Aphids don’t suck sap! (usually)

Aphids are sap feeding, most of the time they feed from the phloem, or sieve elements, that part of the plant responsible for transporting the food made in the leaves by photosynthesis, around the plant.  Aphids face three problems arising from their phloem feeding habit. First, the phloem sap is largely composed of sugars, with a few trace elements and nitrogen in the form of soluble amino acids.  The aphids are mainly interested in the nitrogen and that poses the second problem, the amino acids are mainly non-essential ones.  Thirdly, the phloem is under pressure, figures range from 2 to 40 Bars* (about twice to forty times atmospheric pressure) (e.g. Mittler, 1957; Rogers & Peel, 1975; Barlow & Randall, 1978; Wright & Fisher, 1980).  Imagine that you are trapped in an air-tight room and your only source of air is an inflated tractor tyre.   You have a sharp metal straw which you can stick into the tyre to release the air into your mouth.  If you put one end of the straw in your mouth and then pierced the tyre wall, your head would explode.

Sadly I couldn’t find a picture of an exploding aphid and my cartoon version was a failure, so this is it 🙂

Aphids face the same sort of pressure. Fortunately evolution has provided them with a very strong pharyngeal pump and incorporated a series of valves in their mouth-parts (stylets = straw) with which they are able to control the flow of the phloem into their bodies.  The last thing they want to do when plugged into the phloem is suck, it would be the last thing they did 🙂 and that’s why aphidologists get upset when people describe aphids as sap-suckers!

 

Aphid feeding apparatus – adapted from McLean & Kinsey (1984)

To be fair, we are being somewhat pedantic, the fluid transported in the xylem tubes, largely water, is also colloquially known as plant sap. The xylem, unlike the phloem is not under pressure (Sperry et al., 1996), so on those rare occasions when the aphid does need to drink water, they do have to suck sap (Spiller et al., 1990).  The other occasion on which aphids need to suck rather than regulate the flow of sap is when they are feeding in very artificial laboratory situations, on leaf discs or on artificial diets where the nutrient solution is between two pieces of Parafilm™.  In both these cases there is negative pressure and the cibarial pump does then come into operation. Interestingly, it is sometimes quite difficult to get aphids to feed on artificial diets unless a phagostimulant is included to overcome their reluctance to feed on sap that is not under pressure (Mittler & Dadd, 1963), but that’s a story for a future post.

Aphids feeding on leaf discs, in this case for insecticide assays at Rothamsted Research

 

Aphids feeding on artificial diet through Parafilm™. Photo Meena Haribal https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151216151742.htm

 

References

Barlow, C.A. & Randolph, P. A.  (1978) Quality and quantity of plant sap available to the pea aphid.  Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 71, 46-48.

McLean, D.L. & Kinsey, M.G. (1984) The precibarial valve and its role in the feeding behavior of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 30, 26-31.

Mittler, T.E. (1957) Studies on the feeding and nutrition of Tuberolachnus salignus (Gmelin) (Homoptera, Aphididae) I. The uptake of phloem sap. Journal of Experimental Biology, 34, 334-341.

Mittler, T.E. & Dadd, R.H. (1963) Studies on the artificial feeding of the aphid Myzus perslcae (Sulzer) – I. Relative uptake of water and sucrose solutions. Journal of Insect Physiology, 9, 623-645.

Sperry, J.S., Saliendra, N.Z., Pockman, W.T.,  Cochard, H., Cruiziat, P., Davis, S.D., Ewers, F.W. & Tyree, M.T. (1996) New evidence for large negative xylem pressures and their measurement by the pressure chamber method. Plant, Cell & Environment, 19, 427-436.

Rogers, S. & Peel, A.J. (1975) Some evidence for the existence of turgor pressure gradients in the sieve tubes of willow Planta (Berl.) 126, 259-267.   

Spiller, N.J., Koenders, L. & Tjallingii, W.F. (1990) Xylem ingestion by aphid – a strategy for maintaining water balance.  Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, 55, 101-104.

