Blog & Latest Updates
Fly Fishing Articles
Insects by Common Name
or register. |
"These little critters supplant the importance of many other well-known mayfly hatches."
-Fred Arbona in Mayflies, the Angler, and the Trout
There are 99 more specimens...
Oldredbarn | January 24th, 2011, 8:42 pm | |
Novi, MI Posts: 2608 | Roger & Tim, I almost don't want to say anything more. This thread is what this site is all about and Tim's last comment there should put a cap on it since so many interesting things have been said. I'll just give a short analogy to maybe explain another way to look at it. Many years ago I sold surveying equipment and was part of the team that sold the Michigan Department Of Transportaion Design group their first ever GPS receivers. The satelites that made this science possible belong to the department of defense and were not really intended to help surveyors. Some smart guys figured out a way to use the signals from these satelites to do some high end mapping etc. The department of defense can fiddle with the signals or even move the satelites around for their particular purposes and leave the surveying users out of the loop. The entomologists/scientists are basically doing their thing for their paticular purposes and some of us curious anglers have tried to incorporate their knowledge in to our sport...Science has to do it's thing and the rest of us will just have to adapt or just "go fishing" as Tim said... Roger, "observation & experience" are important to science and us "older" anglers are pretty damn good at it too, especially when it comes to fooling the wily trout... Spence | |
"Even when my best efforts fail it's a satisfying challenge, and that, after all, is the essence of fly fishing." -Chauncy Lively "Envy not the man who lives beside the river, but the man the river flows through." Joseph T Heywood | ||
Entoman | January 25th, 2011, 3:12 am | |
Northern CA & ID Posts: 2604 | Hi Jason, Thanks for taking the time out of your hectic schedule to answer my questions and add to the general discussion. This long thread really has two different "strands" consisting of multiple points and counter points that you effectively managed to address in your single post. Not an easy task since it's hard not to take some of them out of context. Fortunately the new changes aren't radical enough to affect our ability to do this. Most life-history differences that matter for fishing are distinguished at a high enough taxonomic level that they're immune from the species or even genus-level tinkering. Admittedly true to a point... I concede information most relative to fishing is at the familial level. But there are some differences within families in terms of form, behavior and habitat that are important to angling success, i.e. "cracking the code" so to speak. There is no question that proposed/accepted(?) generic "shuffling" for lack of a better term (particularly in the Baetidae, Ephemerellidae, and Heptageniidae), has made these differences more difficult to ascertain in the field for many genera. Especially on "new" water where you don't have the benefit of previous experience & research. Ernest Schwiebert in his later writings lamented these changes and refused to use (for purposes of discussion) many of the taxonomic changes occurring. I wrote this poorly and did a disservice to Mr. Schwiebert. My understanding of his backround is that he was a profound lover of science and its advancement. What I should have said was NOT that he lamented "proposed taxonomic changes" but rather their imprudent use in fly fishing literature. He was worried about potential damage to the "movement" he started... and what to do to preserve it. I allude to this later in the thread. If we want to be scientifically attuned anglers, we can't just pick a snapshot of past scientific results and run with it indefinitely. We can stay up-to-date, or we can use common names and just go fishing, or we can even personally choose to use old scientific names at times with the disclaimer that we know we're doing it. As to the first sentence, agreed... It certainly wasn't my intent to pooh-pooh that notion, though I certainly see how it could be taken that way. I guess my whole point really boils down to discerning between solid results that take root and those results still contested that are later determined to be wrong. If "scientifically attuned" anglers blindly accept the latest species concepts while still very much in the proposal stage, I would think it could lead to many becoming "out of tune." My engaging in hyperbole didn't help to make my point, but wanting to slow down in terms of the wholesale throwing out of existing names without reference (at least for our purposes) shouldn't