---

What is your opinion about collecting insects? Is it crucial for the study of them?

I don't collect insects because I'd rather have the living one with no name, than a dead one with a name.

---

it is crucial in many cases because to get a reliable ID you need, of course, a specimen to check genitalia. Or to observe some features when an expert ask for that. For me, it was very useful to have specimens to check correctly the ID. If you *really* wants/care about knowing the correct ID species, it is necessary to have specimen in many cases.

---

To protect some species we need to know what they are, because a rare specie may be similar to a common one. Sometimes only cheking genitalia and other aspects we have a final and correct veridict.
I?m studying Lampyridae and other bioluminescent beings, and ?poor of me? if I couldn?t get samples for ADN studies, for ID studies,for behaviour studies, etc,etc... And fortunately I don?t need to kill them, I just keep them, and then when they die, I will study their body structures.
This is much more ecollogical than most people think.:)

---

another Portuguese! :) Bem-vindo ? lista. :)
I have a suspect of the real name. :)

---

Well, yes and no :) Depends on how and why you study them :)

For almost all flies you need a collected specimens if you want to be really sure of the identification. *Good* photographs are often enough, but very few photographers know exactly what details must be visible for each family/genus/species.

Nearly all diptera identification books are written by taxonomists for taxonomists; they care little of field identification. In fact most species are probably identifiable in the field, but nobody has the skills needed.

Personally I don't think twice of collecting a fly. After all, driving to the study site on a hot day probably kllls more insects than collecting there. But I try to kill the collected flies as quickly and kindly as possible. In my opinion recording species *and* publishing the records on the net & reporting to authorities responsible for nature protection makes collecting morally acceptable.

---

It is quite possible to study insects without collecting them, but you have to choose insects that do not need microscopic examination to identify them. Most butterflies and macro-moths, grasshoppers and crickets can be field identified with practice. Even some more critical groups can be studied purely in the field, as long as you accept that there will be many species which you will not be able to identify. But if you fancied studying hoverflies, you could choose to study Eristalis, Volucella, Criorhina for example, most of which can be identified in the field by capture, inspection and release.

In general though I would not be concerned about killing insects. The adult phase of most insects is very short lived in any case. It is really just a stage, whose only purpose is to mate and reproduce. It has lived 90%+ of its life, by the time you capture it. Often, a quick death caused by an entomologist may be far more merciful than deaths that nature deals out - dissolved and sucked dry by spiders, paralysed by wasps and slowly eaten alive, devoured from within by a parasite etc.

The contribution to knowledge, that taking a specimen makes is immense. The conservation of many species is absolutely reliant on our knowing what they are and where they live. In most cases some specimens have to be taken to be sure of such details. So, yes, collecting is absolutely an acceptable practice. Only the mass collecting of specimens for commercial purposes, or to display pretty series of variations should be condemned, as this contributes very little to science and conservation.

Personally, like the vast majority of entomologists, if I am confident of an insects ID in the field, I will always release it, if it is not essential to have a voucher specimen.

---

and now... there is a crescent interest in entomological gastronomy!! :|

I can imagine some dishes: (i hope to not hurt any feelings.. no, I prefer my fried ants :D, never my dear flies!!)

Flies with champignons...
Fried Lucilia with fried potatoes.
Stewed Volucella(s) with chestnuts.
Sarcophaga larvae (very rich in proteins) can be added in Bolognaise spaghetti. :) (instead parmesan cheese)
Boiled sciomyzids with vegetables and eggs (of sciomyzids of course)


If you desire, open your imagination to do your favorite dishes... :| lol

ps this doesnt add anything to the thread. just for relaxing. hmm, flies never stressed us, just for relaxing even more, ok? :)

---

I see, next time Jorge needs money to buy a new camera he'll write a book: "How to loos kilos - the Lucilla-diet" and when this doesn't help anymore, volume 2:"With soldierflies against your fat".