Wright, J.P. & Fisher, D.P. (1980) Direct measurement of sieve tube turgor pressure using severed aphid stylets. Plant Physiology, 65, 1133-1135.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Aphidology, Aphids

Pick and mix 23 – links from far and wide

For entomologists, a gender gap remains in academic, government employment

Food is not waste until it is wasted – find out where and when by reading this

Warning signs to look out for at academic interviews – great post from Terry McGlynn

Social media is not a waste of time – it can be used to monitor phenological events in Nature

Interesting paper – Connections with Nature and Environmental Behaviors – the plastic bag experiment is both novel and revealing

Terry McGlynn again – this time on the use of mobile phones in class

 Excellent Open Access paper from Seirian Sumner on why we love bees and hate wasps

Climate change may not all be gloom and doom for UK butterflies – interesting article from Richard Fox of Butterfly Conservation

What are the main causes of tropical deforestation?  Results of a new study show that commodity crops and forestry account for just over half of forest loss

A really interesting article about crop domestication and how the rush for yield and palatability has increased susceptibility to pests and diseases and reduced genetic diversity

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Pick and mix

How not to respond to reviewers – even if it is Reviewer #3

I have been an Editor for many years, since 1993 to be precise, and am currently Editor –in-Chief of one journal and a Senior Editor of another as well as being on the Editorial Board of two other journals. On top of that, I review about 40 papers a year so have come across quite a lot of response to reviewers letters.  I have also, as the author of over 200 papers, written my own share of reviewer responses.  Yes, there are some reviewers who have caused my blood pressure to rise and engendered a desire to rend them limb from limb, and I have sometimes been tempted to reply to suggested comments with the phrase “up yours”, but sanity and common sense have prevailed.

Based on responses I have seen over the years, here are a few suggestions of what not to do, and what to do, to maximise the chances of your resubmitted paper being accepted.

First, take a deep breath, close the document, go for a walk and don’t read it again for at least 24 hours. A hastily anger-filled response will almost always result in a rejection. Avoid knee-jerk reactions at all costs.

Do not start your response by saying “Do not send our revised paper back to Reviewer 1 as it is clear that he clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge or understanding of the study/subject area in general” This is likely to annoy the Editor who has gone to great pains to find a suitable reviewer for your paper and will most certainly annoy the reviewer when it is sent back to him/her as it will almost certainly be.   Much better to begin your response by thanking the Editor and reviewers for taking the time to consider your manuscript and making helpful suggestions.  Then respond carefully, comment by comment, as instructed in the letter from the Editor.

Do not respond to comments by baldly stating I/we disagree; politely state with good reasons, why you disagree.

Do not point out to the reviewer that she/he has made a spelling mistake.

Do not respond to the comment “This section is unclear” by saying “It is perfectly clear to us”. Ask yourself, why is it unclear to the reviewer?  One way to address the problem is by asking a colleague from another discipline if it is clear to them and then rewriting it when they say it isn’t.

If the reviewer challenges your description of random sampling as not being random because you did not use a random number generator do not respond by saying that this is how everyone you know describes it.

If challenged on your statistical analysis do not respond by saying “I/we have always done it this way”.  There may actually be a better way to do it, if you are sure there isn’t then explain why.

If challenged on the quality of your figures do not respond by saying this is the standard output from Excel.

Do not respond by saying “this was not raised as an issue by the reviewers of the previous journal we submitted our paper to”

If the Editor asks you to reduce the length of your Introduction or Discussion at least make some effort to do so, do not respond by saying “No, I/we think that the length is totally justified”.

If you really can’t bear to respond to the comments politely, then there are other journals, but do remember, there are only a finite number of willing expert reviewers and there is a very good chance that one of the reviewers of your paper that you have submitted to Journal Y will be the same as one you had for Journal X, so it makes sense to have made some changes to your original submission.

In the main, reviewers try to be constructive and helpful.  Remember they are unpaid, so are doing this for the good of the community and with a genuine desire to maintain the reputation of their discipline.  They are not doing it to annoy you.

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Science writing

The good, the bad and the plain just wrong – a brief tour of insects in children’s literature

GB&PJW 1

From The Tribulations of Tommy Tiptop (1887)

I have written briefly about this before  but having fairly recently (November 2017) been asked to give a talk at a conference in Cambridge called A Bug’s Life – Creeping and Crawling through Children’s Literature, I felt inspired to revisit the topic. This was a new adventure for me, first because almost everyone there was not a scientist, let alone an entomologist and second it was the first time I had been to a conference on a Saturday😊  I was given a half hour slot* to expound on The Good, the Bad and the Plain Just Wrong which I had decided to make my topic.

I should point out at the onset in case anyone is expecting a comprehensive survey of the genre, that this is a very idiosyncratic and personal account.  Consider it a potted history of my encounters with insects in children’s books over the past 57 years or so. Insects have appeared in books for children for at least 200 years, more if you count Aesop’s Fables.  Just to warn you, I’m going to jump directly from Aesop to the middle of the Nineteenth Century and then meander my way to the present day.  Generally speaking, adult fiction, like adult films tends to cast arthropods as the villains, although there are some notable exceptions, Barbara Kingsolver’s Flight Behavior, being a fantastic positive example.

 

GB&PJW 2

Insects as baddies in adult fiction.

In my talk, I used Aesop to segue from adult to children’s fiction, in his day, Aesop was using his fables to talk to adults; it is only in relatively modern times that his tales have been used to instil morals into children (Locke, 1693).  It may come as a surprise to know that Aesop told, not wrote, although they are now written down, about 350 fables, of which only sixteen mention insects, less than 5%, so even then institutional verterbratism was alive and kicking 🙂

GB&JPW 3

Aesop and his fables – somewhat depauperate in arthropod examples

Children’s literature continued to be highly moralistic in tone and this was certainly the case in the nineteenth century as the German classic Struwwelpeter where children who are less than good meet horrible ends, such as Frederick who enjoyed pulling the legs and wings off flies as well as other reprehensible acts.

 

GB&JPW 4

Frederick gets his comeuppance in Struwwelpeter (Heinrich Hoffman, 1844)

If not moralistic, then books for children tended to be instructive.  Two excellent and contrasting examples, firmly based in entomology, come from Ernest van Bruyssel (1870) and Charles Holder (1882).  In Van Bruyssel’s (1827-1914) book, the main character falls asleep underneath a pear tree and dreams that he has shrunk to insect size and comes face to face with the invertebrates associated with the tree and their activities.  He describes these in anthropomorphic terms as here in this description of mole crickets mating “As the spouses drew nearer, the silver bell rang less loudly and more airily. The motions of the wings of the male, violent of late, which produced this curious sound, grew feebler by degrees. He was hid under the grass, and my mole-cricket too disappeared there. I heard two or three more indistinct and plaintive notes, and then the meadow was ‘quite quiet”.

GB&JPW 5

Ernest van Bruyssel 1827-1914 – with fantastic and very clever illustrations

GB&JPW 6

A reminder to his young audience that our actions may have more consequences than we think

“Really I did deserve a chastisement for my intrusion into the meadow, the disastrous consequences of which I now had power to perceive to the full extent. I had bruised the tender stalks of springing grass, broken quantities of buds, and destroyed myriads of living creatures. In my stupid simplicity I had never had any suspicion of the pain I caused while perpetrating these evil deeds, and had been in a state of delight at the profound peace pervading the country, and the charms of solitude.”

Holder on the other hand, adopts a much more factual approach, albeit in somewhat fanciful language as in this description of the pupation process of a butterfly “Yes, the future imago is forming now; days of monotonous toil, of diligent accretion, of patient preparation, and of tedious torpor in the antechamber of mortality, shall result in that lovely winged thing, that shall float on the zephyr, and glitter in the noonday light”

holder

Any book with an aphid frontispiece gets my approval – Half Hours in the Tiny World by Charles Frederick Holder (1882).

Both authors convey the wonder of entomology to their audience in a memorable way but I suspect that van Bruyssel had a greater impact although the biology is, of course, more accurate and detailed in Holder.

