See GOP on vähem väljakutse ja pigem lihtne kokkuvõte õnnetutest stock fotograafiast. Alex Wild ja teised on juba ammu juhtinud tähelepanu paljude fotosaitide tohututele puudustele – kuid siin on lühike ja valus kokkuvõte Google'i abil.
Samm 1: Pildiotsing “koi lillel”.
Samm 2: facepalm.
Siin on tulemuste esimese lehe pealkiri. Välja arvatud fotod, millel pole ööliblikaid ja on “ööliblika lilled” (= Phalaenopsis orhideed) – ainult 4 otsas 18 pildid on õiged! Ma võin sulle anda 6/18 kui lugeda kaks ilmselgelt lavastatud fotot… aga siin on minu põhjuste loend, mis algab tähega 1= vasak ülaosa ja 26 = all paremal. (loetelu allpool)
1) Korras, hea algus! See näeb välja nagu a Manduca liigid (Sphingidae) toitumine a Datura Lill. Olen seda ise looduses näinud – suurepärane tabamine!
2) Orhidee
3) Allamäge läheme. Ilmselgelt liblikas – Phoebus liigid (Pieridae).
4) Lycaenidae liblikas – Callophrys liigid.
5) Hesperiidae – kipper liblikas.
6) Veel üks ööliblikas! Näeb välja nagu an Autogramm liigid (Noctuidae).
7) Kindlasti koi, aga midagi, mida ma ei tunne.
8 ) Hyles sfinksi koi nektariv. Hägune, aga ööliblikas!
9) Teine kipper. See, et see on pruun, ei tähenda, et see on ööliblikas.
10) Orhidee
11) Luna ööliblikas lillel. Korras, jah, see on ööliblikas – aga vabandan, üsna ilmselgelt lavastatud foto. Actias luna ei ole suuõõnesid – te ei leia kunagi kedagi, kes istuks meelsasti lillel.
12) Veel üks kipper liblikas.
13) Orhidee
14) Vanessa liblikas! Ma arvasin, et Painted Lady on võimalikult selge liblikas.
15) Orhidee
16) Orhidee
17) Pieridae liblikas lillel.
18) Orhidee
19) Sipsab ööliblikas (Arctiinae) – meie viimane tõeline ööliblika foto. Veebilehel on see identifitseeritud kui Pyromorpha dimidiata (Zygaenidae), antennid on aga valed ja see on tõenäoliselt tiigriliblikas Ctenuchinae's.
20) Ah ole nüüd, liblikas! Polygoonia liigid.
21) Koi – kuid, lavastatud… I’ve never come across a Sphingidae resting on a flower like this. While this family readily nectars at flowers, they don’t tend to sit on them like idiots.
22) Orhidee
23) Orhidee
24) Butterfly, Phyciodes liigid.
25) Worst staged photograph ever. It’s a spread specimen that may or may not have been photoshopped onto the flower (it looks wonky). Broken antennae, torn up wings… You can also see the shadow from the camera strap on the moth’s left forewing. Yet somehow it won a medal from some group on Flickr.
26) Same butterfly as 24, in color.
Puhh, horrible exercise over.
Hee. While it may have been horrible for you, it was fun for me. Huvitav. Poor little skippers! =) Tänan.
I left a comment on that spread luna moth photo dissing them for nondisclosure of an obviously staged shot. It might get deleted, but for now it’s a nice juxtaposition to all the gushing comments like (to paraphrase), “Wow, you found that in the wild?” ja “I never see these with enough light to get the shot.”
Here is another shocker for you Chris! Jah, there is a NZ endemic moth called the Magpie moth (Nyctemera annulata) but it is mostly black with a few white blotches and is an Arctiine rather than a Geometrid. There is another even more obvious photo mistake earlier in the article.
On the subject of the inability to identify moths butterflys etc and the lack of quality photos. The UK has recently seen several awful articles of moths and their food plants being portrayed as frankly destructive creatures. First story i have heard of is clothes moths (micros) the image used in the articel was several macro moths on a piece of material! The second a newspaper with a journalist with a huge grudge againt ragwort (basically a report of lies!)it was awful to read, just made me cringe to read it and how someone has so little knowledge of the natural world. Ragwort being an excellent species for wildlife in the UK.
Terviseks
Justin
[…] Chris notes Google’s ineptitude with moth identification […]