As a writer of an entomology blog, I don’t normally get hate mail—at most a critical comment about the way my specimens are curated or labeled, or perhaps an opposing thought regarding application of the subspecies concept. But recently, I got a doozy! I was going to respond privately but didn’t want to reveal to them my private e-mail address. Then I was going to respond in a public post (and there is much to respond to), but I decided their position is so hardened that any response is pointless. Ultimately, I decided just to share the hate (sender’s name redacted to protect their privacy) as an example of how not to engage me in a discussion. We can (and should) debate the ethics of insect research, but equating entomologists who do collections-based research to depraved mass murderers doesn’t do much to promote rational and constructive dialogue.
Intentionally killing beetles is killing a sentient, conscious, and extremely refined competent life. That others before you have done it is no excuse nor a valid precedent for mimicking them. Todays imaging techniques can photograph molecules. There are techniques of photographing with layered depth of field images combined into one image that has clarity of all insect parts at their scale. Moreover there are 3D microscopes at that scale as well including capture of motion. Killing insects to collect is a macabre, harmful, antiquated and unnecessary. Today it is a pathological fetish to kill and display bodies of once sentient and conscious beings. When the world was large with only wooden boats scientists did that to record far away places. This is no longer necessary. Your collection is an example of how proficient your are at killing sentient beings within the synergistic wholes we call natural habitats. Nothing more. This is not research, kind nor has any inkling of respect for the insect. An excuse to kill based on populations is complete pathological rubbish and part of you knows this is true.
©️ Ted C. MacRae 2023
Beetles In The Bush 
Mr. MacRae,
I’m sorry that you have to receive rubbish like this! The author is clearly suffering from a complete state of ignorance about the nature of biological science. And the idea that insects are “conscious” would force us to entirely give up most of what we understand about neuroscience. Thank you for bringing forward hate mail of this sort…………
Dr. Richard Carter
My situation is this. In the last 15 or so years, my colleagues and I have trapped and collected millions (not exaggerating) of insects including flies, moths, beetles and more, not to mention spiders, millipedes. and occasionally lizards, bats, frogs, tiny mammals and even a couple of small birds. Way over 99% is not retained for various reasons, but the 1% that gets extracted and saved (kind of like digging for diamonds) contains undescribed species, new state and country records and other valuable data. point is, you can’t make a significant contribution by just taking pictures.
I used to do a lot of collecting (only very sparingly now) but have moved on to primarily doing macrophotography. I take exception to your last sentence. Might it have been a misstatement?
Using macrophotography, one can capture behaviors not visible to the naked eye. Here is an example, a rarely encountered wasp – https://bugguide.net/node/view/2011764/bgimage. At the time I was photographing it, I was just trying to get some shots of this ‘tiny’ wasp in focus and at good angles as it crawled about on the wood surface. I had no idea what the wasp was or what it was actually doing as it crawled about. It was only when I processed the photos that I realized what it had been doing and it was only after I had posted the initial few (non-oviposition) images to bugguide and it had been identified that I realized that I had captured a significant event ‘on film’. I immediately posted the oviposition sequence of images. Is this not a significant contribution? BTW – unfortunately I did not collect the wasp.
Take also the situation of the formerly ultra-rare robber fly Dasylechia atrox. The true range of this beast is being defined almost solely by iNaturalist observations (photos) – https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?locale=en&place_id=any&subview=map&taxon_id=490056. Aren’t each of those observers/photographers making a significant contribution? I believe the number of photos of this beast dwarfs the number of collected specimens.
There are a whole lot of very talented photographers out there making significant contributions to biological research, making range extensions (both geographical and phenological) and capturing never before seen behaviors. Don’t sell photographers short. We can and do make significant contributions by ‘just taking pictures’.
Hiyer, Jeff!
Photos and film footage can be a valuable tool, but they are limited, as they are not necessarily repeatable or falsifiable. As scientists, we must follow the scientific method. That means repeatability and falsifiability. Your observation would have been far more valuable if you had collected the specimen; the identification could have been confirmed and additional observations could be made on conspecifics or congenors to see if the same behaviour is universal, or maybe a one off, or unique to a specific situation. But, I think that Dan’s point goes to taxonomy and systematics. There have been a number of papers out in the last decade about using photos for type specimens. The photos are just not scientific: they are not repeatable or falsifiable. Worse, they can be fabricated, plus there is no guarantee that the photo was taken at the site the photographer claims that it was. I had a project where people had plenty of photos of a federally endangered species in its specific habitat, all claimed to be from that one project site. The problem was that that type of habitat (depicted in the images) does not occur within six miles of the project site. Furthermore, one cannot get genetic data form a photo, let alone dissect or examine in detail any specific anatomy.
Happy days,
Christopher
Hi Christopher,
I wholeheartedly agree with almost the entirety of your response. The one sticking point is guaranteed locality accuracy. Label data can be fabricated/misrepresented just as easily as stating where a photo is from. But nowadays it’s infinitely easier to fake a photo than it used to be, so I guess having cadavers becomes even more important. Wonder how many of the photos on iNaturalist or bugguide (etc., etc.) are actually fakes. So many anonymous users and so many non-detailed photos.
