Some researchers reject the idea of using only high definition pictures for species description but, at least in my case, I find that high definition pictures provides more nformation than most of the drawings and, of course, do not depend on the researcher´s artistic talent.
It also depends on the quality of photographs in the old days specialists were employed with amazing skills, now often employed in marketing departments, now anyone with a camera is expected to be able to take photographs. Modern innovations like focus stacking and high dynamic range imaging bring the world of high resolution imaging to scientists but you still have to know what you are doing or know someone who can take photographs for you see examples in BIoimages 2021 https://bioimages.bca.org/BioImages-Winners-2021-All-Categories
Hello Julian; In support of what David said, I would recommend looking at the images at AntWeb.org
The automontage software creates images that are simply exquisite. I use them all the time and many ant systematics publications rely on these photos. Drawings based on such images allow the author to emphasize the traits being used. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers
The question by julián Baigorria testifies that he is not a true researcher, because each specialist knows better than all others, which illustration is the most expedient in the given case - either a photo, or a drawing, or a scheme. For people who have not reach such knowledge, I strongly suggest not to describe new species.
Thanks David and James! Wich automontage software would you recommend?
Personally I use HeliconSoft for focus stacking, ON1 for panoramas and PTGui, HDR I Use PhotomatixPro though can also do this in ON1.
It depends very much on the new species you are about to describe, and whether you describe in the macroscopic or microscopic ranges, and whether you have to describe internal or external structures. For descriptions in the macroscopic range, stacking software is most convenient, because you may convey all the useful information in a single picture, whereas the user of a binocular has to turn around his specimen many times to verify its identity with the stacked one.
However, if you need to illustrate microscopic features, such as for example the setation on maxillae of Baetidae or Heptageniidae (Ephemeroptera), you are bound to bidimensional aspects (unless you use SEM), and here, drawings amount very much to the same as photographs (you may even change your colour photographs into black and white drawings by software).
Good drawings (there are unfortunately a lot of bad ones, as there are also bad photographs in the field) are not necessarily artistic, but rather informative: accurate drawings show precisely the distinguishing aspects, easily perceived by an expert human eye, but often much harder to convey by photographs, where they necessitate the use of arrows.
The important feature in describing new species is always this: is anyone else, observing the same new species as you yourself, able to identify it in a non ambiguous way on the basis of your illustrations and not necessarily with the same optical means you have used to produce them? If your illustrative apparatus is very sophisticated, and being the only one to allow the identification of your species and is not reproducible with a different equipment, you would have to validate this as a principle for the whole range of your family, order or genus, and argue why this is so.
As a principle, you should use, whenever possible, illustrations (whatever their source) that are verifiable by anyone else examining the same or similar material. Images produced by stacking software do not always comply with this principle, and should not be used in the magnification ranges of 50x to 100x, where they often produce artificial images not corresponding to what you can actually observe on physical specimens. The photographs you provide for a new species should, as a rule, reproduce exactly the features any other researcher might be able to observe under his own microscopic equipment.
It seems to me that everything has already been said, difficult to add anything. I believe that it is not necessary to have prejudices for one or the other technique, but to evaluate with knowledge which technique is more effective for the description and more responsive to the purpose of the publication of new species, as Jean-Paul wisely suggests. In some cases I do not exclude that both imaging techniques can coexist, so that one technique integrates the limits of the other and vice versa.
About the quality of the drawings, I am observing (at least as far as Italy is concerned) a progressive abandonment of manual skills in many fields, therefore also in manual drawing, probably due to the widespread use of electronic tools and software; my prediction is that in the future there will be fewer and fewer designers skilled at making scientific illustrations.
We agree that the task of scientific illustration is to describe with precision and objectivity: as a vector supporting the written text, it must leave no doubt, it contributes to the transmission of knowledge. However, I believe a scientific drawing should never be an ordinary drawing because it must "only" communicate a description, rather I hope that the tradition of the admirable drawings made by biologists of the past will be renewed.
Thanks Massimo! I personally prefer always a combination of both, but as you pointed out, drawings should be of good quality and, if I have to choose between a decent photograph and poor drawing I will go for the photograph. As I said before I prefer photos and drawings, but I wouldn't reject a paper based only in photographs, if they meet the standards of a scientist description
Yes, a combination of both when possible, drawings to facilitate the study of specific structures (e.g. embolus or epigyne of spider genitalia) and photographs to show all available characteristics (e.g. integument structure).
BTW, while one colleague in this thread may consider your question silly, you handled yourself well. Keep going.
As an historical note The objectivity of photography has been utilised since its early application to science (Koch R 1886). Its critical role in the development of medicine and technology has been recognised;
"In the 1850's a number of physicians were discussing the possibility of using photographs in medicine as an objective
record, to eliminate arguments engendered by conflicts between different subjective evaluations of disease phenomena."
Koch R. (1886) On the investigation of pathogenic organisms. In: Cheyne WW. ed. Recent essays by various authors on bacteria in relation to disease. London: New Sydenham Society; 18-25. (21) [Translation from original article in 1881]
I completely agree with your opinion. I feel in many cases high definition pictures give more clarity on certain features of the specimen compared to the outlines of the same!
I believe that the answer to this question is also other questions .... how much information do you want to provide? what is an artistic illustration? Do I need artistic skills for a good illustration? What is the cost of a high quality photograph? ...and more importantly, what is the maximum resolution in pixels that a journal admits (the quality of a good image will partly depend on this).
Drawing has been used since ancient times. But the author of the article must have a good command of the technique - technical drawing. I know works where you can hardly understand what is actually drawn. Now in the age of digital photography, this is easier to do. Journals accept drawings in color, for a person who first encounters an identification problem - for example, a species. It is easy to understand where important diagnostic signs are located. I prefer - photography
In my opinion photographs aren´t better than drawings or vice versa. They are different approaches, each of them with their advantages or limitations. The use of one or another should depend in what the authors want to show and emphasize of a taxon. A good line drawing can be quite schematic and can show clearly structures than could be obscured in a photograph (such as the internal structures of a nematode, in the case of the group that I work on). On the other hand, a good photograph could be excellent in order to show colors and the habitus of some groups (Coleoptera and Lepidoptera, for example).
So, instead of weigh both techniques we should use them accordingly our goals.
When I was working as a laboratory technician doing insect identification for ecology work, a combination of photos and illustrations was of course the best but often photos alone would be difficult for parsing the specific structural differences that were referred to in keys. In particular, the curvature of a line or chaetotaxy can often get lost in a photo where it is more clear in a line illustration. I often ended up drawing my own little illustrations in the margins of my books and on sticky notes to make keying faster and more efficient since I would often be identifying a great many specimens in a given project.
For single species descriptions, maybe it isn't as important but when showing differences for identification purposes, schematic illustrations are often incredibly useful, especially for people who are not necessarily taxonomists.
I believe a combination of both is the best, but this also depends a lot on the group you are studying. In my case, with Diptera, a good photograph can show you a lot of structures and give you a real-life view of what you are looking at, and at the same time (especially with genitalia) you cannot see small, and often transparent structures even with a really good photography setup.
When you are working with slides and permanent preparations, you often need to look at different fields of view to see different structures, and when you try to take several pictures to do a Z-Stack, you actually lose visibility of some structures with a high-resolution picture, that's when the drawings and illustrations become important, you can highlight what you want to highlight (something you will not achieve with a picture).
But as many mentioned before, it depends a lot on your skills, costs, taxonomical group, etc..
