|
|
Post by wollastoni on Apr 4, 2013 2:29:12 GMT -8
Bob, I think it is a different subject. ICZN is right to not recognize websites, new species must be described in famous journals, not on the web. Nobody wants descriptions to be done on the web, it would be stupid. Websites are not done to appear in the "nomenclature", they are done to share entomological knowledge, new discoveries to amateur and professional entomologists worldwide. For example, each time I read a new useful articles about Delias, I add it to my site bibliography, I add links when it's downloadable online, or I add links to subscribe to journals. See here : www.delias-butterflies.com/bibliography/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Apr 4, 2013 2:42:16 GMT -8
This is most likely to change soon. Currently you have the ZooBank project by the ICZN which allows species names to be described in open access online journals as long as the species name gets registered in the database and receives an LSID (Life Science Identifier).
I must agree that I am also a bit sceptical about the project because I do not know if it is not error prone. The ICZN allowed once in one version of the code the publication on CD and DVD, assuming that these devices last ~400 years just like a regular book. This is nonsense as most CD and DVD that are burned with a laser (and not printed) become unreadable after approximately 10 years. This was a prime example on how incompatible informatics and biologists are.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Apr 4, 2013 2:52:07 GMT -8
This isn't stupid, it is the future  But it must be done in a smart way, I am not sure yet if Zoo Bank really will continue to work properly for the next decades. zoobank.org/The biological community is made up by a huge amount of diverse people. There is worlds clashing together. On the one hand you still have people relying on hand written notes or writing large files in MS WORD, on the other hand you have people accomplishing huge tasks all by themselves and with the help of a computer. Unfortunately the median of both worlds results in the fact that biology is limping 20 years behind all the other natural sciences. |
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Apr 4, 2013 3:58:33 GMT -8
This is very similar to when digital cameras were introduced. I remember once (during 2001) I had a heated argument with a group of photographers where they were stating that manual cameras were superior to digital ones. At that time, I remember buying my first digital camera, a Nikon coolpix 3MP which took superb photos. I believe that today they all changed their mind as at that time it was just a matter of fear of change.
And your arguments above are very similar to my digital camera example. I'm sure that most of you are aware that today you can download online books on your ipad. If one had to take a look at the younger generation in Malta, students today in certain private schools already use ipads and NOT physical books. The government will be introducing the ipads in all schools very soon too. So one day, yes printed material might easily be something of the past.
I know that most of you don't agree with this but I believe that in the future, all scientific material should be published online, after obviousy being reviewed by the competent authorities and then if one wants, can also put that info in physical books.
I'll conclude with this "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." I'm sure you all recognised this quote.
So folks, start preparing your minds for this change as it will defintely happen, maybe not next year, maybe not in 5 years time, but it will and we all might have to adapt to it if God lends us the time to live until that day.
As Claude rightly said, this is the future.
To Michel. - I see your point here. Some organisations are already taking the extremely laborious task to scan their documents and store them as a doc or pdf for example. So one day you will have a better source. However I agree with you that it is unethical to alter something that has been published without showing what has been changed. And that can easily be done online. On the other hand with physical books, one author may say one thing on one journal and another author says something completely different in another journal in a foreign language and if you are not subscribed in both journals and can easily translate the foreign language in a more comprehensive one, you still might end up with not having the latest updates. And we all know how many journals there are available where one can publish scientific articles. So printed books/journals are definitely not the best way for research purposes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 4:29:57 GMT -8
Nice site and one that is a tad unusual, for these butterflies are not focused on as much as some others.
Really like the way you organized it by clicking on a species.....then (after viewing the species) one can investigate the subspecies for that particular species. I am (admittedly) a lumper, so starting out with species is so nice and one is not bogged down with tons of ssp. unless one wants to.
Also like the verso pics which help SO much for ID purposes.
I don't focus on these guys, but it is nice to have another source should I have need to ID one that comes along.
One possible idea/suggestion might be to add a series of site links to species by country or region. Knowing one has a specimen from say Spain and then clicking on a Spain or Region button may be a nice way to start the ID process. Just a thought........glad I visited your site.
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Apr 4, 2013 4:48:40 GMT -8
Bill is right about the entry by country/region.
