<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/13/21 12:44 PM, Samuel Bolton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAA+BUfSXHAcd+7Z4Ou2GQy6_wqb-SH+yfL7zvvajRhypbhbAWg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt
0.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i>Doug
Yanega: </i>For example,
almost any group of organisms that is traditionally stored in
liquid or on
microscope slides is pretty certainly going to be unsuitable
for application of
3D imaging</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in
8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">I
must completely disagree with this, especially for freshly
collected specimens. High quality 3D models can be generated
from slide mounted
specimens. Confocal microscopy is a good tool for this.
Admittedly, for older
specimens it is trickier but certainly not impossible. And I
feel confident
that advances will be made in this field. I am not sure why
you think that specimens
stored in liquid cannot be used to generate 3D models.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's a matter of practicality (and probability). A fair
proportion of extant invertebrate holotypes stored in liquid are
too delicate to remove from their containers, and taking images of
the specimens while still in their containers is difficult enough
with regular photographic tools (dealing with image distortion,
movement of fluid, lighting, and other complicating factors) - I
doubt that applying 3D techniques will improve matters
significantly under these circumstances. Many are badly
deteriorated, or bloated, or shriveled. Also, you didn't respond
directly to the basic point I made about comparability, perhaps
because I wasn't quite as explicit as I could have been in the
following way: if a type specimen is preserved in a manner
different from specimens that you want to compare to it, or if it
is in poor condition, then a 3D image of that type will neither
make comparisons easier, nor will it improve your ability to use
the specimen as a point of reference given its condition. This is
<b>far more likely</b> to be true for specimens stored in liquid
or on slides than it is for dry specimens. Just because you can
MAKE a 3D image doesn't mean that image will be significantly more
useful than a regular photo, and if it <b>isn't</b> more useful
than an regular photo, then - for taxonomy - it isn't
cost-effective unless 3D images are as cheap as (or cheaper than)
regular photos. By extension, this applies to ANY species for
which a conventional photo of the type is suitable for taxonomic
work; if a regular photo will do, then you are arguing for
something that isn't <b>needed</b>, nor cost-effective. Sure, if
you have money to burn, then great, but much of taxonomy is a
zero-sum game, where every dollar spent on X means a dollar less
to do Y. Again, I agree that a 3D image of every holotype in
existence would be great, but you haven't, I think, made a
convincing case that 3D images offer a unique benefit that
justifies the extra expense.</p>
<p>If we had wealthy patrons lining up to give millions of dollars
for VEROs, then that money would arguably be better spent hiring
people to process bulk sample backlog from biodiversity hotspots,
and THAT would be the sales pitch we'd want to be making, because
that's the biggest bottleneck in overall species discovery; not
that images of types aren't *A* bottleneck, but that's not where
the most serious impediments lie. Our biggest impediments are
labor for processing, and expertise. If there are no new specimens
to study, you don't need experts, and if you don't have experts,
you don't need type images.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAA+BUfSXHAcd+7Z4Ou2GQy6_wqb-SH+yfL7zvvajRhypbhbAWg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt
27pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i>Doug
Yanega: I won't deny that
I have often longed for nice 3D images of insects, but I've
come to recognize
that such images will probably NEVER be a major tool for the
practice of
taxonomy.</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in
8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">I
don’t buy this argument. Advances in confocal z-stacking,
photogrammetry,
micro-CT, etc. mean that high resolution models of insects can
now be
generated. I admit that for insects, photogrammetry is not
always ideal, but
advances are definitely occurring in this field. I spend a
considerable proportion
of my time looking at confocal 3D models precisely because 2D
(based on DIC or
phase contrast) images just do not cut it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I didn't say that it would never be useful, just that it would
never be a <b>major tool</b>. SEMs were definitely a huge advance
for certain disciplines of taxonomy, but it's not a major tool
used by taxonomists, even now - most campuses I know of have an
SEM facility, and the costs are not outrageous, but even though
the technology is readily accessible, it's still used primarily in
special circumstances or <b>when nothing else will do what is
needed</b>. Likewise, I can't think of many situations where <b>only</b>
a 3D image would serve a taxonomist's purpose. Something that is
only used by a small number of taxonomists <b>could</b> still be
important for those that use it, but it's still a minor part of
the collective taxonomic toolkit.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAA+BUfSXHAcd+7Z4Ou2GQy6_wqb-SH+yfL7zvvajRhypbhbAWg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt
27pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i>Doug
Yanega: Right now, with
few exceptions, one institution can just put a box of
specimens in the mail to
another institution, nearly anywhere in the world, for
little more than the
cost of postage, and no one bats an eye, including our
administrators, even if
it involves thousands of specimens or potentially new
species.</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in
8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">But
this is based on the understanding that specimens need
to be moved around, which is potentially risky when dealing
with type specimens.
It seems better to produce 3D models and share them online.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>"Better" isn't the same as "necessary". Insect specimens on pins
are exceedingly fragile, and no one LIKES to put them in the mail,
but - again - if that's the problem we are looking to solve, then
you need to make the case that 3D images offer something that
regular photos <b>can't</b>. Also, bear in mind that most loans
are of unidentified material, or of synoptic material, and NOT of
holotypes. You can't expect any entomology collection, when asked
to send a loan of 20,000 specimens of taxon X, to take 3D images
of all 20,000 specimens. We are NEVER going to be free of the need
to make loans. <br>
</p>
<p>Even if we limit the discussion to types: as it stands, only a
moderate portion of the world's collections contain more than a
relative handful of primary types, and of those, only a moderate
portion have even been able to provide online access to ANY
digital images of their holdings. Making that process <b>more
expensive</b> and technically more challenging is not going to
speed the process up. The insect collection I manage is the 20th
largest in the US (with some 4 million specimens), and it took us
until 2016 to get money to hire a grad student to take digital
images of our types using an automontage system belonging to their
faculty adviser, who had bought the system on a grant. Failing
that, we would STILL not have any type images online. I really do
get where you're coming from, but when you're fighting an uphill
battle, you look for things that will make the road easier, not
harder.</p>
<p>Peace,<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html">https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html</a>
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82</pre>
</body>
</html>