And… immediately downvoted for sharing direct evidence that contradicts the narrative here. The reason field guides show butterflies this way is because that’s

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”.