זה הרפובליקאים הוא פחות אתגר ויותר של מצוד פשוט של צילום המניה אומלל. אלכס Wild and others have long ago pointed out the massive failings of many stock photo sites – אבל כאן הוא מצוד LEP קצר וכואב באמצעות Google.
שלב 1: חיפוש תמונות “עש על פרח”.
שלב 2: Facepalm.
Here is a caption of the first page of results. Excluding the photos that have no moths and are “moth flowers” (= Phalaenopsis orchids) – רק 4 מִתוֹך 18 images are correct! I might give you 6/18 if you count two obviously staged photos… but here is my list of reasons starting with 1= top left and 26 = bottom right. (list below)
1) אישור, good start! This looks like a Manduca מינים (Sphingidae) feeding on a Datura flower. I’ve seen this myself in the wild – great capture!
2) Orchid
3) Downhill we go. Obviously a butterfly – Phoebis מינים (Pieridae).
4) Lycaenidae butterfly – Callophrys מינים.
5) Hesperiidae – skipper butterfly.
6) Another moth! Looks like an Autographa מינים (תנשמיתיים).
7) Certainly a moth, however something I’m unfamiliar with.
8 ) Hyles sphinx moth nectaring. Blurry, but a moth!
9) Another skipper. Just because it’s brown doesn’t mean it’s a moth.
10) Orchid
11) Luna moth on flower. אישור, yes it’s a moth – but I’m sorry, a pretty obviously staged photograph. Actias luna does not have mouthparts – you’d never find one willingly sitting on a flower.
12) Yet another skipper butterfly.
13) Orchid
14) ונסה butterfly! I thought the Painted Lady was about as obvious of a butterfly as possible.
15) Orchid
16) Orchid
17) Pieridae butterfly on a flower.
18) Orchid
19) Cisseps moth (Arctiinae) – our last real moth photograph. The webpage has it identified as Pyromorpha dimidiata (Zygaenidae), however the antennae are wrong and this is most likely a tiger moth in the Ctenuchinae.
20) Oh come on, butterfly! Polygonia מינים.
21) עש – אבל, staged… 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) Orchid
23) Orchid
24) Butterfly, Phyciodes מינים.
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.
פיו, horrible exercise over.
Hee. While it may have been horrible for you, it was fun for me. מעניין. Poor little skippers! =) תודה.
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), “וואו, you found that in the wild?” ו - “I never see these with enough light to get the shot.”
Here is another shocker for you Chris! כן, 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.
לחיים
ג'סטין
[…] Chris notes Google’s ineptitude with moth identification […]