Pick and Mix 26 – more gleanings from around the world

How dinosaurs got their name

It seems that most scientists only have temporary careers 😦

Yes, as we suspected, competitive grant writing is inefficient and wastes scientist’s time

Stephen Heard explains how William Caxton inlfuenced how we report statistics

You don’t need fossil fuels to keep the economy running

Drawing specimens (rather than taking a photograph) is the best way to learn about morphology and taxonomy

Continuing with the botanical theme, plant blindness, yes it is a thing, probably worse than insect blindness which I have written about in the past

Incredible blueness – Ray Cannon on butterfly wings

Electrifying  – flying spiders

Earwig wings – real life origami



Leave a comment

Filed under Pick and mix

British Ecological Society Annual Meeting 2018 – representing ecologists but not ecology?

I managed to get to the BES annual meeting this year.  I hadn’t been since 2014 as I boycotted the 2015 meeting*  and the timing of the 2016 and 2017 meetings meant I couldn’t attend those due to teaching commitments.  This time the meeting was in Birmingham and term had ended so there was nothing to get in the way of reconnecting with the annual meetings, the first of which I attended in 1977.  I arrived, soaked to the skin, at the International Conference Centre on a very rainy Sunday afternoon.  Despite the inauspicious start, I was heartened to have a reminder of the BES Undergraduate Summer School; one of my fluorescent beetles from the evening “track a beetle” exercise was on display 😊

Fluorescent carabid beetle, the star of the evening at the Malham BES Summer School 2018

In general, despite the sad memories the pre-Christmas period carries with it, It was good to catch up with old friends and former students.  As a bonus there were some fantastic plenaries; I particularly enjoyed Sam M Gon III’s talk on The Hawaiian Islands as a Model for Biocultural Conservation, which opened with a traditional Hawaiian chant.

A most unusual and very enjoyable plenary

Great to see lots of very special insects

Another great plenary was Danielle Lee’s on science communication and the importance of getting local non-scientists involved in one’s research programmes.

Danielle Lee – On the importance of science communication, a subject close to my heart

There were a lot of great talks, but as is often the case with large meetings, a lot of clashes and hard decisions to make about which talks to miss.  As a member of the Twitterati I was made very aware of this by seeing the Tweets about talks I was missing 😊

Alistair Seddon – a Doctor Who fan

One thing that struck me very forcibly, was that entomology seemed to be very under-represented compared with when I first started attending BES meetings.  There were no specific sessions dedicated to invertebrates; in earlier years it was relatively easy to find insect-themed sessions and talks.  This year, and perhaps this is a modern trend in ecology, even the titles of many of the talks didn’t mention the study organism, the abstract being the only clue about what was being discussed.  I have noticed this trend in paper titles recently too, and will, I am sure, address this in a future blog post 😊 It worries me somewhat that conservation biologists and ecologists have, despite the warnings that a number of eminent ecologists have made in the past, former BES President, Bob May, for example (Clarke & May, 2002) that funding and practical conservation is heavily biased in favour of vertebrate (Seddon et al., 2005), which are hardly representative of global macro-biodiversity. As far as the British Ecological Society goes, one would expect that a Society that has, over the last decade or so, become increasingly politicised, and on the face of it, publicly engaged with climate change and other ecological issues, to actively implement a change in direction of the research supported and showcased.

I have previously taken the Journal of Animal Ecology to task for ignoring most of the world’s animal life, yes you guessed it, invertebrates 😊 Their cover images are similarly biased.  Sadly, I am now going to have to take the British Ecological Society to task. I mentioned earlier that I felt the general content of the talks and posters was not representative of the world we live in and on leaving the conference decided to see if my gut feeling was a true reflection of the event.  Amy Everard of the British Ecological Society, kindly supplied me with the abstracts of the talks and posters which I then categorised according to the study organism(s) covered.  Some were a bit difficult, as even with the abstract it was difficult to decide where the focus was, so fungi and microbes may be a little more under-represented than they were in reality, particularly where the talk was on the interactions between fungi, microbes, insects and plants and in some cases, vertebrates.  I lumped all invertebrates together, although as you might expect, most invertebrates were arthropods and those were mainly insects. Plants included trees and forests where the focus was on the role the plant component played and general includes models and multi-organismal studies.  Vertebrates, which were largely birds and mammals, also includes fish, and the very few studies on amphibians and reptiles. Crude, but I feel it gives the overall picture.

