5 ms·

Hmmmm… you mean exactly like this very much non-dead butterfly? I have a feeling the author hasn’t actually spent that much time observing butterflies. https:/

Hmmmm… you mean exactly like this very much non-dead butterfly? I have a feeling the author hasn’t actually spent that much time observing butterflies. https://ibb.co/YQxprkg https://ibb.co/YQxprkg https://ibb.co/S33vvYs https://ibb.co/S33vvYs https://ibb.co/6gJDxTR https://ibb.co/6gJDxTR Edit: To be more specific. Most butterflies hold their wings in this position at rest. Illustrated in 2D it looks “dead” Moths do happen to hold their wings flat and if you look at field guides are usually illustrated this way. People who actually spend time observing butterflies would directly contradict the author’s assertion.

crazydoggers 5y ago
And… immediately downvoted for sharing direct evidence that contradicts the narrative here. The reason field guides show butterflies this way is because that’s how you usually see them. Butterflies hold their wings up most of the time, not flat as the author suggests. So when illustrated in 2D you see the wings looking “dead”. Or you know… all the scientists and naturalists are just wrong and this artist is right. Edit: The reason this article is troublesome is because it’s another case of spreading misinformation. If I were going to post a long article about butterfly physiology (which is basically what this purports to be) I would first do research. I’d take the hypotheses “butterflies are illustrated wrong” and see where the current data stands. If I found the data wanting, I’d at least couch the argument along the lines of “the current data is u unconvincing, so here’s my theory” Instead the author cherry picked images that support her narrative, and failed to do any research on the subject, going so far as to say “In field guides and other butterfly reference materials, one frequently sees images of such pinned butterflies because, I presume, it is easy to photograph a dead butterfly” when actually the images have been drawn from live butterflies. She then states this whole thing as fact rather than what it is, her conjecture (which when put to scrutiny can be shown false) Now this is a simple article about butterflies, so isn’t really a big deal. The problem lies when this same behavior and thinking deals with subjects that are especially important like climate change, vaccines, etc. This is where misinformation starts. In this case Facebook, Twitter, etc could amplify “butterflies are illustrated wrong” just like they amplify “vaccines are bad” and “climate change isn’t real”.
Graffur 5y ago
Yeah - the author and the responses here seem to want to rewrite facts. I mean.. we've all seen butterflies haven't we? We know they look like the artists depiction of them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ragazzina 5y ago
Your pictures confirm what the author says. In a real butterfly resting, the trailing edge of the forewings is not perpendicular to the body’s axis.
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  From the article: > it is the leading edge of the forewings that is nearly perpendicular to the body. … but it’s atypical for the trailing edge of the forewings to be perpendicular to the body Look closely at the photos and you will see that the leading edge of the forewings is nowhere near perpendicular and the trailing edge is nearly perpendicular (much more so than the leading edge)… in direct contradiction of the above authors statement.

crazydoggers 5y ago

And… immediately downvoted for sharing direct evidence that contradicts the narrative here. The reason field guides show butterflies this way is because that’s how you usually see them. Butterflies hold their wings up most of the time, not flat as the author suggests. So when illustrated in 2D you see the wings looking “dead”. Or you know… all the scientists and naturalists are just wrong and this artist is right. Edit: The reason this article is troublesome is because it’s another case of spreading misinformation. If I were going to post a long article about butterfly physiology (which is basically what this purports to be) I would first do research. I’d take the hypotheses “butterflies are illustrated wrong” and see where the current data stands. If I found the data wanting, I’d at least couch the argument along the lines of “the current data is u unconvincing, so here’s my theory” Instead the author cherry picked images that support her narrative, and failed to do any research on the subject, going so far as to say “In field guides and other butterfly reference materials, one frequently sees images of such pinned butterflies because, I presume, it is easy to photograph a dead butterfly” when actually the images have been drawn from live butterflies. She then states this whole thing as fact rather than what it is, her conjecture (which when put to scrutiny can be shown false) Now this is a simple article about butterflies, so isn’t really a big deal. The problem lies when this same behavior and thinking deals with subjects that are especially important like climate change, vaccines, etc. This is where misinformation starts. In this case Facebook, Twitter, etc could amplify “butterflies are illustrated wrong” just like they amplify “vaccines are bad” and “climate change isn’t real”.

Graffur 5y ago

Yeah - the author and the responses here seem to want to rewrite facts. I mean.. we've all seen butterflies haven't we? We know they look like the artists depiction of them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ragazzina 5y ago

Your pictures confirm what the author says. In a real butterfly resting, the trailing edge of the forewings is not perpendicular to the body’s axis.

crazydoggers 5y ago
From the article: > it is the leading edge of the forewings that is nearly perpendicular to the body. … but it’s atypical for the trailing edge of the forewings to be perpendicular to the body Look closely at the photos and you will see that the leading edge of the forewings is nowhere near perpendicular and the trailing edge is nearly perpendicular (much more so than the leading edge)… in direct contradiction of the above authors statement.