Are you a specialist or a generalist?

[mamestraconfigurata]

I did one. 40 minutes work, and only a tentative id!

[botanicaltreasures]

Thanks so much! Glad you liked the camel. Yes, I’m eager to learn more about bryophytes–wonderful plants!

[robotpie]

I feel like I am both somewhat? I am generalist in the sense that my observations and identifications cover a wide range of taxa, but I am specialist in the sense that I have preference towards making Lepidoptera observations and largest proportion of my identifications are Lepidoptera within Hong Kong.

[cryptidhunter]

A generalist, I like making observations of as many animals I can. That being said, I do prefer to make observations of animals over plants and fungi.

[brentturcotte]

I am very much a generalist and have field guides on just about everything. This winter I have specialized in lichens (along with a few other fungi) because I am more likely to get lifers there than anywhere else in a Canadian winter. Mosses have the potential for a lot of lifers right now but I find them harder and less interesting than lichens. A microscope could spark more interest in mosses, but I won’t be getting one for years.

[teawren]

Always a generalist and very much a Key.
The only one of the major 11 filterable taxa with no observations is Ray-finned Fishes. Surprisingly, I do have that one covered with an ID.
Insects are my current favourite as there is just so much still to learn.

I remember when I was much younger, and had no clue what I wanted to be when I grew up, I took a test which was supposed to clarify where my interests and/or aptitudes rested, mechanical, spatial, linguistics, etc. Unfortunately the results were inconclusive as I tested positive in each area.

[Thunderhead]

My problem with those tests was the results varied by day and attitude. The consistency was easy for me to see through the results: artist, forester, farmer, animal care; so far nothing requiring excess humans! And I still don’t have a clue what I want to be whenever I finally grow up!

[cadej]

From this question, I conclude that specialization (particularly of the self-declared type) is fractal: the more specialized one is, the more one is likely to identify any lesser degree of specialization as “generalist”. One biologist is a zoologist and another specializes in botany. One botanist is an arbolist while another studies the ferns. etc. OP is a “generalist” of the Pterygota in some degree while I am a generalist of the animal-vegetable-mineral sort. :/

[JKT]

Do you operate in Europe as well? I can’t recall seeing your name, but Bob Borth drops in on pretty much every Catocala I recall.

[JKT]

I suppose I’m a specialist in both IDs and observations. I ID only adult Lepidoptera. I used to cover whole Europe, but I’ve dropped down to Finland and Macaronesia lately. IDs outside of those areas are usually some corrections for obviously incorrect IDs going for upper level from incorrect species. As far as observations go, I do also other groups … if and only if I can’t find Lepidoptera to photograph.

[rayray]

I don’t know Eurasian Catocala very well at all. If I can’t tell nupta from elocata then I know to let Bob take care of those ID’s as he is a major authority on the genus worldwide.

[mamestraconfigurata]

I live in Winnipeg. Canada is indeed a tough place to get “Lifers” (or anything new) in winter. Still not finished here. The damned geese are back though!

[JKT]

If the hindwings are hidden … I don’t blame you!

[jnstuart]

In general, I’m a specialist, except when I’m specializing in being a generalist. Actually hard to say, I go through phases where I specialize before moving on to something else and then back again.

[brentturcotte]

I think I fared well with the ten lifers I got this winter. It took quite a bit of effort though.

[bobmcd]

I’m pretty much a generalist . My focus has been birds, wasps and bees, and marine invertebrates - this varies on seasons and what lens I have on my camera.

As I have been looking at wasps and bees I find I am interested in pollinators and then it becomes broader because then there are flies and moths and, and, and… now I want to know what plants are attracting them so that I can observe more of the less observed.

With the birds, all of a sudden you are seeing the mammals and other chordates - (seems that if you want to see all of the mammals, try going on a birding trip). Then I want to explore more ecosystems so that I can be exposed to more.

With marine invertebrates it has been a great chance to explore species that are poorly observed or described - nothing like standing on a dock with a flashlight on a cold and windy night waiting for something to show up when a seal or otter sneaks up behind you and snorts. Just the richness of littoral zone of the seashore with its overwhelming diversity makes only looking at the invertebrates too limited so now I am looking at chordates and seaweeds.

Then there is the whole exploration of the Great Unknown and Conflicting Kingdoms => State of matter Life.

[Smschnerremd]

I’ve been described ( in an INat comment) as a “specializing” in identifying unknowns. I call myself Doctor Dicot because most of the unknowns in my area are plants and the best I can get most of them identified to is dicots LOL.

[Smschnerremd]

So true !

[Ajott]

I totally agree. It always depends on how you focus and I actually think most people are both…

I myself for sure am. The specialist-part is focussed around spiders and a lot of my IDs are arachnids… sometimes down to species, sometimes more general.
I have some elected species (spiders and some others) that I am very comfortable identifying and I did a lot of those.
Then I am also very comfortable to ID arthropod families especially in Europe, which is a more general work.
I also often specialize in a certain region where I am currently at and ID the observatios from there more often which helps learning and sharpening new ID skills.