First, just to remind you how life on the planet is divided up between the various taxa based on species described to date (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Relative proportions of plant, animal, fungi and microbial species described to date.

So how does this compare with what attendees at BES2018 saw and heard about? As you can see, my gut was right, the little things that run the world were under-represented in both the talks (Figure 2) and posters (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Taxa represented in talks at BES2018 (plants 32%, vertebrates 25%, invertebrates 20%, general 19%, fungi and microbes 4%)


Figure 3. Taxa represented in posters at BES2018 (plants 34%, vertebrates 31%, invertebrates 15%, general 13%, fungi and microbes 7%).

Of some comfort to plant scientists is that despite the often cited unpopularity of plants among students, about a third of all the talks and posters were plant-based.   If one goes purely by biomass, then this is an under-representation of the importance of plants.  A recent paper (Bar-On et al., 2018), estimates that plants make up almost 90% of the planet’s biomass, with the animal kingdom making up perhaps as little as 5% (Figure 4). Given that insects and other invertebrates account for perhaps 97% of all animal life, this further emphasises that the time and funding given to vertebrate ecology is totally unjustified.

Figure 4. Biomass of organisms on Earth from Bar-On et al (2018)

Unfortunately, the British Ecological Society is not alone in overemphasising the importance of the tiny number of vertebrates.  Perhaps more disturbingly is the fact that references to insects in introductory biology textbooks have declined hugely over the last century (Figure 5) while those to vertebrates have increased (Gangwani & Landin, 2018).

 Disappearing insect references (Gangwani & Landin, 2018).

This is a serious problem and one that the British Ecological Society for one, should be doing something about.  Yes, the BES might represent ecologists in general, but they certainly don’t represent ecology.  The Trustees of the BES should take note of the following statement from a group of ecological entomologists “the neglect of insects as study organisms has led to serious bias in our understanding of the functional ecology of ecosystems” (Basset et al., 2019) and the concerns echoed by conservation practitioners (Figure 6) and if that isn’t enough, then perhaps this will “a broader taxonomic base for threatened species assessments, adequately representing invertebrates, will facilitate more profound conservation and policy decisions” (Eisenhauer et al., 2019).

Figure 6. What people on the ground say; a haphazard selection from Twitter

I’ll just leave you with this thought, there are as many aphid species in the world as there are mammal species, just over 5000, but you wouldn’t know it from the number of PhD and post-doctoral positions that are advertised annually, and as for Tipulids (craneflies), a similar sized family….



Bar-On, Y.M., Philips, R. & Milo, R.  (2018) The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 6506-6511.

Basset, Y., Miller, S.E., Gripenberg, S., Ctvrtecka, R., Dahl, C., Leather, S.R. & Didham, R.K. (2019) An entomocentric view of the Janzen-Connell Hypothesis.  Insect Conservation & Diversity, 12, 1-8.

Clarke, J.A. & May, R.M. (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science, 297, 191-192.

Eisenehauer, N, Bonn, A. & Guerra, C.A. (2019) Recognizing the quiet extinction of invertebrates. Nature Communications, 10, 50

Gangwani, K. & Landin, J. (2018) The decline of insect representation in biology textbooks over time. American Entomologist, 64, 252-257.

Seddon, P.J., Soorae, P.S. & Launay, F. (2005) Taxonomic bias in reintroduction projects. Animal Conservation, 8, 51-58.


Filed under Bugbears

The Roundabout Review 2018

Welcome to my, now very definitely, traditional review of the past year.

Enjoying ENTO18 at Edgehill University


Impact and reach

Brigitte Nerlich warns against measuring the impact of science communication but as far as I can tell she is not against reporting the following type of data, although if I was looking for impact these annual review posts would not be the best way to go*.

I have continued to post at about ten-day intervals; this is my 229th post.  As I wrote last year, there never seems to any difficulty in coming up with ideas to write about; the problem is more in deciding which one to use and when.  As happened last year, some of my blogs have made it, albeit in slightly modified forms, into print (Cherrill & Leather, 2018; Leather, 2018).