equate to some kind of "Church vs. Galileo" polemic. But what we should not do is belittle or reject the new changes because of convenience or communication concerns... If we turn around and complain about that scientific rigor when it becomes inconvenient for us. Beware the attack of the Luddites!! Of course you're right. Taking your warning in context, be assured the intent is to question, not belittle or reject. Did I engage in unfounded hyperbole regarding the dark side of human nature's influence on Academia? Yes, so please allow me to pull my foot out of it and apologize. Especially since I see one of the prime "evil doers" contributed to this topic! Ha Ha! However, I do reserve the right to avoid being "inconvenienced" unnecessarily. The core issue I tried to raise is potentially losing the ability to determine generic level in the field... and possibly species back in the study. Not a matter of convenience, a matter of passion... That's similar to my policy for this site. I want to keep it as current as I can taxonomically, but build in references to well-known former names to combat confusion. I guess this means we agree after all. Of course, a lot depends on what we mean by "current". Is there an updated generally accepted monograph or paper extant that codifies all these revisions in one location akin to Biology of Mayflies? I'm not aware of one and I don't profess to know how fully accepted a lot of these revisions truly are in the scientific community, let alone the ones soon to come down the pike. I think Purdue publishes a valid species list they update... Is that what you go by? BTW - Thanks for clarifying the disciplines. So is it safe to say that Entomology is the field of study where the classification of insects take place, in consultation with taxonomists and systematists not to mention other specializd fields? But not always as some of these disciplines/names can be applied/attributed to entomologists as well? No longer peeved, just dizzy (at least about this topic)! Very informative... Thanks again! Best regards, Kurt | |
"It's not that I find fishing so important, it's just that I find all other endeavors of Man equally unimportant... And not nearly as much fun!" Robert Traver, Anatomy of a Fisherman | ||
Oldredbarn | January 25th, 2011, 6:41 am | |
Novi, MI Posts: 2608 | Praise be to Neros Neptune Bob Dylan | |
"Even when my best efforts fail it's a satisfying challenge, and that, after all, is the essence of fly fishing." -Chauncy Lively "Envy not the man who lives beside the river, but the man the river flows through." Joseph T Heywood | ||
Gutcutter | January 25th, 2011, 5:56 pm | |
Pennsylvania Posts: 470 | Yes, bur doesn't phylogeny recapitulate ontogeny? :) | |
All men who fish may in turn be divided into two parts: those who fish for trout and those who don't. Trout fishermen are a race apart: they are a dedicated crew- indolent, improvident, and quietly mad. -Robert Traver, Trout Madness | ||
Entoman | January 25th, 2011, 10:06 pm | |
Northern CA & ID Posts: 2604 | Hi Tony, A tad esoteric, but my wife would concur. She firmly believes that my dog and I are proof. On the other hand she may further stipulate that neither of us have diverged from the embryonic stage anyway, so her evidence is weak. Ironically, the genetic testing that I guess I've been disparaging a little is what gets me off the hook since it causes more than a few problems with the concept. Have we long since "gone from the ridiculous to the sublime" on this thread? Thought I'd ask... Best regards, Kurt | |
"It's not that I find fishing so important, it's just that I find all other endeavors of Man equally unimportant... And not nearly as much fun!" Robert Traver, Anatomy of a Fisherman | ||
Title | Replies | Last Reply |
Re: mayfly common names In General Discussion by Konchu | 10 | Nov 30, 2006 by DMM |
Re: Where's Taxon or Gonzo? In Penelomax septentrionalis Mayfly Nymph by Oldredbarn | 7 | Jan 22, 2010 by Taxon |
Re: i posted this in the forum, but... In the Insect Order Ephemeroptera by Rckrego | 1 | Apr 18, 2007 by Troutnut |
Re: White Miller Bug In the Caddisfly Species Nectopsyche albida by MIKE54 | 3 | May 4, 2013 by Adirman |
Re: Au Sable Holy Waters Sulphurs In General Discussion by Brian314 | 16 | Jul 18, 2019 by Oldredbarn |
Re: Caddis sedge In Fly Tying by FredH | 5 | Sep 1, 2012 by Entoman |
Re: Baetis doesn't look like a BWO!! In Female Baetis Mayfly Dun by Adirman | 10 | Sep 12, 2010 by Martinlf |
Re: cahills In the Mayfly Genus Stenacron by LittleJ | 8 | Dec 1, 2006 by Troutnut |
Re: A Strange One In the Identify This! Board by Taxon | 10 | Aug 27, 2006 by Flymedic |
Re: Taxonomy In the Arthropod Class Crustacea-Malacostraca by DMM | 2 | Dec 1, 2006 by DMM |