GB&JPW 7

Two versions of ants getting honeydew from aphids, Holder at the top and van Bruyssel at the bottom. Note the clever way in which the siphunculi of the aphids are made to give the appearance of cow horns in the van Bruyssel illustration.

One of the other things I really like about van Bruyssel’s book is that despite being very anthropomorphized, it is possible to identify the insects with some certainty.

GB&JPW 8

Instantly recognisable to an entomologist

1883 saw the publication of an enduring classic, The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi, yet again a book with a moral message, but with an insect playing a leading role, The Cricket, not Jiminy Cricket as in the Disney version, just The Cricket.  Until Disney got hold of it the cricket tended to look like a cricket.  My favourite version is the 1959 edition illustrated by the great Libico Maraja, which I am lucky enough to own, both the one I had as a child and also the French edition which I found in the attic of our French house in 2016.

Realistic and not so realistic versions of The Cricket

Similar to Struwwelpeter but written some forty years later, is The Tribulations of Tommy Tiptop (1887), the story of a boy who delights in torturing animals, especially insects and is punished by a series of nightmares in which his victims get their revenge.

Tommy Tiptop meeting an appropriately grisly end at the tarsi of easily identifiable insects (1887)

Jumping forward to the early 20th Century we have Gene Stratton Porter’s A Girl of the Limberlost, the story of a girl who to earn money to continue her education, catches butterflies to sell to collectors and museums. The notable aspect of this book is that the negative effects of deforestation and agricultural intensification on the abundance of butterflies is highlighted; something that is much in the news now. A shame people didn’t take more notice of this a hundred years ago.

A book with an ecological message and lots of insects

Moving on and becoming poetical, Alexander Beetle in A A Milne’s poem Forgiven is a great commentary, at least to me, that most children start off by loving insects and that it is adults who turn them against them.  Something I have noticed on many outreach occasions.

Alexander Beetle, definitely a Carabid, and probably Pterostichus sp. (Milne, 1927)

An example of a missed opportunity by a great nature writer, is Brendon Chase (1944) in which three brothers run away from home and spend several months living wild in the woods.  The only insect that gets a mention is a dragonfly and then only very briefly. What a missed opportunity 😦

A missed opportunity – birds, mammals and fish do very well, insects might as well not exist

Generally speaking, books for children that feature insects do tend to cast them in a favourable light, what is at fault tends to be the representation of insect anatomy and biology, although this is more often than not, down to the illustrator, not the author.

Next up chronologically, are the very cute Ant & Bee books by Angela Banner.  I didn’t actually own any of these as a child, they belonged to my younger siblings, but I did enjoy reading them J  The gross anatomy is not too bad, although bee is male and eats cake at times, nevertheless they present a very favourable view of two insects that adults perceive as nuisances and likely to bite and/or sting.  Needless to say, my children all had copies bought for them when they were learning to read and write.

Angel Banner’s delightful Ant & Bee books (1950-1972)

The next book, although written before the Ant & Bee books didn’t come my way until the mid-1960s when I discovered the Jungle Doctor series in the YMCA Library in Hong-Kong.  The author of the series, Paul White, was a medical missionary in Africa from 1939-1941; as a result, the insects he mentions, tend to be of medical importance although as in my example here, the problem was more general, but just as dangerous, a home invasion by Driver Ants.

From Jungle Doctor and The Whirlwind (1952)

.

Although not strictly about insects, and in my opinion not really a children’s book, William Golding’s Lord of the Flies was a staple of the UK secondary school English curriculum for many years and the cover illustrations of a large proportion of the various editions since it was published in 1954, feature flies, more often or not fanciful rather than actual.

A very non Dipteran fly!

Inaccurate representations of insects are easy to find as anyone who has read Roald Dahl’s James and the Giant Peach (1961) will know.  I sometimes feel that the more illustrious the illustrator the less realistic the insect subjects.

 

 

Three different takes on the inhabitants of the giant peach

Entomologists often wonder if Eric Carle had ever seen a lepidopteran caterpillar, but to be fair the story gives a positive view of insects, albeit it being fairly difficult to portray butterflies negatively.

