Insect Taxonomic FAIL

[Kai]

1. CSPI writes an alarmist press release about cochineal, which suggests not only are there insects in your food, but dangerous insects!  They call for a ban, and as a bonus make a rather huge taxonomic error with a scarab beetle photo.

2. A New York Times writer picks up on the press release, and uses it in her NYT wellness blog.  And repeats the taxonomic mistakes and general tone of OMGBUGZ.  She does at least correct the taxonomic error when it's pointed out, and removes the beetle photo.

3. Scientific American prints the CSPI news release (with offending photo) almost verbatim, and even ADDS several alarmist comments about OMGBUGZ-IN-URFOODS. As a garnish, they called cochineal "beetle juice" and the scale insects "cochineal beetles."

4. A whole bunch of other media outlets screw it up with even new and different photos.

More fail in the rest of the article: http://membracid.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/breaking-fail-news-scientific-american/

[Kai]

Just a note to the people at SciAm and CSPI

These are Cochineal scales. Yes, the white spots on the cactus. They are in the Order Hemiptera, the true bugs:



This is the insect you CALLED a Cochineal scale, a scarab beetle, Order Coleoptera, the BEETLES:



...


HOW MUCH MORE FUCKING FAIL THAN THAT CAN YOU GET?!?!

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

This is a real eye-opener on "science news" sites.

[Kai]

This is a real eye-opener on "science news" sites.

The worst part is that its SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Its supposed to be at the same level of professionalism as Natural History, one step below peer review. This is the sort of shit you expect from newspapers. 

[Vene]

 
I may not have much of any taxonomic training, but how bad do you have to fuck up to not even get the right ORDER!  I'm ignoring the alarmist part because it just makes me depressed and even more pissed.

[Elder Iptuous]

This only further cements in my mind my growing gripe with SciAm....
I have had a subscription to that magazine since i was a wee lad of about 12 or 13 years old.  i was attracted to it because of the scholarly feel of it.  the cover was white with simple black title and a small, non-flashy illustration.  the contents were of a moderately sophisticated technical nature not intended to be digested by joe six-pack, and very level headed.
Now, it seems to have slowly morphed into a form like any other popsci magazine with gaudy cover that illustrates something not at all like what is being discussed, and dumbed down articles, etc.....
it makes me sad...
i was actually going to post as a question to other science type spags what they recommend in replacement. 
i take it Nature is the alternative, eh?

[Kai]

This only further cements in my mind my growing gripe with SciAm....
I have had a subscription to that magazine since i was a wee lad of about 12 or 13 years old.  i was attracted to it because of the scholarly feel of it.  the cover was white with simple black title and a small, non-flashy illustration.  the contents were of a moderately sophisticated technical nature not intended to be digested by joe six-pack, and very level headed.
Now, it seems to have slowly morphed into a form like any other popsci magazine with gaudy cover that illustrates something not at all like what is being discussed, and dumbed down articles, etc.....
it makes me sad...
i was actually going to post as a question to other science type spags what they recommend in replacement. 
i take it Nature is the alternative, eh?

Science Journal. Srsly. Peer reviewed, loads of interesting stuff from all sorts of topics, and the most prestigious and widely read scientific journal on the planet. It doesn't get in there unless its widely relevant, so you get the most fundamental things in science being discussed at high level in current research and actual journal articles, which is what does it for me. Theres also science news which is a weekly publication published by Science Journal that is short and not peer reviewed but has the level of quality you'd expect from a 'Natural History' type science magazine.

I can recommend other ones that I read in biology and entomology but I don't know how well those would fit to your interests.

If you're looking for something NON peer reviewed, Natural History is still good (I think, not sure on that; since Gould stopped writing articles its quality may have gone down).