---

Maja

For goodness sake - don't encourage him! :D

---

[Kahis wrote:

Nearly all diptera identification books are written by taxonomists for taxonomists; they care little of field identification. In fact most species are probably identifiable in the field, but nobody has the skills needed.
]

So why not start with spezies that are identificable in the field or from pictures? I tried it for instance with Eristalis. First I thought it hopless but this year I made some pictureseries: One animal from all possible sides, then when I lost it a picture of the ground and next trial. Many pictures go to the bin because I cann't identify them, but there is a rest. For instance Eristalis jugorum is for me normally impossible to identify from one picture (there are exeptions) but when you have sevral views there is a chance. When you know what exactly is important for ID, you can look for it ...
When you start collecting you are soon surrounded of dusty bodies and need much place. Untill now I have prefered to buy another harddisc instead of boxes for dead flies.
I don't know how long, but I still try to do as much as I can with pictures.
Maja

---

Obrigado pelas boas vindas! Thanks for the welcome!
B):)

---

I have funny experiens about
Cambogia, Jan 2006. My friend Odonatologist Oleg Kosterin and me take some meal - there were fried locust with small amount of another Arthropoda and a chinese sticks to eat it. Conversation:
Me: Oleg, it seems to my that this Hemiptera is interesting and undamaged, doesn't it?
Oleg: Yes Nikita, put it please in my jar with alcohol instead of your mouth.
Me: OK

---

Nikita, which flies did you see in Cambodja?? I suppose Diopsidae, Micropezidae, Celyphidae... :)

Maja, if I wrote a book about diets would be about "how to win weight with flies diet for (some) models..." :p

---

I agree totally with Kahis.
In field, I tried to reach species level, but many times I managed to get only genus level . :)
It is not an easy task, but it is possible to reach a level that enables us to get species level. I think a 20x loup would be a great tool in the field to see fine details on the fly.

---

Indeed very few flies at all for several reasons:

1. It was the trip when I collected first flies in my life...
2. It isn't the best coutry for entomological research for many reasons - see attached image :o
3. Enought? ;)
Nikita

---

Kahis made some very good points but I'd add that really an identification is only as good as its accurancy. If you're just mildly curious then you can decide on what lengths you want to go to to reach a good identification because nobody will ever check it and you won't pass it on to anyone else. But if you intend to give the record to a recording scheme then it's your responsibility to make sure the identification is accurate otherwise the scheme will "polluted" with inaccuracy and the maps it produces will not be respected by organisations that need to use the data for local planning decisions.

I think most photo or field identifications (even of common species) also have to be judged less certain than idents made from specimens. Not just because the whole fly couldn't be examined properly but also because it is hard/impossible to double-check them later. Often scientific opinion will change and species will be split or reworked so that it needs even closer examination (eg. genitalia) and if a specimen was taken then it can be reexamined.

It's always possible to study the species that are easy to field-identify but this soon becomes a bit boring and the more curious amongst us was to delv a little deeper and find out what else we have living near us :)

---

Nikita is demonstrating "hardcore" entomology ;) It's one thing to brave Malaria, Dysentery and the occasional snake bite ... but dodging landmines is only for the very toughest dipterist!! :D

---

I agree.

---

This is a very nice discussion for two reasons:
1. You all raise good points and explain them thoroughly.
2. It didn't start a flame war.

It actually made me change my opinion (Also happened to be that I found about 20 different species in my home in the last few days, so there's another reason). For now I lack the needed equipment, and I'm starting my military service very soon, but I might start collecting when I'll be back. :D

Keep this thread going!

---

Does he always drink alcohol from jars, not from glasses?
Just curious...

---

yes!! Sufficiently enough!! That's why is so dangerous to do entomological research in many African countries: specially Angola and Chad.. :(

---

Nigel's post answering the original question put it extremely well - I wish I'd written it :p.

I am pleased to see Jere and others putting in a word for both IDing from photographs and for IDing in the field. So many experts discourage beginners from developing their skills in this direction with the blanket "you can't be certain of an ID from a photo or a live specimen in the field" and I don't think they quite realise how intimidating they can be with this attitude. There is often no acknowledgement that, actually, many species can be identified correctly under these circumstances, and the more you practice, the better your skills are. Both these approaches are a way in to a life long entomological interest for many very talented amateurs, and useful skills for those working in conservation and ecology who are not specialist taxonomists. This level of interest and expertise is to be encouraged, not scorned or belittled. Inevitably, some of those who start out in this way will want more knowledge and will take that step into collecting and all that it entails - and that should also be encouraged, of course.

Chris's point of view from running a recording scheme is understandable and valid though, and as someone who has just completed a qualification in biological recording and species identification, I have some insight into the way records can get skewed, or indeed, just turned into gobbledegook that is no use to anyone.

I think the important thing to encourage is the interest itself, and promulgate best practice at what ever level people choose to practice. It seems to me that this forum manages to do this superbly well. GlassOWater commented in one of his posts that he was impressed that there was a discussion, different opinions were freely expressed, and no one got flamed. He is right - that is a remarkable thing in online forums, and we must never take it for granted.