Very unlike a lepidopteran larvae, Eric Carle’s The Very Hungry Caterpillar (1969)

I may be a bit of entomological anatomy pedant, but I am prepared to forgive Christine Goppel her extremely inaccurate portrayal of aphid taxonomy and biology.  Any book that shines a positive light on aphids gets my vote 🙂

Anna Aphid, by Christine Goppel (2005).  So wrong in so many ways, but so right in a weird sort of way 🙂

Equally guilty of gross insect anatomical misrepresentation are Julia Donaldson and Lydia Monks, but again they put a positive spin on their insect star, but then they have a head start because ladybirds already enjoy good press.

 

What can I say? Grossly inaccurate but a positive spin.

 

More worthy of praise are the delightful books by Antoon Krings, who manages to imbue insects that most adults and some children view with fear and loathing, fleas and wasps for example, with cuteness joy.

Two of Antoon Kring’s anatomically incorrect, but lovable insects from his series Drôles de petites Bêtes (Funny little beasts).

There is, in my opinion as I have written before, no excuse to simplify illustrations to mere caricatures.  Compare the two examples, below, both written for children of the same age; in the 1906 book you can recognise not only the insect species but you can also identify the plants, including the grasses, the 2009 book is a very much dumbed down affair.

Two contrasting levels of realism, top frame; Sibylle von Ohlers’ Etwas von de Wurzelkindern (1906), bottom frame Birgitta Nicolas’ Der kleine Marienkäfer und seine Freunde (2009).

And finally, for the older reader, I recently discovered Bug Muldoon, the eponymous hero of Paul Shipton’s insect detective series. Leaving aside the anthropomorphism of the invertebrate characters, the biology is quite accurate, unlike the cover illustrations which are considerably less so, but the story lines inside are very entertaining.

A great story let down by the illustrator (1995).  Those are definitely not compound eyes!

And finally, I will reiterate yet again, my praise for Maya Leonard and her Beetle Boy series, in which the reader is carried along on a tumultuous, emotional roller-coaster of adventure and exposed to a lot of real entomology.  The best insect-based fiction to date and will, I think, not be surpassed for some time.

 

A joy to read and very soundly based entomologically

Reference

Locke, J. (1693) Some Thoughts Concerning Education

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bugbears, Uncategorized

Little and Large – ENTO18 at Edgehill University

This year ENTO18 was hosted by Edgehill University, which until I met Anne Oxbrough at INTECOL in 2013, I had thought was in London 🙂 It is actually in Ormskirk, for those of you not familiar with the geography of the North of England, about 19 km as the crow flies, or 26 km by road from Liverpool. I drove up with my colleague Heather Campbell and we were both immediately impressed by the campus; even the extremely large car park took on an eerie beauty at night.

Edgehill University Campus – water features and greenery and a very large car park

The greenery, much of it just planted, also meant that there were some interesting insects to find such as the Alder beetle Agelastica alni, which up until a few years ago was considered extinct in the UK.  There was also very obvious vine weevil damage around the campus.

The Alder Leaf Beetle – very much not extinct

As you might expect with the large amount of water present, there were also a lot of ducks and other water birds which meant that one had to be careful where one trod.  The campus also boasted some interesting sculptures including pig and a goat, the significance of which escaped me.

Zoological sculptures, sadly not insects 🙂

The theme of the conference was “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” and sessions were based around the Royal Entomological Society’s journals.

A great set of journals, especially the one with the red cover

The talks were varied and almost without exception, excellent.  Anne Oxbrough and her team had obviously done a great job in attracting a stellar cast both in the choice of keynote speakers and the shorter, but no less important, talks.

As usual, events like this don’t need a lot of text, the pictures tell the story.

Just some of the great keynote talks – note the presence of honorary insects

Some of my favourite short talks, including a couple by former students and another honorary insect subject

An unsolved conference mystery – why was this vine weevil wearing a coat? Photo by one of my former MSc students, Katy Dainton

One of my favourite talks

 

Entomological fashion icons

The traditional ceilidh – there are always some who sit and watch

Our new President, Chris Thomas FRS, never short of words especially with a glass of wine in his hand

Great to see one of my former MSc students, Liam Crowley, win the prize for the best student talk. Archie Murchie handing over the cheque.

