[Taxacom] source of quote about keys: PS

[Robin Leech]

Hi Neal,

Scanning pictures and these new digital photos with multi-level focus software 
are nice, but, I find that if a taxonomist does a nice drawing, putting in the 
diagnostic features and noting them, then I can use the pictures.  If he/she made 
a key, I will use it too, as well as the written diagnosis.

Back in 1971, I was examining a bunch of spiders from northern Devon Island, 
NWT, Canada.  I identified all fairly quickly, but there was a collection of males 
and females that I could not identify.  

I had a good Leitz stereo binocular microscope, and a 50 watt light.  In other words, 
lots of everything I needed technically.  I poured for 3 days through all my Nearctic 
and Palaearctic spider literature.  In the back of my head, I knew I had seen the 
drawing somewhere for the male - not so sure for the female.

Late in the afternoon of the 3rd day, with my eyes about to pop from my head, I 
turned down the light (but not all the way off), and leaned back for about 5 or so 
minutes.  I then leaned forward - without turning up the light power.  

LO!  There it was.  I was seeing too much, and that was the reason I could not 
identify what was then known as Acartauchenius pilifrons.  I found it in a paper 
published in 1879, almost a hundred years previous.  The author had a microscope 
with less power and with less light.  He drew what he could see.

I wish some of the present authors would draw what they see for the diagnoses, 
rather than resorting to scanning electron micrographs and photographs only, and 
not making diagnostic drawings.  This is all very fine for well-known groups, but not 
for major numbers of new species.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net>; <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] source of quote about keys: PS


> In my experience, the lament of the quote is:
> 
> 1. the person writing a key "obviously" knows his/her organisms and 
> really doesn't need a key; and
> 
> 2. people don't use them because they really don't want to have to 
> read something to identify it. They would rather a) go to a 
> collection and picture match; or more commonly b) go online and ask 
> people (on taxacom, for example [I thought this was a discussion list 
> but is has lately been an identification service]) what something is 
> based on a photo.
> 
> -Neal
> 
> At 10:44 AM +1200 9/1/09, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>Robin,
>>
>>think of it another way: yes, keys are used only to IDENTIFY things, 
>>but there are 2 quite different cases:
>>
>>(1) identifying (in the sense of placing it within a classification) 
>>a new taxon for the very first time; and
>>
>>(2) routine identification (in the sense of putting a name to it, or 
>>just placing it within a family, etc.) over and over again by 
>>various people
>>
>>both cases involve keys, but the keys for (1) will be more difficult 
>>and use less "convenient" characters, but it only has to be done 
>>once (or very few times)