[Elder Iptuous]

Science Journal. Srsly. Peer reviewed, loads of interesting stuff from all sorts of topics, and the most prestigious and widely read scientific journal on the planet. It doesn't get in there unless its widely relevant, so you get the most fundamental things in science being discussed at high level in current research and actual journal articles, which is what does it for me. Theres also science news which is a weekly publication published by Science Journal that is short and not peer reviewed but has the level of quality you'd expect from a 'Natural History' type science magazine.
I can recommend other ones that I read in biology and entomology but I don't know how well those would fit to your interests.
If you're looking for something NON peer reviewed, Natural History is still good (I think, not sure on that; since Gould stopped writing articles its quality may have gone down).

Thx, man. I will definitely check it out.

[Template]

This only further cements in my mind my growing gripe with SciAm....
I have had a subscription to that magazine since i was a wee lad of about 12 or 13 years old.  i was attracted to it because of the scholarly feel of it.  the cover was white with simple black title and a small, non-flashy illustration.  the contents were of a moderately sophisticated technical nature not intended to be digested by joe six-pack, and very level headed.
Now, it seems to have slowly morphed into a form like any other popsci magazine with gaudy cover that illustrates something not at all like what is being discussed, and dumbed down articles, etc.....
it makes me sad...
i was actually going to post as a question to other science type spags what they recommend in replacement. 
i take it Nature is the alternative, eh?

I remember reading old SciAm.  The magazines were from the 60s, and old when I found and read them (huge page format, with only one color other than black on most pages), but they rocked.  Do you miss "The Amateur Scientist"?  There's an archive available, though I never got around to buying it.  I like MAKE, but the cheapskate in me avoids buying it regularly.

Imagine this level of fuck-up in a "The Amateur Scientist" article.   

[Kai]

This only further cements in my mind my growing gripe with SciAm....
I have had a subscription to that magazine since i was a wee lad of about 12 or 13 years old.  i was attracted to it because of the scholarly feel of it.  the cover was white with simple black title and a small, non-flashy illustration.  the contents were of a moderately sophisticated technical nature not intended to be digested by joe six-pack, and very level headed.
Now, it seems to have slowly morphed into a form like any other popsci magazine with gaudy cover that illustrates something not at all like what is being discussed, and dumbed down articles, etc.....
it makes me sad...
i was actually going to post as a question to other science type spags what they recommend in replacement. 
i take it Nature is the alternative, eh?

I remember reading old SciAm.  The magazines were from the 60s, and old when I found and read them (huge page format, with only one color other than black on most pages), but they rocked.  Do you miss "The Amateur Scientist"?  There's an archive available, though I never got around to buying it.  I like MAKE, but the cheapskate in me avoids buying it regularly.

Imagine this level of fuck-up in a "The Amateur Scientist" article.   

Edit: Yes, The Amateur Scientist was a column in Scientific American, not a science magazine. Yes, you mentioned Nature way back at the top, and not just now, and yes its peer reviewed. 

Kai,

Horribly embarrassed.

[Requia ☣]

Scientific American is horrible for accuracy for anything in biology and anthropology in my experience.

[Template]

Scientific American is horrible for accuracy for anything in biology and anthropology in my experience.

What segment of SciAm's run are you talking about?  I don't read new ones anymore.  The old B+W+one color ones were purty.

Edit: I didn't read that right the first time.  Now I believe you.

[willem]

Reminds me of a few old stories.. I don't remember any names (bad memory), but Kai might.


One philosopher wanted to prove the poor quality of the magazines of another philosophic stream and sent in a bullshit article under a false name, which got published.

Then the one about the computer-generated text which got selected for a scientific convention.


My personal favorite, showing how easily it is to scare people with things they don't understand: The dangerous chemical DHMO.

[Cain]

Sounds similar to Alan Sokal, a physicist who wrote some gibberish and sent it in to Social Text.  Who then went on to make his own amusing error by concluding this proved all post-structuralism was bunk, and not just the editors of Social Text, who admittedly were idiots.

[willem]

Sounds similar to Alan Sokal, a physicist who wrote some gibberish and sent it in to Social Text.  Who then went on to make his own amusing error by concluding this proved all post-structuralism was bunk, and not just the editors of Social Text, who admittedly were idiots.

That must've been it. ^^ Ugh. Two years since 'Philosophy of Science', and I already forgot everything. That's one unhappy prof if he finds out. :P