Congratulations to two of the student essay winners, James Fage and Maggie Gill, both on the Harper Adams University MSc course.

 

 

An excellent conference dinner, although the vegetable terrine starter  did not receive universal approbation 🙂

The very large deck chair!  Entomologists never really grow up 🙂

Some personal highlights – meeting my beard twin, Mike Kaspari, a garish contribution to the entomological tee-shirt competition (I’m not sure there actually was one) and succumbing to the lure of the chair 🙂

I missed this but it looks fantastic – one of the post-conference workshops

Many thanks to Anne Oxbrough and her team and of course the Royal Entomological Society team, Kirsty Whiteford, Luke Tilley and my former student Fran Sconce – it was a great conference.

And finally, please support this great initiative organised by another of my former MSc students, Ashleigh Whiffin with the help of Matthew Esh and Richard Wright.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under EntoNotes, Uncategorized

Pick and mix 22 – making connections

Dogs as kitchen utensils – this was apparently a real thing

If you want to save the world, veganism isn’t the answer

Fictional scientists doing their thing

Museum collections and curators need saving urgently

Spreading the word about entomology to tourists in Ecuador

Some great arthropod – mainly spiders – tee-shirts at reasonable prices

What is your niche? Some great advice for Early Career Researchers from Manu Saunders

Markus Eichhorn on the angst of moving jobs and clearing out his office

Strange to say I remember people saying that the Odyssey was based on history about 40 years ago; the wheel reinvented yet again

A great link for those of you who like Alice in Wonderland

 

1 Comment

Filed under Pick and mix

The Natural World in Haiku Form – Volume 2

Nature versified.

Haikus from the year gone by

To enjoy or not.

 

Cryptic and not

Grasshoppers blend in;

 Busy ants don’t care at all

 If you see them there

17th August 2018 Vinca

 

Ants

Mountainous thunder

Sends ants scuttling to their nest.

Seeds await the wind

 

Ants again – Reverse Haiku

Ants, sensing distant thunder,

Scuttle to their nest,

While seeds pods wait for the wind.

22nd May 2018 Vinca

 

Aphids

 

Aphids are so cool.

Three generations, making

One clonal body

25 December 2017

 

Raucous Rooks

Starkly black on blue.

Rudely cawing rooks disturb

My morning coffee

15 February 2018

 

Raucous rooks railing.

Sable, swooping, skyward sailing,

Disturb my morning

26th February 2018

 

Mountain

Sunny Canigou,

Snowy peak shining brightly.

Winter in Vinca

20th January 2018

 

Malham Tarn

Rising from the rain

Summer mist, slowly rolling,

Hides Malham Tarn

July 16th 2018

 

Prunella

Commonly overlooked,

 Elastically plastic;

Purple Prunella

July 17th 2018

 

Four Brothers?

Four trees in a row
Standing smallest to tallest.
What is their story?

August  20th 2018, Vinca

Leave a comment

Filed under The Bloggy Blog

Let us prey – journals that aren’t all they claim to be

In 1980 when I published my first paper (Leather, 1980), the publishing world was very much simpler place than it is now.  Journals were largely owned by learned societies, and in many cases, published by them as well; in the case of my paper, The Netherlands Entomological Society.  More importantly for me and many other scientists, it mostly cost you nothing to publish your paper. There were NO page charges or associated publication costs in the UK and mainland Europe, unless you wanted a colour plate, in which case the charges were astronomical.  On the other side of the Atlantic it was different, US journals did want you pay, both to publish and to read.

Since my first paper appeared almost forty years ago, there have been huge changes in scientific publishing, the number of journals published by the Learned Societies has more than trebled and the number of non-society publish for profit commercial journals has expanded at an even greater rate. Since the early 1990s there has been a demand by authors, readers and research councils for Open Access (Laakso et al., 2009).  Whilst this may be seen to be good for science and those authors that can afford to pay to publish, it has also had a markedly negative effect, something that those early well-intentioned advocates of Open Access somewhat naively overlooked.  The direct result of the pay to publish, free to access movement, has been the rise of the predatory journal, or as Chen & Björk (2015) in a somewhat mealy-mouthed way put it, ‘open access journals with questionable marketing and peer review practices’, the numbers of which have, sadly, reached epic heights. How much of a problem however, are these predatory journals?

