5 thoughts on “And now, for your amusement…”

  1. I guess it could be much worse. The most appalling part is that in one picture Formica is IDed correctly, and then almost the exact same species gets labelled fire ant in the next. However, the use of dolichoderine profiles to illustrate characteristics on the formicine part of the key also hurts to look at.

  2. For all the technical terms they throw down–in a weird mish-mash of non-technical and incorrect terms–that taxonomy fail front and center of page two really is quite a remarkable addition.
    Thanks for sharing! Brightened up this fine, late evening.

    1. Ok, ok. And honestly, I love that the authors used just the common name adjectives when giving names. (How often does one see “Crazy” and “False Honey” used as nouns, side-by-side none-the-less? I mean, really. “I’m not sure if I have a Ghost or an Odorous House!”)

  3. This is amazing. I’m going to have to rethink my understanding of the classification of ants. If there’s only 21 species in North America, a lot of names will go into synonymy. For example, Dolichoderus appears to be a synonym of Lasius.

Leave a Reply