“Hey, where is the spider post?”, you may be asking if you arrived at this page by following one of the thousands of links that sprung up overnight in the online media and social circuits. In the fine tradition of online publishing I took the liberty of pulling a “bait-and-click” switcheroo, and turning the hysteria surrounding the Goliath birdeater’s story into a teaching opportunity. And thus, please bear with me, and read this post to the end (where you will find the original post about the spider) before banging out an angry comment in ALL CAPS.
For some reason, probably related to the proximity of Halloween, my blog post about the Goliath birdeater spider received an inordinate amount of attention, and has been republished, reinterpreted, outright stolen, and vilified all over the Internet. This one post on my obscure blog is now receiving in excess of 120,000 unique visits every day, and comments are pouring in. Alas, most of them are somewhat less than positive, and I am beginning to wonder if I really am a “HORRIBLE person” who “will destroy the earth.” (I must admit that some of the trolls were touchingly tactful – they might have said ” F&*K you, a$$hole”, but they modified the foul words as not to offend my sensibility.) But why the vitriol?
You see, while talking to a reporter I explained that one of the specimens I describe in the blog had been collected and placed in a museum. This, combined with my comment of having seen this species only a handful of times, triggered a tsunami of self-righteous outrage at my murderous act which, according to the most vocal individuals, is bound to drive this species to extinction. In fact, I really fear for the Smithsonian Institution, this nation’s preeminent natural history collection. If a single spider collected by a scientist causes such an outrage then, surely, the 126 million specimens in its holdings will warrant burning it to the ground and crucifying all scientists working there.
But in all seriousness, why was the specimen collected? First, a bit of a background about the expedition to Guyana during which this took place. I was there with a group of biologists and Guyanese students at the invitation of the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency of Guyana. Our job was to conduct a comprehensive survey of animals and plants of the newly created Community Conservation Area, train Guyanese students in the methodology of biological surveys, and collect specimens for the Center for the Study of Biological Diversity at the University of Guyana. These specimens are used to both create permanent documentation of the species composition of a never before explored area of the country, and to train a new cadre of scientists and conservation professionals in identification and morphological diversity of organisms. And before you point out various alternative methods of documentation (photographs, sound recordings, non-destructive DNA samples), let me assure you that there is no substitute for the collection of physical specimens.
What about this particular spider? As I mention in the post below, Theraphosa blondi is indeed the largest spider in the world (although its legs are not foot long, as some media reported), and thus it makes a perfect specimen for teaching spider morphology. It is also a very common species, not protected or endangered, and collecting of a single individual poses absolutely no threat to its survival (a scientist picking up one spider is no different from a bird doing the same; if a stochastic event such as this can drive a species to extinction then this species is already doomed.) In fact, you can purchase Goliath birdeaters in many pet stores in the US or online for $20-100 a piece. But they are shy and elusive, and thus I was thrilled every time I saw one during a small handful of encounters with this species. Once the animal was properly euthanized and preserved, something that is never done lightly, it was carefully labelled and deposited in the collection in Guyana where to this day it serves as an important teaching tool. And, years from now, the same specimen may provide new data on spider anatomy, genetics, evolution etc. In addition to the spider, we also collected vouchers of 857 other species of animals and plants (excluding birds and large mammals), which are now deposited across various research institutions in Guyana, Venezuela, and the US.
Collecting and preservation of physical specimens is an integral, irreplaceable element of biological sciences. There is hardly a branch of biology that does not rely on the examination of organisms’ bodies (the only exception I can think of is ethology, and only some variants of it), be it for the purpose of their identification, understanding of the functions of their respiratory system, or the speed of transmission of neural signals. Museum collections, where specimens are preserved for future scientists, are a special, very important case. There specimens are often deposited not for a particular, clearly defined research project (such as when a geneticist examines thousands of fruit flies to measure the expression of a particular gene). Rather, collections serve as both a documentation of the current state of species composition in a particular time period or an area, or as a library of morphological and genetic diversity across a wide range of species. We cannot anticipate what questions will be asked, and answered, using specimens deposited in such collections. For example, the ban on the use of DDT, a horrible environmental pollutant, was based on the discovery made in ornithological collections that bird egg shells have been getting progressively thinner, thus leading to high mortality of birds, ever since the chemical began to be used. The spread of chytrid fungus that is wiping amphibian species across the globe was understood by examining specimens dating back a hundred years. Closer to my own research, the world’s only cave katydid is now listed as Endangered by the IUCN Red List and thus receiving a greater attention from conservationists, because I found 70-year old, unidentified specimens of this species, collected by a scientist who had no idea what a remarkable animal he was catching.
