Live or dead specimens?

If one of the purposes of BG

If one of the purposes of BG is to serve as a repository of citizen science data for use by scientists, then any specimen of any potential future value should be kept, whether it's dead or alive or already documented in a state or county or whether it's pretty. Temporal shifts in occurrence and shifts in distribution can be documented over time given enough observations. However, if if the policy is to keep only one observation per state or county (etc.), then the future use of this data by scientists is harmed. I'd suggest that BG take this in consideration in the official frassing policy for editors--and development of BG v.2.

If the guide is to remain uncluttered then all but the best dozen or so images need to be removed from the "guide" part of BG. The remaining observations used for data need to be separated from those used for the guide. I think that would solve a lot of the problems that seem to spark endless debate--usually leading to some hostility and hurt feelings.

… Russell Pfau, 6 January, 2018 - 2:11pm

I agree that the language about "mutilated" and "dead..., particularly squashed" bugs isn't intended to apply to pinned specimens.

As far as "we prefer to see images of live specimens," given that it's on the ID request submission page, I think it just means, "We prefer to see images of live specimens so that we can identify them more accurately."

That is, it's just advice to contributors about what kind of images we're likely to be able to identify, not a guideline for editors about what kind of images the guide should consist of.

… John Schneider, 3 January, 2018 - 2:35am

This got out of hand

My apologies - I did not mean to question the usefulness of insect collections and of providing images of of pinned specimens to help with identification, nor was my question a criticism of killing insects for that purpose. After all, I consult spread images of moths in Moth Photographers Group and I kill specimens for DNA barcoding by BOLD. Yes, BugGuide is meant to be a guide for the amateur who wishes to know what kind of bug she/he has encountered, and for the collector. BugGuide even provides advice How to start an insect collection. Yet, there is BugGuide's stated preference for images of live specimens and I was curious how editors deal with all those submitted photos of dead ones and, to be honest, with the choice between aesthetics and practicality that may be involved. I simply do not enjoy looking at a photos of a small bug impaled with a long pin, or with a large pinhead hiding part of it. But then, I have to admit, not all photos of live specimens are nice to look at.

… Peter Homann, 2 January, 2018 - 10:16pm

No need for apologies

You brought up a very interesting subject that has generated a lively discussion. I know of several entomologists or insect aficionados who have told me that they do not contribute to BugGuide because of the preference for images of live insects. I think that represents a loss for the guide. There's always going to be a balancing act between aesthetics and practicality when imaging insects for identification purposes. Thank you for starting this thread!

… Salvador Vitanza, 2 January, 2018 - 11:04pm

[deleted after realizing that Peter's comment may not have been directed at me :)]

… John Schneider, 2 January, 2018 - 10:59pm

I like live insect photos as much as the next guy, but

there are innumerable examples where the structure critical for identifying a bug cannot be obtained from a live specimen such as genitalia, wing venation, hamuli in dragonflies, mentum in small beetles, spiracular plates in ticks, etc. Also, for me it is impossible to focus-stack a tiny critter such as an aphid or triozid without having to kill it first. It pains me having to put down a bug; that's why I don't have a personal insect collection, but in many cases it is absolutely necessary to do so in order to image the needed structures. There are plenty of websites with beautiful images of pretty bugs (flicker, hiveminer, pinterest, this list can go on and on). In my opinion, the greatest value of BugGuide is in becoming the ultimate arthropod identification tool. To illustrate my point see Alan Jeon's request for a particular view and his enthusiasm with the results:

… Salvador Vitanza, 2 January, 2018 - 6:19pm

images of pinned specimens

are of vast and important benefit to insect identification, and as such, they provide an important tool in entomology. I use Bugguide as a start of identifications, and I really prefer crisp, clear images of pinned specimens..Take a look at every one of my images, all are of pinned specimens. I go with the understanding of "images of mutilated insects" meaning poorly pinned specimens, insects missing parts, squashed under a workboot, or stuck on the front of a radiator grill...There are just too many species of insects to only rely on images taken in the field. The greatest value of this site is it caters to both the naturalist photographer looking for perfectly lit and glittery butterflies sipping nectar on a flower, and to those of us who use the site as an easy start for critical species identifications. Bugguide is a fantastic resource for both.

… Guy A. Hanley, 2 January, 2018 - 7:13pm

I couldn't agree more.

… W. Steffens, 3 January, 2018 - 4:52pm

Consistency

If BG really expresses a preference (between live images and pinned images), it may be merely to help give the site a consistent look, and not so much because of any strong feelings that one type of image is better than the other.

… John Schneider, 2 January, 2018 - 5:07pm

Do's and Don'ts page

Bugguide's "Do's and Don'ts" page says in part, "Don't post mutilated bugs. It offends some of us and makes identification difficult." I'm not sure if this is relevant to your question or not, but I'm posting it just in case it is.

… John Schneider, 2 January, 2018 - 5:03pm

Our understanding was that images of pinned specimens

were kept:
1) as placeholders until equivalent live specimen images were submitted;
2) when they showed features not visible in live specimen images;
3) when they illustrated unusual range extensions;
4) when they showed important historical specimens; or
5) when they image specimens that have been keyed to species even though similar species could not be ruled out from the image alone.
But there may be other reasons for keeping pinned specimen images. Others should add additional reasons.

… john and jane balaban, 2 January, 2018 - 2:40pm

Also

Maybe an additional one would be something like... "as placeholders until we have enough good-quality live images that the pinned one(s) won't be missed."

Dr. Homann, it's probably always something of a judgment call, anyway. And for what it's worth, I don't think I've ever seen an image frassed just because it was a pinned specimen.

… John Schneider, 2 January, 2018 - 4:29pm

This doesn't change the meaning, but one could also view 2 through 5 just as specific (but helpful) examples of the general principle of number 1.

I.e., if the pinned submission shows certain features that no live submission does; or if the pinned shows an unusual range extension that no live does; or if the pinned is an important historical specimen; or if the pinned is a specimen that couldn't have been ID'd from an image alone, then we have no "equivalent" live image.

I can think of other examples, but I'd say the key is whether the pinned image adds something to the guide that's not present, or not sufficiently present, in our live images, if any.

… John Schneider, 2 January, 2018 - 4:24pm

Personally, I'm interested in

Personally, I'm interested in insect/plant interactions and habitat restoration, so I find a lot of useful soft data in the live shots. The bug is in good enough focus to be successfully identified. Fantastic. And I can tell what the slightly out of focus plant it is sitting on is, even though the image poster didn't identify it in the comments? Even better. And I can see a small cuckoo bee in the background that the image poster didn't bother to identify, but which I find very interesting. With pinned bugs, you're limited to the information that the collector thought was important to record at the time. With live images you can go back over the picture years later, with all the knowledge science has gained in the interim, and find new answers to questions about species interactions or habitat. And pinned bugs just look dead. Live shots give you an insight into behavior.

… Maggie Furtak, 3 February, 2018 - 4:58pm

I agree with your statements

Live shots convey more data besides info about the specimen, they look pretty even artsy, it also gives you the impression that the photographer was more respectful and humane to the critter. In fact, I used to think like you when I started shooting insects, BUT you will need all the luck in the world to photograph a live specimen showing the pygopore of a true bug (which in many cases is essential for species identification), the mentum of a darkling beetle, the pattern on the sternites of a Culex tarsalis, the male genitalia of so many taxa, the prosternal process of Diplostethus opacicollis, the osteolar peritreme of a burrowing bug, the wing venation of a moth, the hairs on the prosternum of a tachinid, the spiracular plate of a tick, etc, etc.
The most gorgeous photo of a live bug, including views of its host, prey, and surroundings, is practically useless for the purpose of identification if the specimen cannot be identified with certainty.

… Salvador Vitanza, 3 February, 2018 - 8:27pm

All very true. Which is why

All very true. Which is why I like the approach on bugguide of a curated mix of pinned and live specimens, with many contributors all over the country, some knowledgable and systematic, and others just lucking into a good shot here and there, and a good set of specialist editors doing the frassing and selecting key photos for species.

… Maggie Furtak, 3 February, 2018 - 8:42pm

In perfect agreement.

… Salvador Vitanza, 3 February, 2018 - 8:45pm