|
1-10 of 12 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
Pet Peeve
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on July 12, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, I know that some of you are just going to tell me I'm being anal. And I probably am. Normally I just gently correct people when they say 'Poisonous snake'. When I do talks, I always ask 'how hany poisonous snakes are there in our area?' None, but we have six venomous species. It's a good segway into toxins and toxicology. But today when I read poisonous snakes in THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, I just about flipped. Those guys/gals should know better.
I just hope it's better at the National Zoolgical park...
|
| |
|
RE: Pet Peeve
|
Reply
|
|
by 23bms on July 12, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with you in spirit, but the fact remains that for MOST people, the terms are synonymous. Language is constantly evolving, for better or worse. This may well be a case for 'worse', however, for those engaged in a LOSING war, there are perhaps better rearguard battles to fight.
jrb
|
| |
|
RE: Pet Peeve
|
Reply
|
|
by Snakeman1982 on July 12, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It annoys me as well when people say poisonous rather than venomous, I feel that it is more appropriate to say venomous. However a venom is a technically a poison, just one that is injected. In the end, they are both toxins made up of peptides and proteins with different delivery systems. So I don't believe it is inaccurate to say a snake is poisonous, just less appropriate.
But I understand your point.
Jadin
|
| |
|
RE: Pet Peeve
|
Reply
|
|
by Rob_Carmichael on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with Jadin (I just blanked on your first name!),
There was a time when this infuriated me but I would hate to turn someoff off just because we are arguing over semantics when in the end, they are very similar and in some circles, "Poisonous" refers to a toxin that is injected even though we know better. As I have gotten older, some things don't bother me like they once did and other things do...funny how the aging process works. Plus, it does allow me to tell people that there is one species of "poisonous" snake in the world and I can then usually make the differentiation in a pleasant and non confrontational manner.
Rob Carmichael, Curator
The Wildlife Discovery Center
|
| |
|
More DC mayhem
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I said, I gently teach people the difference. But these are supposed to be America's finest researchers. If they don't clearly communicate the facts (properly labeled in one area, mislabeled two feet away), what chance do I have?
The zoological park was a pretty neat,although I think that the Edisto Serpentarium has them beat for herps (other than the Komodo Dragon). In one exhibit there was a B. constrictor double labeled. The picture had the correct label, but the cage itself was labeled Burmese Python.
Oh, well. Such is life.
|
| |
|
RE: More DC mayhem
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Josh, the name of the place says it all:
THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
These are MUSEUM herpers !
These are Federal Government folks !
They are not Zoo herpers !
They are not Field herpers !
With rare exceptions, Museums are not of the same quality as Zoos.
Most Museums like their snakes swimming in formalin !
Keeping a few of them on display is often an secondary thing, and is often done by people who really do not know much about what they are doing.
Best Regards John Z
|
| |
|
RE: More DC mayhem
|
Reply
|
|
by Snakeman1982 on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I absolutely disagree with the last statement.
The herpetologist in museums are not just laboratory technicians who don't know herpetology. These guys are in the field constantly and there main focus is finding new species in places no one else goes, conducting evolutionary biology and advancing our knowledge on these species in the wild, as well as preserving specimens which is essential in scientific research. These people all have Ph.D.s in the biological science, have herped around the World, have herp lifelists in the thousands of species (though most don't keep lists), and often have the only knowledge of lesser studied organisms. These museum scientists come out of other great museum institutions like museums at Berkeley, Harvard, Univ. Kansas, Univ. Mich., Univ. Florida, etc... all of which have great reputations of making the World's greatest herpetological contributors.
And just so you know, George Zug at the National Museum wrote the previous Herpetology text books, the last was published in 2002 (though I don't believe he is on the newest edition that is about to come out).
I work at a museum here at UT Arlington with Jon Campbell and a bunch of other museum guys. In our museum we have described hundreds of new species that we collect from the wild and have students working all over the World. And it is museums like this where research gets done the most in herpetology. If you like the field guides that everyone uses so much, you should know that the range maps on field guides only exist because of the specimens that were collected and put in museums documenting the species' ranges. And it is almost impossible to document any type of natural history on these species without evidence, such as depositing the specimens in museums.
I can greatly expand this but I have to go pick up a pizza. Sorry for my ranting but it is important that people don't think museum scientists are amateurs. Look at their resumes online. They publish constantly, making large contributions to the field of herpetology, and have done research on species that most have never heard of.
Robert
|
| |
|
RE: More DC mayhem
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Robert, I said "with rare exceptions" and you pretty much named the exceptions, LOL !
Berkeley, Harvard, Univ. Kansas, Univ. Mich., Univ. Florida, UT Arlington all do very good work. Those Museums are associated with Universities, and are quite different from many Natural History Museums. You are lucky to work at one of the world class outfits.
Unfortunatly, many Natural History Museums I have visited accross the country fall into the description I stated, and house poorly maintained, poorly labled, and poorly understood collections of reptiles. Overall, most Zoos do a much better job exhibiting animals. Again, there are exceptions to both.
As far as George Zug at the National Museum, he should take a break from writing textbooks, and walk through the exhibits once in a while. What Josh stated about errors in exhibit labeling at the National Museum is true. The people creating the fancy graphics are not necessicarly reptile keepers, and there should be better communication between the groups as to correct labeling.
Also, after seeing the travelling exhibit that the National Museum sent to museums around the country a couple of years ago, I was very dissapointed at the poor quality of the exhibit, and the lack of care the animals were recieving. If what they provided was supposed to represent the Nation, then the Nation is in trouble.
Best Regards Johh Z
|
| |
|
RE: More DC mayhem
|
Reply
|
|
by Crotalusssp on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Joshua, It bugs me too. I also have a pet peeve about Columbian Boas vs. Colombian Boas. That is only a spelling issue, but when I see it or hear poisonous instead of venomous, I immediately question the sources knowledge.
Charles
|
| |
|
RE: More DC mayhem
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When asked if it's "poisonous"; I always just smile and reply "Nah, you can eat all of 'em you like". (just don't let it bite you back)
DH
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