For those of you who remain lukewarm about the idea that social media has a place in science, I wold ask you to think again and if you need any more convincing, refer you to a recent paper that very clearly demonstrates the benefits arising from such interactions (Côté & Darling, 2018); evidence that science communication via social media is a very worthwhile use of our time. Semi-related to my Blogging and Tweeting are my other forms of science communication, giving talks and helping at outreach events, such as the Big Bang Fair and EntoSci18.  I also had three Skype a Scientist dates this year, one with a school in the USA and two with schools in the UK.  I really enjoyed them and hope that the pupils were equally pleased. If you have not come across this scheme, check them out here.

My blog had visitors from 181 countries (165 last year, 174 in 2016 and 150 in 2015), so only another 14 to go to achieve total global domination 😊  My blog received 54 300 views (40 682 last year, 34 036 in 2016; 29 385 in 2015).  This year, as last year, most of my readers came from the USA, with views from India moving from 5th to 4th place and Brazil being replaced by South Africa.

Top reads

My top post (excluding my home page) in 2018 was the same as last year, one of my aphid posts,  A Winter’s Tale – Aphid Overwintering, although there may have been some disappointment felt by those who were hoping to find a reference to Shakespeare’s play or the song by Queen. It is now my all-time winner with just over 9000 views, knocking Not All Aphids are Vegans with over 8 000 views into an honourable second place.  My top ten posts tend to be either about aphids or entomological techniques/equipment which I guess means that I am filling an entomological niche.

A Winter’s Tale – aphid overwintering 3,941
Not all aphids are vegans 2,113
Not Jiminy Cricket but Gregory Grasshopper – someone ought to tell Walt 1,338
Ten papers that shook my world – watching empty islands fill up – Simberloff & Wilson (1969) 1,225
Entomological classics – The Moericke (Yellow) Pan Trap 1,105
Entomological Classics – The Pooter or Insect Aspirator 1,097
Aphid life cycles – bizaare, complex or what? 1,051
Entomological classics – The Tullgren (Berlese) Funnel 948
Entomological classics – the Window (pane) Flight Intercept Trap 871
Not all aphids have wings  769



There still seems to be no signs of the number of people viewing my site reaching an asymptote or for that matter, taking off exponentially; just a straightforward linear relationship.

Still no signs of slowing down?

Tweeting for entomology

I still find my interactions on Twitter very rewarding, although this past year I have become somewhat more political; Brexit and Trump, need I say more?  Most of my tweets are, however, still entomological and ecological and the increase in political comment has not stopped my followers from growing.  I finished 2017 with 5860 followers and begin 2019 with just over a thousand more, 6884.   It would have been nice to have hit the 7 000-follower milestone before the end of the year but many thanks to all my readers and especially to those who take the time to comment as well as pressing the like button.  My top commenters, as indeed they were last year, were fellow bloggers, Emma Maund, Emily Scott, Jeff Ollerton, Amelia from A French Garden and Philip Strange.  I look forward to interacting with you all in 2019.

This past year marked my partial retirement from academia but I hasten to add, not from entomology.  I have, as planned, spent more time doing the things I enjoy and finally got some of my book projects off the ground.  My co-authors Tilly Collins and Tricia Reader and I spent a week together at our house in France writing a book outline and in December signed a contract with Oxford University Press for our provisionally titled ‘Field Course Handbook’.

Authors at work 😊

I have also submitted an outline for a semi-popular book about insects which I have great hopes will appeal to the Commissioning Editor’s choice of reviewers.

And if anyone is worried that this means that the entomological provision at Harper Adams University will be diminished, rest assured.  Not only did we appoint a very talented junior member of faculty, Heather Campbell (@ScienceHeather) we also appointed another talented entomologists (whom I taught some years ago), Simon Segar (@simonsegar); both are proving very popular with the students and staff. I am doing pretty much the same teaching as I have always done, so our entomology provision has actually increased, which is just as well as we have now started an undergraduate degree in entomology, the only one in the UK.

A Happy and Prosperous New Year to you all.


Cherrill, A.J. & Leather, S.R. (2018) Predatory journals a growing threat to scientific integrity?  In Practice, 102, 38-40.

Côté, I.M. & Darling, E.S. (2018) Scientists on Twitter: preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops?  Facets, 3, 682-694.

Leather, S.R. (2018) “Ecological Armageddon” – more evidence for the drastic decline in insect numbers.  Annals of Applied Biology, 172, 1-3.




Filed under Uncategorized

…at random

It’s coming up to Christmas so I thought I would be a bit of a Grinch 🙂  As someone who has refereed a lot of papers in my time, one of my particular bugbears is when I come across the phrases,  “taken at random”, “sampled randomly” or variations thereon. My edition of the OED defines at random as “haphazard without aim or purpose, or principle, heedlessly”; the statistical part of the definition qualifies this further as “equal chances for each item to be selected”.  Whenever I see the word random in the methods and materials section I annotate the paper with the phrase “truly random or haphazardly?”  Almost without exception*, when the author responds to my query, it is to admit that in reality they meant haphazardly.

There is a commonly held belief among field biologists that random sampling can be quickly and safely done by standing in a field and throwing a quadrat over their shoulder or closing their eyes and throwing the quadrat into the air. The late great Sir Richard Southwood  deals with this myth in his usual no nonsense style  “Biologists often use methods for random sampling that are less precise than the use of random numbers, such as throwing a stick or quadrat.  Such methods are not strictly random” (Southwood, 1966).  If you have ever tried this yourself, you will, I hope, be the first to admit, that you position yourself in all sorts of non-random ways, to make sure that the quadrat is not going to get lost, get hung-up in a tree, end up in a lake or river or miss the only green bit of vegetation in the field. Other so-called random approaches include the walking around the tree/into the meadow/along the path approach and examining the first leaf/branch/plant you come across after x number of steps and counting what you see on that. Again, this is equally subject to being confounded by the terrain and location of the site, and it is a rare person who isn’t subconsciously swayed for or against a leaf because of its appearance.  I was convinced that this mode of sampling, which is more accurately described as haphazard, was commonly called professorial random sampling.  A recent request by me on Twitter for people to tell me if they had heard of, or used the term themselves, resulted in a zero response rate, so perhaps it was just something we used in our lab. Of course, it wasn’t a random survey so I shouldn’t read too much into it 🙂

So, if you are going to claim that you sampled randomly or selected/arranged randomly, make sure you use a random number generator.  It is very simple to do, although somewhat time-consuming to implement in reality. When I was a student, most good statistics books included among all the other useful tables, a page of random numbers to help you meet a state of true randomness.

Pre-prepared random numbers from my copy of Sokal & Rohlf (1973)


Nowadays, you can, if you use Excel, generate random numbers using the function RAND. Those of you who are not fans of Excel can try this handy link https://www.random.org/sequences/

If you’re reading this, you now have no excuses left.  If you are going to claim that you did something randomly make sure you actually did so, or confess that you sampled haphazardly; it is nothing to be ashamed of 🙂 and is much faster than true random sampling, hence its popularity.  Alternatively, you can avoid the whole issue and sample along a stratified transect or arrange your experimental blocks using a Latin Square.



Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. (1973) Introduction to Biostatistsics.  W.H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco.

Southwood, T.R.E. (1966) Ecological Methods.  Chapman & Hall, London.

*I have, on a few occasions, had an author respond that yes, they did indeed use random number tables and/or generators.


Filed under Bugbears, Science writing

Pick and Mix 25 – Natural History, Entomology & Ecology


Jeremy Fox asks “Did Darwin have a blind spot?”

Time to get more young people interested in taxonomy

On the same lines, an interview with Maya Leonard, author of the Beetle Boy trilogy and newly released Beetle Collector’s Handbook

Great to see someone starting a Natural History course at university level

Did you know that insects have had a huge influence on science fiction films?

Neither plant nor animal – a new branch on the tree of life?

Why museum collections are valuable and need preserving

More on the global decline in insect numbers and why we should be worried

A nice piece of research where the media headline is so wrong:  “Ants in Florida collect the skulls of other ants to decorate their nests” – see the actual paper here and make up your mind 🙂

How locust ecology inspired an opera


Leave a comment

Filed under Pick and mix

Not all aphids are extant – fossil aphids

Mention the word fossil and most people immediately think of dinosaurs, ammonites, early hominids and perhaps plants from the carboniferous.  For those of you who have coal-burning fires, have a look in your coal-scuttle, you may be surprised at what you find.  What most people don’t realise is that there are fossil insects and these include those fabulous insects, aphids 🙂

A beautifully preserved aphid, Mindarus harringtoni, named after, and owned by my friend, and fellow aphid enthusiast, Richard Harrington.

The oldest fossil of a true insect dates back to the Pragian (early Devonian) era (396-407 million years ago (Mya)) implying that they can, almost certainly, be dated back to the earlier Silurian period (434 Mya) (Engel & Grimaldi, 2004). Aphids, being relatively soft-bodied animals, tend to be less commonly found as stone fossils, but there are some fine examples in existence.  The oldest aphid fossil found so far is Vasegus triassicus from the Vosges area of France and dating back to 174-163 Mya (Szwedo & Nel, 2011).  I have a great admiration for taxonomists in general, but paleoentomologists really are worthy of worship, working as they do, with material, especially that found in rock deposits, of an extremely taxing nature.

Wing of the aphid Vosegus triassicus  (Szwedo & Nel, 2011)

A more recognisable aphid wing from the Lower Cretaceous (140 Mya).  https://jurassiccoast.org/fossilfinder/1338-aphid-wing/

Another contender for the oldest aphid was found in the Daohugou beds in China on the boundaries of the provinces of Inner Mongolia, Hebei and Liaoning (Huang et al., 2015).  These deposits have been dated back to about 165 Mya.  Given the inevitable distortion caused by the squashing, the fossils do look like some modern aphids and I am pretty certain that I can see the cauda which is one of the distinguishing characteristics of aphids.

Daopaphis magnalata with a visible cauda? (Huang et al., 2015)

Somewhat younger, a mere 15 000 000 years old, Palaeogreenidea rittae, which displays the other dead giveaway that tells you that you are looking at an aphid, the siphunculi.

Palaeogreenidea rittae, note the distinctive siphunculi.  Middle Miocene from Nevada (approximately 15 Mya) (Heie, 2006).

Amber, fossilised tree resin, is, however, where you are most likely to find ancient aphids.  Tree resin is a carbohydrate-based extremely sticky secretion of trees, particularly conifers. It is part of their defence system and is used to seal wounds and to trap and encapsulate any insect intent on forcing an entry into the heart of the tree. The majority of the insects found in resin have arrived there by accident; they have landed on it and found themselves trapped.  They gradually become engulfed by the resin and die a slow and lingering death, unless a bird plucks them from their sticky surroundings as a tasty snack.  Go into a pine forest or look at the resin bleeds that you often find on fruit trees and you will very soon find some hapless insect victims. Over time the resin hardens and becomes a substance known as copal.  This can then find its way into the soil; the tree falls over or the copal becomes detached and falls to the round. Once in the soil, the copal has the chance, over several million years, to harden further still and eventually become resin.  Any insect trapped in resin is perfectly preserved, ready for the intrepid palaeoentomologist to discover and name or entrepreneur to sell to curio collectors.

A very fine specimen with a very long stylet; presumably this fed on the trunk of trees.  Germaraphis spp. (Pemphigidae)    http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil-Amber/antaphid/amber-86.htm 


A very recognisable aphid indeed, the antennal tubercles, siphunculi and cauda are all very clear.  Photo from Ross (2009).

Not all aphids in amber are as easy to identify as the two specimens above.  The example below is why I have such a great admiration for palaeoaphidologists.

I am told that this is an aphid.  Photographed and found by Gracie Price a placement student at Oxford University Museum of Natural History, reproduced with thanks to Darren Mann.

I have written earlier about the close relationships that many aphids have with ants and it seems from the number of times ants and aphids have been found in close proximity in amber inclusions, that this association has been in existence for at least 73 million years especially with Germaraphis dryoides (Heie, 1967; Perkovsky, 2009).

Ant and aphid in amber. It will cost you €100 if you want to own this specimen.  http://www.amberinclusions.eu/ant-and-aphid-symbiosis-in-baltic-amber-4809#prettyPhoto

Another association, perhaps not so pleasant for the aphid, and also immortalised in amber, is that of a nematode parasite from 100 million years ago (Poinar, 2017).

Aphid in amber with nematode parasite (Poinar, 2017).

What can we learn from these amber inclusions?  First, by comparing them with modern aphids, we can make inferences about their life styles.  As Ole Heie (1967) pointed out, aphids with clawed tarsi (feet) and long mouth parts are almost certainly not only to be tree dwellers, but ones that fed through the bark on the stems or trunks.  Aphids that live on the underside of leaves need neither of these adaptations.  Are there any other inferences to be made? I have already pointed out that, the fossil evidence suggests the ant-aphid mutualism has been long-established.

Fossil aphids also allow us infer that as aphids are largely found in temperate zones, the climate in those sites where amber is easily found must also have been temperate when they were trapped by the then, fresh tree resin (Heie, 1967).  Palaeobiologists have attempted to reconstruct ancient ecosystems from fossils including insects.  A recent and innovative study comparing arthropods found in trapped in modern tree resins, sticky traps and Malaise traps with those in fossil amber suggests that amber inclusions reflect the insects closely associated with trees but not necessarily the overall community (Kraemer et al., 2018).  We can’t get DNA out of amber as suggested in Jurassic Park, but we can certainly get a lot of other biological information from this fantastic window into the past.

I’ll end on a cautionary note. Not all amber is real amber.  Fakes abound.  Plastic is often used as fake amber and is sold with insect inclusions or as jewellery.  An easy way to test if it is plastic or amber, is to see if it floats in a saturated salt solution, if it does it is probably amber. More difficult to detect, is fake amber that has been produced by melting down real amber or copal, and then had modern insects embedded in it while it is still liquid.  If your insect inclusion is very nicely and symmetrically arranged, then you can be sure it is a fake.  Not all such inclusions are sold as genuine, most openly advertise exactly what they are; I have several, gifts from families and students.

Modern insect embedded in plastic.



Engel, M.S. & Grimaldi, D. (2004) New light shed on the oldest insect. Nature, 427, 627-630.

Heie, O. (1967) Studies on Fossil Aphids (Homoptera: Aphidoidea) Especially in the Copenhagen Collection of Fossils in Baltic Amber. Spolia Zoologica Musei Hauniensis, Copenhagen.

Heie, O.E. (2006) Fossil aphids (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha) from Canadian Cretaceous amber and from the Miocene of Nevada. Insect Systematics & Evolution, 37, 91-104.

Huang, D., Wegierek, P., Żyła, D. & Nel, A. (2015) The oldest aphid of the family Oviparosiphidae (Hemiptera: Aphidoidea) from the Middle Jurassic of China. European Journal of Entomology, 112, 187-192.

Kraemer, M.M.S., Declos, X., Clapham, M.E., Arillo, A., Peris, D., Jäger, P., Sebner, F., Peñalver, E. (2018) Arthropods in modern resins reveal if amber accurately recorded forest arthropod communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 115, 6739-6744

Perkovsky, E.E. (2009) On finding a single-clawed aphid, Germaraphis ungulata (Homoptera, Aphidinea), in a syniclusion with the ant Monomoroium mayrianum (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in the Saxonian amber.  Paleontological Journal, 43, 1006-1007.

Poinar, G.O. (2017) A mermithid nematode, Cretacimermis aphidophilus sp. n. (Nematoda: Mermithidae) parasitizing an aphid (Hemiptera: Burmitaphididae) in Myanmar amber: a 100 million year association.  Nematology, 19, 509-513.

Ross, A. (2009) Amber – The Natural Time Capsule. NHM, London.

Szwedo, J. & Nel, A. (2011) The oldest aphid insect from the Middle Triassic of the Vosges, France. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 56, 757-766.


Filed under Aphids

Dear Dr Researcher – Epic Predatory Journal Fails!

As a follow-up to my earlier post on predatory journals I thought I would share some of the many invitations I have received since it appeared 🙂   What I do find annoying is that our email Firewall system sis extremely efficient at intercepting real emails and putting them on hold for us to approve, but that all the emails shown below got straight through the system without any trouble.

 Over the top glorification!

Beware of journals that use over the top language trying to appeal to your vanity.


Poor English is always a clue that things are not what they seem.

Precious indeed!


Totally wrong discipline

It is always a bit of a give-away when over the top language is coupled with a journal title where the field is somewhat removed from your own.  I am an entomologist and ecologist.


and then you have this journal – they desperately need a proof reader 🙂

These journals make the mistake of advertising a totally unrealistic publication schedule


It is possible that if they had put a more realistic publication schedule an engineer might have fallen for this one.


Cunning ploys

Here are a couple of examples where they are trying a bit harder and getting a bit more sophisticated.


The name of a real journal, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment highlighted to take advantage of the careless reader.

The suggestion that they are on the look-out for reviewers implies a certain degree of respectability.


I am sure that you have all had similar emails, but if you have had even more outrageous or more cunning invitations, please feel free to share.



Filed under Bugbears, Uncategorized

Four animals and insects that humans can’t live without

Worth a read

The CABI Blog

BeesGuest blog by Master Beekeeper ‘in the making’ Greg Long.

When people start to think about the ecosystem and nature as a whole, many don’t fully grasp the importance of relying on other species. Everything on earth is connected, whether we realize it or not. Human survival doesn’t rely on humans alone — the human species depends on tons of other life forms to stay in existence.

View original post 1,021 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Water butterflies and hairy wings – Caddisfly names around the world

“..great variety of cados worms.. “ Thomas Mouffet (1658)  Theatorum Insectorum

Adult Limnephilus caddisfly perched on top of its case-bearing larva.

Despite aphids being my favourite insect group, I have had rather a soft spot for caddisflies since I was about ten years old when I discovered that if I very carefully removed their larval cases and provided them with coloured sand, they would spin a technicoloured replacement 😊

A variety of caddis cases

I have, in the intervening years, moved on somewhat from those early experiments and largely left the wonderful world of freshwater entomology behind, except when I take students pond-dipping and give my once a year lecture on aquatic insects. I’m not going to say much about caddisflies because I am not an expert, but for those of you not overly familiar with these fascinating insects a little bit of background information may be useful.  Unless you are a caddisfly specialist most people don’t give them much thought and if they do know anything about them, it is probably limited to the fact that they are aquatic and live inside a case.

Most people probably wouldn’t recognise an adult caddisfly if they saw one and in my experience those people who do notice them, usually think they are some sort of moth.  This is actually a sensible guess as evolutionarily speaking Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) are very closely related and are in the same Superorder, the Amphiesmenoptera.  Trichoptera literally translates as hairy wings, Lepidoptera as scaly wings and many adult caddisflies do look remarkably similar to micro-moths so it is an easy mistake to make.

Spot the difference – caddisflies on the left, Lepidoptera on the right

The majority of caddisflies have aquatic larvae, although a few have become completely terrestrial and spend their lives foraging in damp leaf litter and hiding in bark crevices.

Wingless female of the terrestrial caddisfly Enoicyla pusilla; doing her best to not look like a caddisfly. http://www.wbrc.org.uk/worcrecd/33/Green_Harry_7–Westwood_Brett–Sightings_of_adult_.html

Very generalised life cycle of a caddisfly.  The eggs are laid in water, on aquatic vegetation or nearby trees. On hatching, the larvae go through several (usual five) moults before pupating and the adults emerge in spring or early summer.

Caddisflies are probably the most successful of the aquatic insects. Data from stream surveys frequently list as many species of Trichoptera, or caddisflies, as species of Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), Odonata (dragon and Damselflies) and Plecoptera (Stonefleis) combined (Mackay & Wiggins, 1979).  Their success can be put down to their use of silk and ability to exploit a range of different aquatic habitats.  They can be described as lotic, those that live in running water, i.e. streams and rivers, or lentic, those that live in ponds and lakes.  Some of the ‘ponds’ can be very temporary, puddles for example, or contained in plants, e.g. Bromeliads. Those that live in running water are well supplied with fresh aerated water, but those living in ponds and pools have to make their own currents to pass ‘fresh’ water over their gills, to avoid suffocating.

Sedentary caddis larvae live in fixed shelters and use silk ‘fishing nets’ to catch their food.  If they live in fast flowing streams, their nets are coarse and tight.  Those living in slow flowing streams use baggy fine-grained nets.