Ted These people are just nuts. The next thing we will hear from the admin folks is that “We have great digital images, DNA, and locality data, so why keep specimens that have to be housed etc. Just get rid of them. We have all the info we need”. Then I say terrific, why not save heaps of $$ and toss the Mona Lisa? We have great images of her and think of the $$ we can save in all the protection she receives!
The crazies seem to be taking over.
Several people as of late have taken exception to my collecting activities posted on Facebook, but none have been as strident in their opinions as your correspondent. At least not yet. I generally don’t respond because there appears to be little room for discussion. Extolling the scientific benefits of insect collect will likely harden the position of folks who feel otherwise and take the time to tell you so.
Author: You clearly never had to painstakingly dissect the genitalia of a beetle to determine the species or to have a series of 50 specimens that at first blush, appear to be the same species only to discover that one individual is new to science due to minute details only seen under magnification and through comparison with the other congeners. A large number of taxa are not able to be found in their natural habitat, let alone be photographed, thus the use of traps to sample these cryptic species.
How was your letter received by your city officials when you decried the use of mosquito fogging . I trust you do not eat any fruit or vegetables that were grown using any pesticides…good luck with that. I assume you have never had your home treated for termites or had any pest control done. If you go to buy a home, make sure to not ask for an inspection as you surely see termites as a welcome quest in your home. Make sure to leave a note in your neighbors mailbox for their reckless use of their backyard “bug zapper” during their son’s graduation party.
Ignorance is bliss!
Some of my most valuable possessions are words I have never spoken.
Dan Mays
Walcott, Iowa
This is directly from animal rights group talking points and is part of an organised effort. This follows the work of Birch et al., which are a group of philosophers from the UK that have been out to prove that various fish and invertebrates are “sentient” and “feel pain”. Tragically, their papers and papers of similar groups have been or are being used to pressure lawmakers into legislating the welfare of these animals. The papers are highly problematic and the problems are outlined in a paper (in press) that I have coauthored with 19 other scientists from around the world; it is being published in Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, but I will happily make it available when it is finally out. The title is: “Reasons to be skeptical about sentience and pain in fishes and aquatic invertebrates”.
Our paper uncovers the pseudoscientific facade surrounding claims of sentience and pain in fish and invertebrates by providing various reasons to be skeptical. These included:
1 Examining why some research groups have tried to change the definitions of what pain and sentience are;
2 Highlighting a propensity of pro-pain research groups to ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs;
3 Reiterating the fact that much of the research claiming pain in these animals cannot be replicated by other research groups;
4 Revealing the personal attacks by activist groups to try to discredit bona fide researchers in the field;
5 Uncovering a tendency of researchers to accept experimental hypotheses that are not falsifiable;
6 Asking why pain and sentience criteria are arbitrary applied to some animals, but not others;
7 Exploring the various issues with dilution and devaluation of the welfare concept;
8 Providing examples of the high risk of unintended consequences to food security of accepting poor quality research at face value;
9 The weaponising of the precautionary approach by activist groups to achieve their agenda, and;
10 Emphasising the ongoing need to retain organised skepticism and critical thinking in science.
Indeed, some of the literature we cite contains evidence of organized activism as various interest groups (including philosophers and animal rights groups) have started lobbying governments to include aquatic animals under welfare legislation. These groups have approached this topic using a suffering centred definition of welfare which ideologically requires the animals concerned to be sentient, and therefore capable of suffering and feeling pain, before these people can begin to consider their welfare.
The problem with this approach is that the research in the area has been equivocal at best. Instead, we have seen these groups changing definitions and “shifting the goalposts” so these animals can meet pre-determined criteria for pain and sentience. This has been done even though key studies which alleged pain in fish and crustaceans have not been able to be independently replicated by other research groups, and several studies have been later shown to be false. These are all scientific “red flags” that lead to skepticism. And it’s all unnecessary, as our authorship contend that the welfare of aquatic animals can be well catered for using functional and nature based welfare indicators which have been used for decades, and which are superior in many ways to the ideologically driven suffering centred approach.
Our paper is certainly not about choosing between no welfare, and welfare for the animal groups involved. Instead, we wanted to raise awareness of the many limitations of the available science about sentience and pain in aquatic animals, so that policy makers can make more informed decisions to ensure the welfare of these animals is properly assessed and protected. We encourage application of high scientific standards to any new welfare indicators for aquatic animals which may be eventually prescribed in welfare legislation. Because when scientific standards slip, the perils of pseudoscience and ideology emerge and these can quickly lead us down the wrong path.
Certainly not worth engaging with this person. I got so tired of debating anti-collectors. I got to the point where I’d say everyone draws their own lines but even that’s a waste of energy now.
Another important point : large collections over time tell us so very much about evolution and ecology. Large museum series collections of species across multiple years has demonstrated adaptation in species to ecological changes, demonstrating evolution in real time. In Australia, I was involved in examining freshwater bivalve shells collected over decades and in large numbers from one river: we were able to document the build up of certain chemicals in the shell periostracum. The study demonstrated that these chemicals were staying in the environment and subsequently practises were changed, and there is now a significant drop in the levels of this chemical in the environment and these animals.
My friend Phil Koenig sent this quite humorous response to me: