next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
Angus MacLean wrote:
> Thanks again to both of you. In terms of photos vs. collecting, my
> prime aim is to photograph the beast. Usually by that time (especially
> Hover Flies!!), they are gone never to be seen again. However better
> photos may help.
> Angus
>
Hi Angus & All, Sept 3, 2006
I did not intend to belittle the value of photos, especially good
photos. Photos are excellent as field recognition guides and, after
navigating uncertain passages in keys [such as 'Form less convex' as
opposed to 'Form distinctly more convex' (Easton 1955)] a good figure or
photo can confirm or contradict key results.
On the other hand, collected material, quite apart from documenting
what has been found where, can act as the raw material for observation
and learning that can extend over many decades. To quote Brules,
Melander and Carpenter (Classification of Insects 1954); "...the
fundamental principles of classification cannot be fully appreciated
through the study of descriptive text-books, nor can any comprehension
of the infinite variety of nature be acquired except by close
observational contact with the things themselves."
And being able to check, years later, for some character that can
not be shown in a field photo, such as presence of a dark setulose area
at the base of the hind femur, is just part of the package.
Yours truly, Dave Webster, Kentville
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects