[QUOTE=GuanoLad]
Tickets sell out within hours of them being made available. It’s one of those shows that are as popular as a concert.
[/QUOTE]
Not “sell”; they’re free and - like you said - pretty hard to get because it’s such a popular show. The Applause Store allocates the tickets; one can apply through the website and then wait for them to never get back to you.
…I get to go to next Monday and Tuesday’s recordings. 
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I
The problem only arises if people mistakenly think all descriptive terms work in the same way. Which of course they simply don’t.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s exactly the “way to think” I was talking about.
-FrL-
Thanks, Frylock, for seeing another possible way of thought. OK, let’s put it another way, from the, “a Moth doesn’t eat your clothes”, meaning an adult flying Moth. Nope, that form doesn’t, but it does surely prove a problem when it lays eggs that hatch into young that do devour your clothes.So, observation of the adults around your closets is important in avoiding the larva from eating clothes. Back in the day, that was an important enough observation that it coined the word, from my above early definition.
The larva does the damage, but, an astute person would avoid that damage by understanding the lifecycle of the moth, and avoiding that from the adult laying eggs in the first place.
So, if we accept the contention that “moth” means the adult creature, is there a term that can be used to describe it throughout it’s life?
Also, is there a generic term that describes the adult form of various insects? Insert the missing word in the life cycle below:
egg -> larva -> pupa -> ???
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
So, if we accept the contention that “moth” means the adult creature, is there a term that can be used to describe it throughout it’s life?
[/quote]
Not that I can think of off hand. Of course, there is also no term that can be used to describe a chicken or a frog throughout its life either.
The technical term is imago.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
So, if we accept the contention that “moth” means the adult creature, is there a term that can be used to describe it throughout it’s life?
Also, is there a generic term that describes the adult form of various insects? Insert the missing word in the life cycle below:
egg -> larva -> pupa -> ???
[/QUOTE]
As Colibri says, no, not much. As I’ve said here, I see insects as being viewed as beings in their lifecycle. But, I do wonder if there is precedent in the Amphibians with their lifecycle. Are the differences seen with that change comparable to insect morphing?
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
So, if we accept the contention that “moth” means the adult creature, is there a term that can be used to describe it throughout it’s life?
[/QUOTE]
Moths are a much more taxonomically diverse category than butterflies, but there is the collective term Heterocera - although there’s a fair bit of argument about whether it’s a useful term at all.
It’s a bit like wanting a term for all mammals that aren’t giraffes.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
Not that I can think of off hand. Of course, there is also no term that can be used to describe a chicken or a frog throughout its life either.
[/quote]
Isn’t there? Consider a bird that has only just emerged from the egg. Is it actually wrong to call it a chicken? I know that in popular speech it would be called a chick. But is it technically wrong to call it a chicken?
ignorance fought. Thank you.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Isn’t there? Consider a bird that has only just emerged from the egg. Is it actually wrong to call it a chicken? I know that in popular speech it would be called a chick. But is it technically wrong to call it a chicken?
[/QUOTE]
Probably not, but ‘chicken’ refers to something quite a lot more specific than ‘moth’.
Moths are pretty much negatively-defined: members of Lepidoptera that aren’t butterflies. Really, they’re too diverse a group to warrant all being called the same thing; ‘moths’.
It really is like having mammals divided into giraffes and not-giraffes
interesting, but not what I’m asking about.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
interesting, but not what I’m asking about.
[/QUOTE]
I thought it was. In what way am I falling short?
My question is about the names of a single creature at different stages of the life cycle.
The answer you gave was about an umbrella term that includes many different species.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
My question is about the names of a single creature at different stages of the life cycle.
[/quote]
Which I answered: “probably not”.
That part of the post was what I considered to be a worthwhile elaboration of the answer. <shrug>
Fair enough, it’s an interesting bit of information anyway.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Isn’t there? Consider a bird that has only just emerged from the egg. Is it actually wrong to call it a chicken? I know that in popular speech it would be called a chick. But is it technically wrong to call it a chicken?
[/quote]
What I meant of course is the egg. A fertilized egg before hatching is just as much the same organism as an adult chicken, but linguistically speaking no one is likely to call it a chicken.
Again I would refer to the question I asked above. Is an egg a chicken? If you would answer no, then you should not consider a moth larva a moth. On the other hand, if you answer yes, then I suppose you would consider the larva to also be a moth. But I think in terms of language, the first way is how it generally works.
In the scientific literature of course there is a simple way to get around this: we just use the scientific name for all stages of the organism, with qualifiers as necessary.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
Again I would refer to the question I asked above. Is an egg a chicken? If you would answer no, then you should not consider a moth larva a moth. On the other hand, if you answer yes, then I suppose you would consider the larva to also be a moth. But I think in terms of language, the first way is how it generally works.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, except wouldn’t the first step for our moth be a moth egg? Then it hatches, and you have a baby moth (which is called a catepillar).
[QUOTE=Colibri]
What I meant of course is the egg. A fertilized egg before hatching is just as much the same organism as an adult chicken, but linguistically speaking no one is likely to call it a chicken.
[/QUOTE]
The egg is not a chicken. But the growing embryo inside the egg might be called one.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
The egg is not a chicken. But the growing embryo inside the egg might be called one.
[/QUOTE]
Even so, the point obtains. No one is likely to call it a chicken.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Even so, the point obtains. No one is likely to call it a chicken.
[/QUOTE]
So what? That’s what it is whether we like it or not. I suppose you could call it a chick, but that’s just the diminutive form.