It was a HUGE work on the Delias website but having both entries (by species or by distribution) will be very useful to your visitors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Apr 4, 2013 5:33:30 GMT -8
To be honest, that idea came to mind a couple of days ago through a pm I received that showed me a Polish website that has this facility to filter specimens by country and I started to work immediately on it. Yes I know that it will not be easy but I'll try to implement it during the next 12 months. So one day I will ask you if what I build meets your expectations. Expert advice like yours will always be appreciated. Thanks a lot to both of you for your comments and suggestions @ Bill - about a month ago, I met a guy who asked me why I focused on these dull and often ignored butterflies when there are more beautiful species which deserve attention. My answer was simple. Since these are mostly ignored, I wanted to give them the proper focus since they are God's creation as much as a Morpho or an Ornithoptera. Also, I believe that a lot of work has already been done on certain "eye-candy" families and I thought that I wouldn't be adding any value if I had to focus on families which have been over-studied. Hence my decision to dedicate my studies on Satyrinae. I'm glad that you found the website easy to navigate  |
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Apr 4, 2013 5:45:04 GMT -8
about a month ago, I met a guy who asked me why I focused on these dull and often ignored butterflies when there are more beautiful species which deserve attention. This is a remarkably stupid comment! I can't say that I have a huge amount of interest in Satyrinae, and I have no interest at all in Diptera or small Coleoptera, but nobody who has an interest in the natural world could argue that they're any less worthy of study than the more spectacular Ornithoptera or Morpho, or even mammals. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Apr 4, 2013 5:51:20 GMT -8
Certainly I would agree that websites such as this are very useful. It's just that as long as they are not recognised by the ICZN they are of no value nomenclaturally. I'm sure that at some time in the future this will change, but it first needs a way to be found for descriptions online to be fixed. An original description is of no value if it can be subsequently changed.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Apr 4, 2013 6:59:56 GMT -8
about a month ago, I met a guy who asked me why I focused on these dull and often ignored butterflies when there are more beautiful species which deserve attention. This is a remarkably stupid comment! I can't say that I have a huge amount of interest in Satyrinae, and I have no interest at all in Diptera or small Coleoptera, but nobody who has an interest in the natural world could argue that they're any less worthy of study than the more spectacular Ornithoptera or Morpho, or even mammals. Bob Like Just like you, I have no interest in Diptera & Coleoptera but for example a friend of mine who is an expert on Diptera was appointed by the Courts on a number of occasions to analyse certain crime scenes. So thanks God that there are people like him who take an interest in such families. |
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 7, 2013 3:43:31 GMT -8
Hi Jonathan An interesting website. How did you become fascinated by the Satyrinae in the first place? All butterflies are worthy of study but I can see why many choose to collect the gorgeous tropical butterflies but I certainly do not ignore the British members of the Satyrinae family. I am afraid current British books put the Browns in with the Super family Nymphalidae. In my quest to study and photograph all the British butterflies, including all the forms and subspecies, I visited the mountains of the English Lake District in 2012 where I hoped to find Erebia epiphron subspecies mnemon. Britain has lots of mountains but only one true mountain butterfly. I spent a week in the most beautiful Lake District in what was some of the wettest weather known there and this is the wettest place in Britain! I visited a number of its known localities and almost gave up but in a two hour weather window managed to take a few images. On your home web page you mentioned that many in that family shun bright sunshine, I afraid you will only find our Erebia in sunshine and as soon as the sun goes behind a cloud the butterflies disappear as if by magic dropping into the grass and thus perfect specimens are hard to find that are suitable to photograph. It is quite useless to search for this species in cloudy weather. Here are a few images that I took of subspecies mnemon. A male resting on Alpine Lady's Mantle [Alchemilla alpina] in the Lake District. Peter. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 7, 2013 3:45:57 GMT -8
A female of Erebia epiphron mnemon in the Lake District Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 7, 2013 3:49:35 GMT -8
The bleak habitat of E. epiphron subspecies Mnemon. Marshy mountain sheep grazed grassland. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 7, 2013 5:43:06 GMT -8
Yes Britain has lots of mountains. They are not as high as yours but those in the UK occur at more northern latitude and are equally dangerous Mist, cliffs and this is especially true in the winter. Scotland has numerous mountains and ' Mountain Ringlet' Erebia epiphron subspecies Mnemon occurs there in form scotica which is larger and brighter than the English race. Much of the Highlands of Scotland is mountainous , a trip to the Cairngorms in winter can be Arctic and in the summer there are many mountain species of moths to found in this habitat. I do not breed British butterflies. Below the Cairngorms in winter. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Apr 7, 2013 6:33:27 GMT -8
I will just toss this in the room:
microclimate
I bet there is just as much snow on Peters pic than on yours. With the horrible climate up in Scotland I bet the Erebia feel just as cosy as on a South Eastern European Mountain. This all has to do with the angle of latitude on the globe and the angle of the sun and the available area of soil (which takes up the warmth of the sun very well).
|
|
But it must be done in a smart way, I am not sure yet if Zoo Bank really will continue to work properly for the next decades.
