• qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah I always assumed “bug” was like “vegetable” — it’s a colloquial, not taxonomic, term. But there are “true bugs” so maybe the analogy isn’t completely sound.

      (And tomato is absolutely a vegetable.)

    • Lizardking27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’m sorry but you’re simply incorrect.

      Bug is a technical term. Only insects of order Hemiptera, categorized by the ability to fly and the presence of piercing, sucking mouth parts, are considered true bugs.

      Lobsters are certainly not considered bugs.

      • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m sorry but you’re simply incorrect. Bug can be a technical term, but that doesn’t also preclude it from also being a non-technical term, because words often have more than one meaning. See also: theory.

      • Squirrel@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Merriam-Webster, definition 1:

        a: any of an order (Hemiptera and especially its suborder Heteroptera) of insects (such as an assassin bug or chinch bug) that have sucking mouthparts, forewings thickened at the base, and incomplete metamorphosis and are often economic pests

        called also true bug

        b: any of various small arthropods (such as a beetle or spider) resembling the true bugs

        c: any of several insects (such as a head louse) commonly considered obnoxious

        • Lizardking27@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          6 months ago

          “a: any of an order (Hemiptera and especially its suborder Heteroptera) of insects (such as an assassin bug or chinch bug) that have sucking mouthparts, forewings thickened at the base, and incomplete metamorphosis and are often economic pests”

          This is the primary and most correct definition of bug.

          Yes, people use it wrong. That doesn’t change the definition of the word.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The scientific taxonomic system was made, in part, because traditional colloquial terms are a mess. For example, “daddy longlegs” refers to a type of spider in my area, but there are two other animals and three plants that it could refer to depending on where you grew up. Taxonomists saw that there are ten different standards, decided to make a new one to replace them all, and for once, it actually worked out for the most part.

        “Bug” is one of those old terms. It might have been mapped post hoc on top of the modern taxonomic system, but it didn’t start that way, and isn’t always used that way. I wouldn’t expect an entomologist to use the term at all in formal contexts.

      • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        But commonly it’s a catch all for any creepy crawly, including arachnid. The classification is even called True Bug, not just Bug

    • Squirrel@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      But they wanted to feel smugly superior! Poor fella can’t even be pedantic properly…

  • chetradley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    6 months ago

    The number one rule for pedants is: if you’re going to be pedantic, you’d damn well better be correct.

  • mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I’m not a scientist, but I’m the kind of person to keep black widows as pets and create a website that catalogues all the spiders in my area. I’d allow spiders being called bugs, or even insects. Even poisonous is alright but it does hurt a little.

    • Endmaker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      6 months ago

      create a website that catalogues all the spiders in my area

      You are a web developer looking for other web developers ;)

      • mhague@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        It was a Google site (from years ago) so all that’s left is a random archive somewhere. I had all the local spiders+favorites, but the only original content were pictures of Latrodectus and Kukulkania Hibernalis. Beautiful spiders.

    • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Are some spiders poisonous? Are all animals that are venomous also poisonous? Also I’d like to say that there is no linguistic difference between the two in some languages. There is no distinction between the two in German for instance. It’s either giftig or it isn’t.

      • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        None that I know of. I think the OC was just mocking a bit on how some people can get so bent out of shape when the word is used colloquially.

        • Username@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Funnily there is also the word “Mitgift” (Dowry) that has nothing to do with poison at all and is closer to the english “gift”.

        • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Same root though. In Dutch it wasn’t differentiated until recently so the same word has vastly different meanings between Afrikaans and Dutch. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/gifte#Middle_Low_German

          Original meaning seems to be something that was given. So a snake would gift you Poison just like snot nosed brats would gift you a cold during Thanksgiving dinner.

          Same meaning as dose in that sense. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/dosis#Latin

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            The word has been used as a euphemism for “poison” since Old High German, a semantic loan from Late Latin dosis (“dose”), from Ancient Greek δόσις (dósis, “gift; dose of medicine”).

            I wondered how the heck it got that meaning. Pretty strange to apply a term for giving something in general to poison specifically.

      • MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        There is a distinction to make. For example some snake venom is not poisonous when traveling through your digestive system, and only becomes a problem when it enters the blood stream (usually from a bite).

        • mhague@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          I don’t think it matters in most contexts. When people are casually talking about it, venomous and poisonous are both stand-ins for “it has venom.” They’re not telling other people, “actually, don’t eat spiders.” I was just joking about the classic pedant line about spiders.

          But it does make a difference on paper. I’m curious how you would express this in German: A black widow is venomous and in theory a healthy human can eat a dead black widow with no ill effects.

            • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              Thanks, I didn’t realize the server instance I log in with, could do seamless censorship on the fly like that for content it doesn’t even host. Does that mean there is lemmy content I’m just not seeing ? That’s unacceptable.

              • joenforcer@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Yep. If your instance defederates from certain instances that others don’t defederate from, you won’t see comments from those defederated servers that others might still be able to see and interact with. This is the curse of a decentralized system where every node can make up their own rules.

                • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Can I just run my own single user lemmy server instead ? Why do I even need a third party to manipulate my digital world view ? Will I get autobanned from everywhere for being too small ?

  • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago
    1. there is no scientific definition of “bug”. the entire category is a social construct much like vegetables
    2. this person’s first sentence defined spiderd as insects and the second sentence said they weren’t
  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 months ago

    A retort in three parts;

    1. It’s bugs (colloquial), not Bugs (texanomic),

    2. There’s being pedantic and then there’s being a jackass - that’s you, jackass, and

    3. @eat_roadkill should embrace their name and go chow down on a three-day-dead skunk.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, I’m pretty sure taxonomy is in latin because actual scientists got tired of dealing with pedantic dipshits.

      “Bug” is an english word so it’s the domain of an etymologist not a biolgist. My lookup of the word indicates applying “bug” to arachnids is perfectly cromulent.

  • azi@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    Anyone know what the first known case of ‘bug’ exclusively referring to Hemipterans/Heteropterans? The first use of bug being applied to arthropods was in the 1620s in reference to bedbugs (in Hemiptera but not Heteroptera) with the term ladybug (not in Hemiptera) first attested in the 1690s. Both predate Linnean taxonomy. So why and when did entomologists decide to coin this highly restrictive definition? It’s a very English-language term so it surely wasn’t when the taxon was created by Linnaeus.

    • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      My bio professor basically admitted to us that a lot of that pedantry is pure smugness and nobody cares. Further still, all those names are so complicated because scientists love to try to one up each other on difficult to pronounce and needlessly long latin names.