Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Calendar

Taxonomy fights, who gives a flying .....

How's that for a title, did I get your attention? (LOL) I don't check forums but every few months, and now I remember why. Gees, some of the long threads I see surprise me. I guess I shouldn't be, long time members are passionate and concerned over what they see going on, bravo!

My point? At my age I've learned to chill over all these arguements I see in recent posts. Let's change a name, publish a paper, and get tenure. Who cares. Remember the customer people. I belong to other groups in music, autographs, etc. It's the same everywhere, people who must have worked for Ford Motor Co., because they always "have a better idea". While this site IS for everyone, the majority of visitors are amateurs, nature lovers, and photographers. They come in here for a name on their pic, and don't give a hoot about infraorders, superfamilys or tribes. Frankly I hate them myself, but I was "family" trained in Gainesville, go figure.

Thank you Robin for your analogy. When I go to the store I want to see 50 fruit names in FRONT of me, not hidden under some higher classification. Eric; "I may just wash my hands of Bugguide". Please don't, I enjoy your comments. I do understand your frustration though.

This is a problem with academia in general. I'm not picking on anybody in here, it's across the board in all the sciences. "Specialists" who can tell you everything there is to know on a subject, but don't have a damn clue on how to communicate to the public. I teach my students to stress "interpretation" over dry "information". Interpretation is an art form not a science. Remember your audience, keep it SIMPLE and EASY. That is not the same as "dumbing down". People who say you can't simplify taxonomy have spent too much time stuck in a lab under a scope. Get out into the real world. Go argue your points in a technical journal. Come in here and have fun.

Fun?? Gee, I thought that's why we volunteer our time in here. If I'm corrected on a ID, I don't take it as a personal afront. It's usually by people I know and respect. So I will sit back and ENJOY helping people with odonates, moths, or anything else to the best of my ability. Has my ranting and raving been blunt enough? Well don't expect it very often. Sit back and enjoy helping the visitors, or we'll start hearing more people comment like Eric about wanting to quit, and we don't want that.

perhaps
you could give a non-expert expert opinion on my proposal to resolve this problem-
http://bugguide.net/node/view/109410

Thanks, Dennis
I sure had fun reading your ranting!
Gayle

the best taxonomy
is the simplest (i.e. most parimonious)

Modern, cladistic classifications are preferred for good reason. These allow diagnostic characters to be presented most efficiently.

Non-specialist users actually have the most to gain in the long run from adoption of improved classifications.

I agree that there is no need to include all levels of the hierarchy in every discussion and presentation.

 
Can be best for ID by amateurs, too
I want to amplify John Asher's comments. Sometimes having several levels of classification (subfamilies and tribes, in particular) is very helpful for the amateur browsing through photos, looking for an ID. The problem with having only family and then genus levels of classification is that, in large families, very similar genera can be far apart, esp. if arranged alphabetically. When I search for an ID on an unknown within a family, I use the Browse tab, looking for images that look close to my photo. If the genera are arranged alphabetically, related groups can be many pages apart in Browse mode. If related genera are lumped into subfamilies, and/or tribes. Then it becomes very easy to hone in on the correct area in Browse mode.

Examples of the usefulness abound among diverse groups, such as coleoptera. Take a look at the Tenebrionidae in Browse mode, for instance. There are a number of genera in that family, and they have a whole series of confusing (to me) names. Many species are black or brown and rather featureless at first glance. However, if you browse through the subfamilies as organized, it is easy to get an idea of the different groups, then to drill down and find a match for a photo. (There are tribes in that classification as well, perhaps not so useful, because each tribe contains just a few genera.) The situation is similar with many other families in coleoptera, such as the Scarabaeoid families. Try browsing by genus in those groups--good luck.

Likewise, the subfamilies of Tettigoniidae (Katydids) are very useful for understanding the identification in that group. Many species are green, and like those Darkling beetles, rather without pattern. Without the subfamily classification it is really difficult to find the correct groups of genera by browsing photos. Furthermore, in order to learn the family, you have to be willing to be guided by real taxonomic characters--otherwise you will be forever lost in the mass of greenish "hoppers".

Ironically, an increase in number of classification levels can help prevent information overload when looking through photos.

And I'll agree with John's last comment that, sometimes, too many levels of classification can get in the way. If a family has only a few genera, then subfamilies are not that useful. I would submit that they are useful, however, when the number of genera fills up more than one page in Browse mode, and that is typically just six or more.

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.