Can collecting specimens for scientific research threaten a species’s survival? The short answer is no, there is absolutely no evidence that any scientist has ever driven a species to extinction. Famous New Zealand 19th century ornithologist Walter Buller is sometimes accused of having collected birds to extinction, but a close examination of the numbers of specimens collected by him proves that his work had no impact on the birds’ populations; rather, his bird collection is now a sad repository of species exterminated in New Zealand by moronic, purposeful introduction of alien species and destructive agricultural practices on the islands.
And this is the key – species are never lost as a result of scientific collecting, but almost invariably because of the destruction of their habitat, or due to competition from alien species introduced by humans. And this loss of species is happening on an unimaginable scale – by some estimates 16,000 species quietly go extinct every year, some even before scientists have a chance to describe and name them. And this is why if I see something that may be new to science, even if I suspect that it might be rare and threatened, I will collect it and deposit it in a museum. Some years ago I found a new species of katydid in South Africa. I knew that its population was tiny and on the brink of disappearance. In fact, this species is now probably extinct. Not because I collected a few individuals, but because its only population was located in a tiny patch of a native yellowwood forest within a massive pine plantation, a patch that was already being cut down to be replaced by more non-native trees grown for timber. Had I not collected a few specimens of this animal, we would have never known it existed. Now, at least its tombstone has a name – Paracilacris periclitatus, The Endangered Katydid.
I could go on and on about why scientific collecting is needed, but I want to mention one last thing. Every single one of us is guilty of involuntary bioslaughter – we kill thousands of organisms without realizing that we do it. Look into the light fixtures of your house or the grill of your car, they are full of dead insects and spiders. That highway that you drive to work – each mile of it equals millions of animals and plants that were exterminated during its construction (and if you live in an area of particularly high endemism, California or New Zealand for example, its construction probably contributed to pushing some species closer to extinction). That tofu that you eat because meat is murder – it probably comes from Brazil, where massive soy plantations stretching from one horizon to another have replaced its once thriving rainforest and led to the disappearance of thousands of species.
It is very easy to fixate on an individual case of an organism being deliberately euthanized. We do it because it is convenient emotionally – it is much easier to feel superior when we can point a finger at somebody who does it consciously, even if for a good, justifiable reason, but we don’t like to think about those trillions of animals and plants that we kill by virtue of simply going to a grocery store.
And now, enjoy the story of the Goliath birdeater.
The sound of little hooves in the night
When I go out at night into the rainforest to search for katydids I don’t like to have any company. Not that I am particularly antisocial, but tracking skittish and cryptic animals is an activity that’s better done alone. I walk slowly, trying not to disturb anything and anybody, slowly scanning the vegetation and the forest floor in the light of my headlamp. Every now and then I turn the light off to fully immerse myself in the ambient sounds of the forest, which often helps me pinpoint a faint trill made by a katydid’s wings. A few years ago I was deep in the rainforest of Guyana doing just that – listening to the sounds of the night in a complete darkness – when I heard the rustle of an animal running. I could clearly hear its hard feet hitting the ground and dry leaves crumbling under its weight. I pressed the switch and pointed the light at the source of the sound, expecting to see a small mammal, a possum, a rat maybe. And at first this is what I thought I saw – a big, hairy animal, the size of a rodent. But something wasn’t right, and for a split second the atavistic part of my brain sent a ping of regret that I didn’t bring any companion with me on this particular night walk. But before that second was over I was lunging at the animal, ecstatic about finally seeing one of these wonderful, almost mythical creatures in person.
