(Part 2) Best entomology books according to redditors

> In my undergraduate days (thirty years ago!)

<cough> old <cough>

Oh wait, I'm that old too.

> the term "atheist" was understood by those who used it of themselves to be synonymous with gnostic atheism.

Even 10 years ago, well in North America anyway, the number of open vocal atheists was so few in number that the definition of atheism as "a belief that Gods do not exist" (a positive claim having the burden of proof) pushed by so very many more vocal theists overwhelmed the small number of atheist voices. This same strawman is still used by contemporary theists - that atheists are gnostic or strong atheists, that they claim that Gods do not exist, and that atheists have to prove that Gods do not exist.

However, 30-40'ish years ago, there were people that identified the difference between agnostic/soft atheism (non-belief/lack of belief in Gods [due to lack of evidence]) and gnostic/hard atheism (Gods do not exist [positive claim]) - for example Antony Flew in God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1976, reprinted 1984), Flew argued that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. However, since this was a minority view, the distribution of this view was limited.

> While this broadening of the definition has, perhaps, encouraged more people with no particular faith commitment to self-identify as atheists, is there a price to pay for this, with a possible long-term dilution of the term and of its distinctive force?

The differentiation of the broad category of "atheism" into agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism identifies specific positions based upon logic, requirements against meeting the burden of proof, and against the (strawman) presumption of theists.

For those that have not explicitly considered and selected belief in some theistic religion, and associated Gods, the strawman presentation of atheism as "Gods do not exist" as the choice between some theism and atheism leads many to remain with the label of some theism as the "prove God does not exist" argument is a tough one to answer.

Also, this question reeks of anti-atheism bias. Let's change it around and see if this bias can become more apparent.

People that are Roman Catholics and Mormons both still Christians. While this broadening of the definition of Christian has, perhaps, encouraged more people to identify as Christians, is there a price to pay for this, with a possible long-term dilution of the term Christian and of its distinctive force?

Well, call me old-fashioned, so I'm going to recommend hard-copy books for anatomy (I can't give you a recommendation for dissections). But you can't do better than Snodgrass "Principles of Insect Morphology" (http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100570850&fa=author&person_id=1199)
and Chapman "The Insects: Structure & Function" (https://www.amazon.com/Insects-Structure-Function-R-Chapman/dp/052111389X)

In case you want to dig deeper, here's what I studied as a Philosophy major with a focus on Free Will:

The Non-Reality of Free Will - Richard Double

Free Will and Illusion - Saul Smilansky

Living Without Free Will - Derk Pereboom

I'd start with the first one. It lays out all the major arguments about Free Will, then argues that none of them are coherent. It's a good overview on the subject. Not really ELI5 material, but what the hell.

I've been reading this book (http://www.amazon.com/Lyme-Disease-Ecology-Complex-System/dp/0195388127), and so far it implies that tick ecology is much more complex than that, and that deer aren't necessarily the reservoir the disease.

Sorry if my post sounded rude, it was not intentional, I shouldn't post late at night.

I have worked as an entomologist specialising in pollinators in the UK for nearly 10 years, and I have never heard of a bumblebee queen surviving more than one colony life cycle. This is very interesting. I've just had a look through some of my books (this one, this one, and this one) and they all state that bumblebee queens don't survive their colony, the latter book suggesting an average lifespan of about 6 months for Bombus terrestris. Perhaps the longer lifespans which you refer to is something specific to a small number of atypical species found outside of Europe? Somewhere sub-tropical perhaps, where the pressures relating to the onset of winter are not present. Do you know of any specific examples in the literature? I did a quick google search and everything that came up says the same thing: "annual lifecycle" and "old queen dies before winter". However, when I switched to the suggested search "how long do queen bumble bees live", the first result is: "All being well, a honey bee queen could live for 3 to 4 years, as long as she is free from disease. This is much longer than bumblebee queens or the solitary bee species." So perhaps you saw the 3-4 years bit (which was bolded) and understandably thought that it referred to the organism you were actually searching about?

I think perhaps your experience as a honeybee keeper has confused our conversation a bit. I suspect we are each more familiar a different type of bee! Although I am working on a honeybee project at the moment which is rectifying the gap in my knowledge :)

Despite the leftie Juan plays on Fox news, I read his book Enough and he is more conservative than he portrays himself. This interview reminds me of that book.

http://www.amazon.com/Enough-Dead-End-Movements-Undermining-America/dp/030733824X

3 is definitely a zebra swallowtail (E. protesilaus)

5 is a morpho of some type, but not sure which.

I could probably figure them all out if I had my field guides with me. Not sure about texts to recommend but I knew someone with this who recommended it.