AoBBlog asks the crucial questions: "what to call scientific binomials". Seems like they've come down in favour of "scientific name" rather than "Latin name". I'm fine with that, as long as people at least try to provide that name, rather than so-called "common" names. I've [ranted about that before](https://www.jeremycherfas.net/blog/i-love-latin), and doubtless will again. All we have to do now is to teach the world that scientific names are [strong proper names](https://www.jeremycherfas.net/blog/eagles-point-the-way)

I didn't understand all of this, but I can celebrate the conclusion.

Via Trivium http://chneukirchen.org/trivium/2017-02-27

> People sometimes ask me what the best method of preserving their pictures is, and my somewhat flip but I believe trenchant answer is, "be famous."

The idea that things are worthless or, worse, actually cost money to hang onto, means things that might be of value some day get discarded. Mike says craftsmanship will also help preserve things, including photographs, but the other thing you need is space, and preferably a permanent home.

It makes me sad to think that so many of us come to see this kind of food paradise as something threatening, full of foods we mustn’t eat and joys to be avoided.

Me too

Good piece pointing out that science writers are not doing the job some people think they ought to be doing. But maybe they're doing precisely the job their editors want them to do? This is nothing new, but it is good to be reminded from time to time. Does anyone upbraid movie critics for parroting a studio's hype?