problem

with BugGuide's organizational structure when the non-entomologists it was intended for are confused by it.

Analogy: an online shopper visits "Supermarket A" and finds the Fruit section divided into, say, "Arborealmorphs" (tree fruits), "Arborealmorphettes" (shrub fruits), "Vinosomatiformes" (vine fruits), and "Annualioides" (herbaceous fruits). Apples and oranges aren't visible until the correct subcategory is selected, and the remainder of "Supermarket A" is similarly arranged. The shopper then visits "Supermarket B" and sees an alphabetical list of 50 fruits in the Fruit section.

For the benefit of the majority of users, I think BugGuide should strive to be more like "Supermarket B" above.

I added superfamily pages to Acalyptratae this February because the superfamily Tephritoidea was already there (created by Richard Leung in March 2005) and I hoped that the additions would be less confusing/more uniform than the pre-existing mix of families and superfamilies on the same level. However, in March the Balabans mentioned simplifying the Myriapoda section, and it struck me as a good idea that could be applied to other sections as well. So I now agree with you that my addition of superfamilies to Acalyptratae was unnecessary. I'll be removing the pages soon, returning things to the way they were prior to February.

… Robin McLeod, 10 May, 2007 - 6:52pm

Selective counting

"3 for some change" doesn't mean 3 for your change. Please understand that this is a community, which means that it runs by consensus, not a simple majority (which of course ignores the other 50 or so editors and who knows how many contributors who haven't weighed in). I've had many suggestions die from lack of interest before being accepted later, or take far longer than I think they should to be adopted. That's just the nature of the beast.

If anyone can make a change without waiting for a consensus, we run the risk of "churn" from changing first to one thing, then the next, until everything gets muddled.