The South American Goliath birdeater (Theraphosa blondi) is the largest spider in the world. For all the arachnophobes out there this is probably a good excuse to pave over large swaths of the Amazonian rainforest, but for the rest of us this species is one of biodiversity’s crown jewels. Although far from being the largest member of the subphylum Chelicerata – this honor belongs to horseshoe crabs – Goliath birdeaters are ridiculously huge for a land arthropod. Their leg span approaches 30 cm (nearly a foot) and they weigh up to 170 g – about as much as a young puppy. They truly are Goliaths, but are they bird eaters? Alas, the truth is a bit less exciting. Although definitely capable of killing small birds, they rarely have a chance to do so while scouring the forest floor at night (however, there is some anecdotal evidence that they may feed on bird eggs if they run across a nest). Rather, they seem to be feeding on what is available in this moist and warm habitat, and what is available is earthworms – lots of them.
But how do they get to be so big? Apparently, according to one study (Makarieva et al., Proc. R. Soc. B [2005] 272), it has to do with their metabolic rate, which is lower than in the Goliath birdeater’s relatives. This allows it to function with lower levels of oxygen reaching its tissues and organs than those required by smaller, more active spiders. In other words, the bigger the body the more difficult it is to provide oxygen to all its parts if the metabolic rate is to remain constant. Regardless of the reason, because of its gargantuan size, the Goliath birdeater is probably the only spider in the world that makes noise as it walks. Its feet have hardened tips and claws that produce a very distinct, clicking sound, not unlike that of a horse’s hooves hitting the ground (albeit, admittedly, not as loud). But this is not the only sound this spider makes.
Every time I got too close to the birdeater it would do three things. First, the spider would start rubbing its hind legs against the hairy abdomen. “Oh, how cute!”, I thought when I first saw this adorable behavior, until a cloud of urticating hair hit my eyeballs, and made me itch and cry for several days. If that wasn’t enough, the arachnid would rear its front legs and open its enormous fangs, capable of puncturing a mouse’s skull, and tried to jab me with the pointy implements. The venom of a birdeater is not deadly to humans but, in combination with massive puncture wounds the fangs were capable of inflicting, it was definitely something to be avoided. And then there was a loud hissing sound. For a long time the source of the sound was a mystery, but now we know that it is produced by “setal entanglement” – some of the hairs (setae) on the legs are covered with microscopic hooks that scrape against other, feather-like setae, producing the loud warning hiss.
A couple of years after my first encounter with Theraphosa blondi I was in South America again, walking alone at night in the rainforest of Suriname. Suddenly my foot brushed against something big and moving, and I nearly tripped. I froze, expecting a snake. “Nah, it’s just another Goliath birdeater. Aren’t you a cutie pie?”
Update 1: You can now purchase high quality prints of all images appearing in this post – just click on the image. For commercial use please contact Minden Pictures with inquires regarding licensing of these photos.
Update 2 (28 Oct. 2014): It has been over a week since the Goliath story hit the news (isn’t it like 2.3 years in the Internet Time?), and it is probably good to let it go and refocus on another worthy cause. Thus I am closing the comments under this post, but feel free to express your opinion on any other story on this blog (but please stay topical – if you would like to tell me what you think about the spider story, or me personally, just email me). The question of scientific collecting is clearly a polarizing one but, unlike such important questions as whether God uses a Mac or Windows, it actually has one, right answer – we need scientific collecting (pdf) and it serves a wide variety of beneficial causes (pdf).
The comments that I have received demonstrate an enormous need for more science education and outreach, especially in the light of some of the most brutal ad hominem attacks coming from persons who probably would label themselves liberal and well-educated. It was rather entertaining to see the breadth of insults thrown at me, including being called, for some reason, “sexist” (interestingly, the same lady who called me that also suggested that I should “get laid, quickly” – I am puzzled, to say the least.)
Please keep visiting my blog, I am always happy when my stories raise awareness of the beautiful world of invertebrates and other underappreciated organisms, and the conservation work that I and my colleagues have been engaged in for many years. In the end, this experience was a positive one – if I can make people care about a single spider then maybe there is hope for the rest of the natural world?
The Smaller Majority 
I totally support you and what you’re doing. Surely there is no harm in taking one specimen for the greater good of teaching! Too many people have been drinking the PETA Koolaide for so long, they don’t know the difference between what’s right and wrong anymore and tend to have overly emotional knee jerk reactions. They care more about animals or insects & spiders more than people or medicine and education. It’s a pretty skewed point of view in my opinion.
The spider is more valuable alive then dead. Errogent humans.
Keep collecting!
Pete says:
Such elitist drivel!
If any organism is destroyed in the pursuit of…
UP in ARMS AGAINST THE PERPETRATOR!!
But if it’s in the interest of “SCIENCE” THE Organism be Dammed !
You’ll become famous (all you really want) but you will still be soul-less.
Hi, Piotr,
Thank you for your well-reasoned reply to these misguided folks. If your critics had spent any time perusing your blog, they’d realise how very may photographs you do in fact take of the amazing creatures you describe and how very much their survival means to you. They’d realise too that you teach others to take high quality images of these creatures. Please keep up the good work. Sheesh, even a Jain kills critters every now and then. If you are posting comments to a web log, you’ve obviously got a pretty affluent lifestyle dependent on industries and transit that kill a whole lot more than a few carefully selected specimens. Please keep up the good work.
Cheers,
John
Thankfully it’s just a tempest in a glass of water. Please continue being a scientist doing his duty. Merci Piotr
Uh… I was with you until you made the ST**ID comment about the tofu coming from Brazil. Most of the soy grown there is to be animal feed for China and Europe (and for soy oil for those McDonald’s fried you eat with your soy-fed burger) so meat is indeed murder and apparently on a much larger scale. Think about it. Clearly you are capable of thought, so this one should not be a stupid meme you perpetuate. Please do not be such a perp. Use your research skills and find out how little of soy is eaten directly and that most of that is for filler in processed meats (no kidding) and other processed foods, which do not include tofu, most of which is organic so *not* the Monsanto and friends GMO input-heavy crap stuffing your future meat.
Seriously, that comment deserves it’s own retraction post. It’s an idiotic statement on a grand scale but used to point fingers at others, in an attempt to label them as idiots… but sadly having the bounce-back feature (I am rubber, you are glue) that people who know better understand.
Sticky situation for you Piotr… :( :( :( :(
The particulars may be wrong, CG, but the general argument is not. If you are dependent on industrial agriculture, then you are party to the wholesale slaughter of indigenous species every bit as strange and wonderful as this spider. I took a road trip up to Chicago a few years ago and drove down out of the wooded hills of Kentucky onto the plains of Indiana. As it was dusk, the bugs were out and peppering the windshield at a steady pace until we got to the farms – then everything went eerily quiet all of a sudden, the insects gone. Almost all of the agriculture on which we depend is farmed in monocultures with all other species excluded by any means necessary. Even “organic” producers are allowed to use pesticides and herbicides to produce their produce, so you don’t get off the hook by shopping at Whole Foods.
How familiar are you with the inverts in your region? Do you realise what sort of role they play in your day-to-day life? Just because you haven’t gotten in touch with the micro- and macro-fauna and -florae of your area doesn’t mean they are not wonderful. Sticky situation for you, CG.
Thank you for making this a teaching moment. Although, from some of the comments, some folks didn’t get what was being taught … :( I was pleased to get the new ‘bonus material’ you provided in the form of the additional essay. Thank you.
Seems to me the little fella didn’t die in vain. It’s got us all looking at ourselves, after all, hasn’t it? I just wonder how big it would have grown if we’d left it!
All I know is I’d rather the opportunity to see it alive in its natural habitat than in a museum…but if we all go traipsing into the jungle to get a peek we’ll make a right mess of everything and leave no environment for giant spiders at all. Perhaps it’s right that most should only glimpse this world in museums, entrusting a few to bring home a sample – a minority sacrificed humanely in the name of the truths out there to discover, so we can all better contain our curiosity.
After all, the very definition of our existence depends upon death; we inadvertantly sow it everywhere we go. Without it our ecosystems wouldn’t exist at all. It is foolish to think that we can defy nature, or remove ourselves from the picture. When we realise that, we understand that what was done here was entirely natural. The spider succumbed to the natural operations of the ecosystem. As intelligent and enlightened as we think we are, we are still a part of existence, and that includes non-existence.
This is the compromise we feel forced to make for our curiosity – for our being. We can’t avoid death no matter how hard we try, but we can look at ourselves, and ask ourselves, will this death help keep the ecosystem alive? Is there not something better we can do to encourage existence? It’s all very utilitarian, for our hand is always forced.
Maybe science is just trying to find its way on this moral journey, as we attempt to lift ourselves from the apparent brutality of nature. Unfortunately, spider sacrifice is the best we can do with what we currently know of ourselves, otherwise it wouldn’t have happened. To do better we need more knowledge – it’s a catch-22. The universe is conserving itself, making evolution possible.
The only alternative is not to look at all…and life becomes pretty pointless if you don’t.
I’m glad I got to get a glimpse of this legendary spider, and I thank the Goliath for its sacrifice.
I should weep for the shallow mentality of critics who cannot see past their own revulsion over the death of a scientific specimen. The freeway you drove to work on killed many thousands more lives during its construction; more die on its pavement each day, yet preserving a specimen for future scientific study deserves your harshest criticism.
You cannot compare DNA, count teeth under a fang or measure the exact distance between eyes with a live, thrashing and possibly dangerous animal. Once preserved the specimen will testify to its existence as well as represent its living relatives for hundreds of years. Should the species actually go extinct future scientists could possibly even revive it from preserved tissue in a museum.
The best scientists love their organisms and mourn each death with a vow to make its end not be in vain.
Serious question: why are specimens not brought home alive? It seems like observing a live one would be beneficial to study..
Short answer – ethical considerations, health risks, space limitations, and science.
Ethics: In general, wild animals don’t like cages. For live collections, zoo-reared animals are almost always preferred to wild-caught animals. Also, transportation back to a holding facility would be very stressful to most animals, to the point of being cruel treatment. As an analogy, in lab research that uses animals like mice, killing the animals at end of an experiment can be approved as necessary for the research. But cruel treatment of the animals during the experiment is never allowed.
Risk: Handling wild animals is inherently risky. Alive, they don’t like being caged/captured, and can bite, escape, etc.. They also can carry pathogens. There are strict protocols for handling *dead* animals that minimize these risks. Live ones can spread disease by urine, feces, saliva, bites, etc.
Space: A typical mammal or bird collection includes many specimens per drawer, many drawers per cabinet, many many many cabinets per room. Now, each bird would require at absolute least a full cabinet worth of space, e.g. 100-1,000 times more space. And it’s incredibly difficult to replicate the habitat of certain species – desert, ice, jungle. To put this in perspective, the amount of energy and space required to house all of those creatures would likely consume enough resources / habitat to cause major negative impacts to other species.
Science: When a specimen is caught in its natural habitat, it’s natural physiology can be studied. What’s in its stomach? What are the ratios of stable isotopes in its body, hair, feathers? What parasites is it infected with? Once you feed/house an animal, you’re influencing its physiology in non-natural ways. So later study of the organism will reflect your behavior, not the animal’s natural behavior.
Does that help?
Setting a side all the ridiculous controversy surrounding the ethics of collecting specimens, I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to post this blog. It’s always fascinating to learn about unusual spiders and your description was really great.
Wow… just imagine if science were in the hands of the bleeding hearts… we’d all be dead.
You’re so right! Thank god it’s not!
Thank you for the “bait-and-click”! I hope it gets even more views than the original post.
Sorry to hear about all the trolls, and thank you for writing about this beautiful and fascinating creature. I imagine much of the vitriol is triggered by one unfortunate word… ‘puppy’.
Thank you for your candid and funny response to all the self-righteous folks out there that don’t really understand what they’re talking about. While spiders creep me out, I’m happy you discovered this not-so-little dude and look forward to visiting the Smithsonian to see it in person.
Wow! Amazing animal. Thanks for the information. My cousin, Tom Astle, suggested the read on his facebook page, and I’m glad I took the time to read your article. Love the images and love learning about and seeing obscure animals who share this world with us. Best to you and your continued work.
The apparent hypocrisy of the people opposed to killing this non-endangered spider is not surprising. We (Americans) go around rescuing cute and not-so-cute dogs and cats (and possibly spiders) and are appalled when one of them is killed, but we support the killing of millions of cows, chickens, pigs, sheep, and goats (not to mention all the amazing fish we consume every day). People kill ants and other bugs in their homes just because these creatures “dare” to invade their space (I am guilty of this as well). We race dogs and horses to death. We “fight” bulls after weakening them with spears. Kids dissect frogs in school every day. I personally am disgusted by spiders but am interested in reading about them – I admire this scientist for what he does. The people who are opposed to this research should invite flies to partake in their next dinner if they truly believe that killing this animal in the name of science if wrong – flies are people, too. Bon appetite.
I wonder how many people who are acting out in rage for this spider who sacrificed its life for the progression of scientific research, have killed innocent spiders in their house, and then proceeded to throw them in the trash.
I don’t get how preserving some non endangered spider species is now a crime. It IS important for the future, since Biblical prophecy says we will lose 1/3 of all land, water and air species. Besides that, there are some things that we can only learn from an actual specimen (such as detail of the anatomy)..and each creature is different, so there will be variations. I don’t get all the hate. If you really don’t want to kill any animals, sell your car, your house, all your electronics, all clothes that use synthetics or non organic natural fibres. Not to mention only growing food native to the area you live in. All those things I’ve mentioned need to destroy creatures of some sort, or cause a loss of habitat, which causes extinction.
Dear Piotr,
It truly saddens my to read all thee misinformed comments (most of them even agressive) that you get. As a fellow scientist I have much appreciation of your work. Taking vouchers is absolutely a necessity, While I was working on tropical salamanders in Nicaragua I got the same comments: “what if you collect the lost one!!!!”. Well, then the species was doomed to begin with and we are lucky to have caught its existence. The comments of this “collecting practice” being of another century is an unfortunate one. It remains as vital as it was back then. Scientist are not the reason of the global biodiversity crisis, the global society is. Sure, lets point our finger to scientists that try to discribe extant biodiveristy. People support, if it suits them, conservation efforts. However, you can not conserve that what you do not know! And keep mind, funds and man power are limitited and will often go to the most biodiverse places (well, it should). People that support conservation of , for example,the Amazonian forest should not be so eager to condem the scientist that is giving its all to fight for it. They (We!) are just regular guys with an undying passion for these creatures wich fuels there (our) scientific efforts. Truly short sighted and self righteous for people to put is in this corner.
Piotr, keep on doing what you do! We need more people like you. And folks, before starting a witchhunt, what have you done to describe, conserve and protect nature in your life time.
Yours truly, Tariq
This is a good explanation for why collecting specimens for museums is a worthwhile and appropriate scientific activity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS8suhK-c5I (Watch the whole thing!)
these days an extended video and still photographs are enough. killing the animal like this is OBSCENE.
You’re a bit of moron aren’t you. Double digit IQ, surprised you’ve even managed to turn the PC on let alone wrote some real words as you knuckled away at the keyboard.
Enough for what?
How dramatic.
Dr. Naskrecki – thanks for the extended defense of your action. I’m still a little skeptical whether this particular collection was really necessary (it is, as you say, a pretty common species), but clearly collecting fell well within the bound of responsible scientific practice, and in no way endangered a species or habitat. I rather fear that your explanation of the deathly impact we all have on nature will fall on deaf ears where your critics are concerned, but it pretty much sums things up. All of us are putting more of nature at risk by far through contributing to global climate change every time we hop a plane to cross oceans or continents, or through choosing to live 40 miles work, than any risk your collecting this one specimen did.
But it’s the human way of thinking – for many, the death of an clearly identified and individualized creature has far more impact on their thinking, than the thousand things we do all the time that collectively kill entire ecosystems and species.
Piotr,
Excellent post on the value of scientific collecting and the hypocrisy of “you kill a few for a reason, that’s bad; I kill a lot for no reason, no worries!” But back to your original post. Your statement that “the Goliath birdeater is probably the only spider in the world that makes noise as it walks” brought back some interesting memories. When I first moved to Florida, I detected the first of many huntsman spiders in my duplex, in the dark, by virtue of the “pit-a-pat” sound it made running across the top of my television. Coming from Arizona, I thought I knew how large huntsman spiders were, but I was wrong!
Why even address trolls. Great article, and truly amazing that you are out there documenting these species. Ignore the idiots and trolls…science is beyond them.
u need document the stick up your arse
The saddest part about this whole thing is the lack of intelligence from commenters who have no concept of what science is. “Oh my god! You kill animals and try to justify it!”
This tells me more about the state of our world (or at least America) than anything else. Especially since the author did a brilliant job of explaining how scientific collection techniques work, why they are important, and how they have less burden on populations than I do when I drive my car down the freeway.
Guess what, people who think this is “wrong” or “murder”? Do you know how you know what you know? Because of science. Science just like what is described in this post. The hundreds of thousands of scientists who have performed these duties, studying and providing data to others to study, they are the reason why we live in a world full of knowledge.
Calling species collection “murder” is about as useful as claiming every Muslim is a terrorist. Unfortunately, it seems like half the population does both, which tells me half the population (again, America) is so ignorant that I don’t even know what to say beyond the fact that it’s insane in 2014 to still be so unintelligent, so completely ignorant.
Think about what this is doing to our children. How can we, as a society who needs to constantly improve and evolve to stay relevant on a global scale with countries that have far better education systems and rates of higher education than we do, how can we allow such ignorance to propagate?
It’s either a plague of idiocy, or only the truly ignorant bother to ride around the internet looking for places to deposit little chunks of their ignorance in hopes of finding others full of ignorance. Think of science articles on the internet as being dating sites for those of low intelligence (and the inability to understand basic logical concepts because a “belief” that has no basis in fact is somehow more important or truthful).
I’m frightened. Not of giant spiders. I LOVE spiders, and find them to be absolutely fascinating. I’m frightened of the insects who can’t understand the most basic concepts.
Although in person I literally puke at the sight of even the smallest arachnid, I love learning about them ( maybe as a way of being informed for my protection lol…even though I know the chances are slim to none anything bad would ever happen). Your article is very intriguing, creating a sense of urgency for people to embrace the Idea of science. I feel many proliferate on the Idea of controversy and politics about death and conservation without the understanding that knowledge about all species including humans was found by specimen examination. Would such people protest going to a doctor if they knew doctors explore, poke, prod, remove, and reassemble pieces of human bodies during school ( yes the cadavers used are donated for the purpose of science) but how else are we to learn? Yes it may seem cruel to take a life even if it is a butterfly…but most do not realize that scientist do not enjoy or relish in the Idea of killing species, in fact its one of the hardest things they may have to do as most want to protect and create a better environment for the animals, but unfortunately in order to do this one must learn how…this is the purpose of specimen collection. Thank you for the information and your dedication to our earth!
Your explanation does not help; in fact I believe you made it worse. This was not necessary. Just because it’s been done before doesn’t mean it should continue. With today’s technology and modeling options there was no need to kill. I call this a calculated, cold hearted killing and an unforgivable approach to discovery and science. Not a word of what you’ve stated in this post improves my opinion of what you’ve done or why and how you believe that you should not be vilified.
“with today’s technology and modeling options there was no need to kill”
ahahaha the department of hollywood science strikes again.
The fact that you believe this is proof that you are completely ignorant when it comes to science. The unfortunate truth is that good science often requires quite a bit of killing. What exactly did you think happens to all the mice and rats used in experiments? Virtually all are killed. All the scientists I know who work with animals love them and do their best to keep them as comfortable as possible, but sadly, once the study is over there is nothing else that can be done with them.
Wow…I think you need to reread.
Lol… I love this kind of talk. I run the modeling department at a pharma company. One big part of why we do modeling is to reduce the number of animals, but a bigger one is to draw better conclusions. I have a question for you- where do you think the data comes from, that we base our models from?
How dramatic.