Caddisfly fishing net https://www.flickr.com/photos/janhamrsky/5979065987/in/photostream/

Some caddisfly larvae are free-living foragers with portable cases. They also use silk, leaving a thread behind them, just as many other insects do, to attach themselves to the substrate so they are not floated downstream willy-nilly.  If they live in fast flowing streams their cases are streamlined making it easier for them to move against the current and less likely to be swept downstream.

I had originally started this article as a companion piece to my articles on the naming of thrips, aphids, cockroaches, and most recently, ladybirds, so I guess I had better get on with it. The origin of the word “caddis” is unclear, but according to Wikipedia it dates to at least as far as Izaak Walton’s The Compleat Angler (1653), in which “cod-worms or caddis” are mentioned as being used as bait. Thomas Muffet (Moufet) used the term cados worm in his book Insectorum sive Minimorum Animalium Theatrum which was written earlier (he died in 1604) but not published until 1658.  The term cadyss was being used in the fifteenth century for silk or cotton cloth, and “cadice-men” were itinerant vendors of such materials, but a direct connection between these words and the insects has not yet been established.  What about other languages, what attributes of the caddisfly have non-English speakers latched on to describe these fascinating insects?

Bulgarian – ручейник (rucheinik), which Google Translate will also tell you is rhinoceros 😊

Catalan – Frigànies which also translates as frigates, an indication of the association with water?

Czech – potočníky = stream legs

Dutch – kokerjuffer – the larval form, Schietmotten (pl) Singular: Schietmot – directly translates as shooting moths. Interestingly (or not), dragonfly is waterjuffer.

Finnish – Vesiperhonen – water butterflies, again reflecting the close resemblance to Lepidoptera; Finns call moths night butterflies, yöperhoset

French – Trichoptères – surprisingly not very flowery at all, but the larvae are more satisfyingly described as  à fourreau ou porte bois which roughly translates as with a sheath or wooden door

German – die Köcherfliege – also Frühlingsfliege, Fruhlings = spring, fliege = fly, Kocher = quiver as in arrows which given the shape of some of the cases is quite apt and the larvae are known as Köcherfliegenlarven

Icelandic – Vorflugur – Spring fly, reflecting the time of year when most of the adults emerge.

Polish – Chruścik – the wording on the stamp seems to translate as swamp yellow

Portuguese – o mosca d’água, The water fly

Spanish – el frígano similar to the Catalán and perhaps reflecting their association with wáter?

Swedish – Nattsländan –Natt = night and slandan = dragonfly?


Caddis case jewlery – if only I had been a bit more entrepreneurially  minded….

And finally, for those of you interested in exotic cuisine, and a non poultry alternative to red meat; in Japan caddisfly larvae are called Zazamushi and eaten as a delicacy.  They are so popular that they are commercially farmed (Cesard et al., 2015).

Many thanks to Daniela Atanasova, Gia Aradottir, Hannah Davis, Luisa Ferreira Nunes and Marlies vaz Nunes for help with the Bulgarian, Icelandic, German, Portuguese and Dutch respectively. They are much more reliable than Google Translate.


Cesard, N., Komatsu, S. & Iwata, A. (2015)  Processing insect abundance: trading and fishing of zazamushi in Central Japan (Nagano Prefecture, Honshū Island). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 11:78.

Mackay, R.J. & Wiggins, G.B.  (1979) Ecological diversity in Trichoptera.  Annual Review of Entomology, 24, 185-208



Filed under EntoNotes

Pick and mix 24 – pretty much all about insects this time!


Using Twitter for ecological research – lots of great examples

An excellent explanation by Stephen Heard of how to present statistics in scientific writing

Some great ant pictures

Fascinating – insects made from discarded circuit boards – the art of Julie Alice Chappell

How insects cope with winter

Half of the UK’s aquatic insects now contain microplastics!

A nice article about a weevil that pretends to be a fly!

Would you eat insects to prevent global warming?  An interesting paper on ways in which consumers might be persuaded to do so

More about the alarming decrease in insect numbers worldwide – link to the original article here

An excellent analysis of the same article by Manu Saunders and why it is so important

Leave a comment

Filed under Pick and mix