Genius of the Press, v. IV

Another installment of Genius of the Press, and perhaps a bit of a softball. (Yikes these are easy to find)  Who can tell me whats wrong with this article?

4 comments to Genius of the Press, v. IV

  • Well, I’m no moth expert, but that picture is not Copitarsia or any other noctuid.

    Moreover, “the Noctuid Moth”? As if Copitarsia is the only representative of this humongous family – what are there, several tens of thousands of species?

  • Maurizio Bollino

    The picture figures a Brahmaeidae!!!!

  • Exactly! Maurizio hit the nail on the head with the correct family ID for the moth, it is most likely Brahmaea hearseyi (Brahmaeidae), which is closely related to a silk moth. Not only is the family way off, but these moths are from Malaysia.

    Ted pointed out another important fact. A “Noctuid” moth is a type of moth, not one species (one of tens of thousands). The way they worded the article was painful… “the Noctuid moth”!

    Another example of ridiculously bad science journalism.

  • Australia’s population of fire ants are always appearing in the press, and I’ve lost count of the number of times I have seen other families of ant depicted. Can’t be that hard to find a genuine Solenopsis pic…

    Apart from that…I just wanted to say what a stunning moth that is. Not seen one before.

    (Oh… and nice blog!)