Yeah, right. Scientist never ever have done anything at all. Hey, I’ve seen the world most lonesome creature on earth, lonesome George but rrrriiiight, in every museum in the world you’ll find an archive with lots of preparted “Georgies” and “Georginias”, in fact one of the bigest museum in Europe, the Naturkundemuseum in Berlin have 568 preparted of them in the archives for study. Not to tell you about the thousands of Ara’s of Brasilia, the 128 famous tasmanian thingies and guess what, they sure have 27 Dodo for study, only for scientists, of course. I’m sorry, you’ll think yourself beeing important and all but after all it let me think that how funny it is that all these countries in the east are so much behind in everything. Don’t you agree that it would be time to catch up a little bit with modern times and have a little respect for nature? I mean, why in the earth are you calling yourself a scientist if you’re not able to study you’re objects in the right natural inviroment? How good is a scientist after all if he forgets (in his rapture for the details) the big picture? How does this sort of study will help society? So you’re a bad scientist because you’ll stay to the old ways ’cause you’re too frighted by everything which is new. You want to be secure. That’ll makes you no scientist at all. That’ll makes you an archivist of the old century and then you be the same as the man next door proud of half wits. I’m sorry for you. And I don’t thing the new century which is going to come will have mercy with your type of old ways. You’re no scientific at all. Pitty. A Scientist will go for his limits, every time, only for the fun to see how its going. You’re trying to invent the wheel. Congratulations.
Right on, Christine. I couldn’t have put it more articulately myself. He sure is “no scientific at all”.
All these highly educated responses….my brain synapses are marveling at the words expressed!
Yay, English.
Thing is, my not so intelligent friend, these preserved ones wouldn’t have saved a fucking species. When there are 500 or so left, the species will most likely die out. The scientists don’t have a relevant impact whatsoever.
Why would a non-scientist have to study an extinct species. Scientists are trained to handle shit like that. You wouldn´t expect people to just walk into museums and study whatever they bloody well want?
HOW. How. How do you think you’ll be able to study a spiders anatomy for example in the fucking nature? Even with humans we sliced ’em up?
Also, the random “eastern countries” you bring up, those are behind for so many reasons your tiny little brain probably can’t process it.
Get off your fucking ethical high horse bullshit and face the fucking facts. Science isn’t conducted by fat people in little university rooms where they look at data and think up shit publishing it as facts. It’s by people like this one here going out there, WITH respect for nature, and figuring shit out.
Did you even read the fucking article or was the English too tough for you? Seriously your grammar and spelling is pathetic.
Lastly the ad hominems? How old are you? Can’t get the fucking arguments straight so you have to throw those in? And yes, I get to use them, I’m 16.
Let’s give Christine a break, huh? She is obviously a native German speaker and is writing a comment IN A SECOND LANGUAGE. Not easy. Ich weisse, weil ich kann ein bisschen deutsch sprechen. Ich koennte nicht auf deutsch sagen was sie hat auf englisch gesagt. Kudos, Christine. Dein Englisch ist sehr gut.
Though your statement is barely legible, I get the gist. Why do people like you want to ruin science for the rest of us? Are you that unhappy that you just want to spread the misery everywhere? Do you not remember the fascination of looking upon a real specimen as a child? Nothing can replace that.
Thank you for this wonderful entry into the world of arachnid-horror. As some would call it. I love spiders and most other creepy crawlies. And enjoy learning anything new about them. I say pox on all who would cause you harm for being a scientist.
Pete says to:
“A mile of highway kills more organisms that an entire generation of scientists. First during its construction, then when it turns into a conveyor belt to hell for any organism unlucky enough to step on or fly over it.
A mile of highway kills more organisms that an entire generation of scientists. First during its construction, then when it turns into a conveyor belt to hell for any organism unlucky enough to step on or fly over it.”
I think that you don’t quite understand the message that you convey with this statement.
If any of those drivers purposefully drove down the animals on the road they might be on the same level as one who for the “glory” of it has to bag “the specimen”.
You cannot rationalize your position. Sorry.
We would more than understand if you were just hungry and ate the damn spider!
So, by this reasoning the destruction of thousands of square miles of rainforest and untold millions of organisms and species in the name of progress is OK, but to kill a specimen in the name of science is a horrible sin.
This doesn’t make sense to me, does it make sense to you?