On average I receive two or three emails a week addressing me in very complimentary terms saying how honoured they (the Editors) would be to have my contribution in their journal.  These range from invitations from journals whose titles bear absolutely no

Rather unspecific as to what my expertise in the field of ophthalmology is or what publications they base their assessment on.

no resemblance to the fields I work in to journals that have titles that are a little more relevant.

I never knew that working on aphids and ladybirds qualified me as a mental health specialist 😊

At least the subject area and topic match but the overblown invitation is something of a giveaway.

 To me, invitations like this are immediately recognisable as scams.  To more junior/inexperienced scientists this is not always the case, especially when the invitation comes from a ‘journal’ as illustrated in my third example.  When asked by my PhD students as to whether the flattering invitation they have received is for real, I gently explain to them that no reputable journal acts in such a way and there are a number of tell-tale signs that they can use to sort the wheat from the chaff.

  • Receiving an invitation to publish in a journal. Most legitimate journals have enough submissions as it is, they don’t need to solicit any more.
  • Have you heard of the journal and is it relevant to your research?
  • Overblown and poor use of English in the invitation
  • A promise of an unrealistic turn-around time from submission to publication
  • What does the journal website look like, although that said, some predatory journals now have quite impressive web sites listing real academics as Editorial Board Members. I hasten to add that their names are being used unbeknownst to them.
  • If in doubt, check Beall’s List which is a really useful guide to the world of predatory publishng and inlcudes some surprising entries

What surprises me is that people do respond to these invitations.  But then there are people who believe that they have been selected to help invest millions on behalf of the widow of the former President of Fantasyland and either send their bank details to the financial representative of the widow or in some cases turn up at airports with a suitcase full of cash.  It turns out that there are two types of academic who publish in predatory journals, the young and the naïve, mainly from Africa and Asia or more cynical individuals who are banking on the naivety of the people assessing their publication list for promotion or tenure reasons, not realising that although the journals have an international address they are, in real terms, worthless publications (Xia et al., 2015).

Even worse in my opinion, are the book publishers such as Lambert Academic Publishing, who contact the authors of newly submitted PhDs and invite them to publish their thesis as a book. If they accept, what seems to them, the flattering opportunity and they have not already published their chapters as papers, they are no longer able to do so because of copyright law. A truly cruel thing to do to someone on the threshold of an academic career.

My advice to anyone new to publishing and who has the funds and desire to go for Open Access, is preferably to stick with society journals, so that you are helping foster your discipline. If, however, you want to divert funds from your subject area, use those journals that are published by the major publishing houses, which although in it primarily for the money, do at least adhere to proper and robust editorial and peer review standards.

Another burgeoning problem is that of fake conferences, where an academic receives an invitation to present a keynote or invited talk at a greatly reduced rate at an international conference. On closer inspection these turn out, despite the long list of international academics listed as part of the organising committee, to be yet another scam. I have been surprised to find myself listed as an organiser for a few of these.  I am not sure what you can do about these, as emailing the scammers has, in my experience, no effect.

if you discount the increasing number of spam invitations clogging up your email in-box, predatory journals are mainly a minor nuisance for us academics, the biggest problem being when you are doing a literature search and have to sift out the crap.  In the long-term, work published in the predatory journals will mostly go unrecognised and uncited by the relevant academic communities.  The problem arises when a non-expert member of the public or worse still, a journalist comes across what looks like a legitimate paper when searching the internet and takes what they read as gospel.  After all, it has been published in a journal, it must be right.   That is when the trouble starts and that is when it becomes a problem for us all ☹

References

Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.C. & Hedlund, T. (2009) The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 6(6): e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961

Leather, S.R. (1980) Egg survival in the bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padiEntomologia experimentals et applicata, 27, 96-97.

Shen, C.  & Björk, B.C. (2015) ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13:230 

Xia, J., Harmon, L., Connolly, G., Donnelly, R.M., Anderson, R. & Howard H. (2015) Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the Association of Information Science and Technology, 66, 1406-1417.

3 Comments

Filed under Bugbears, Science writing

Brilliantly, Beautifully Beetle Filled – The Beetle Collector’s Handbook

A book to hold and cherish – it is a very tangible experience

According to the frontispiece, Bartholomew Cuttle got this book when he was 9 years old and it passed into his son Darcus’s keeping when he was 13, I’m guessing at the end of the Beetle Boy Trilogy.  At round about the same age as Bartholomew (I was 8), I pinned my first insects and discovered the Dr Dolittle books, both events that shaped my life significantly, engendering as they did, a life-long love of Nature.

 

If someone had given me Maya Leonard’s latest offering, The Beetle Collector’s Handbook then, and not now, I would have been over the moon and have immediately rushed off to read it cover to cover in one sitting, which is pretty much what I did, and, how I felt, when it arrived in the post at work a couple of weeks ago 😊 As you may have guessed from the above, I am a great fan of this, the latest outing by Maya Leonard.  Despite the frontispiece, the artificial but subtle signs of aging and loving usage, and the connection with the Beetle Boy novels indicated by the fictional, annotations*  by Darcus and his friends, this is not a work of fiction.

Fantastic Silphid with extra annotations

Neither is it a text-book or a manual.  So, what is it exactly?  It’s instructional, educational and, very importantly, fun.   So, what do I mean by instructional.  I have, for example,  written about the history of the Pooter which I consider educational, whereas, The Handbook shows you how to make your own, hence instructional.

 

Everyone needs to know how to make a Pooter

Keeping proper records is very important.

 

Also instructional is the advice on how to record your observations.  In terms of education, you are regaled with salient facts and figures about a number of beetles, albeit only a tiny fraction of those that have been described by entomologists, but that in the words of the author are  “..the species of beetles that I think are the most surprising, beautiful and impressive…”

Stag beetle, I particularly like the fact that many of the illustrations show you the actual size of the beetle.

Maya, or should that be the fictional author, Monty Leonard, has shunned traditional taxonomy-based listing and instead presented the beetles in a playful grouping of shared traits, skills or appearance, so fun and educational.  What really makes this book something very special is the quality of the illustrations by a very gifted young artist, Carim Nahaboo.  I can’t praise them enough.  Buy the book and enjoy them in their high-quality format and not via my poorly photographed versions.

The Great Diving Beetle – marvellously life-like

 

This is a book that all primary schools should buy, two copies at the very least, one to subtly place in the library area and the other for use by the staff member tasked with encouraging their pupils to appreciate the wonders of Nature. I also think that secondary schools should invest in a copy or two.

I suspect that not all the fans of Darcus & Co will read this cover to cover, but those that do, will, I am sure, end up studying entomology, perhaps on the new Zoology & Entomology BSc at Harper Adams or on our MSc course 😊

Thank you, Maya, for yet another very enjoyable read.  May you long continue to enthrall audiences, young and not so young, with your tales of beetles and their deeds.

M.G. Leonard (2018) The Beetle Collectors’ Handbook, Scholastic Children’s Books, ISBN 978 1407 18566 8

 

*

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Book Reviews

Pick and mix 21 – a cornucopia of links

There may actually be more Hymenoptera than there are Coleoptera!

Some book aren’t just for reading – wonderful hidden art

Fighting bats with long tails – moth evolution

Are you working on the right problem?

Bang, crackle, flash – Interesting paper about insect and arthropod names for fireworks

Inspired by the recent World Cup the John Innes Centre held their own version to champion discoveries they have made over the last 70 years 🙂

Insects through the Looking Glass – using Lewis Carroll to foster a love of insects

Victorian entomologists had a lot of fun – great post from Manu Saunders

A great post about science communication via Twitter by Stephen Heard

Spots on butterfly wings – what are they for?  Ray Cannon has some thoughts

Leave a comment

Filed under Pick and mix