Primary source vs. Secondary Source (Back from the dead: Threophora cynophila)

When analyzing and closely comparing a secondary article source to the primary article it is most likely that the primary source will be much more in depth and detailed than the secondary. Simplicity of the secondary article on a website is meant to speed up the process of getting out important news, but this can take away from a lot of the primary articles main points and information. When reading the secondary article called Zoologger: Horror fly returns from the dead and weighing it against its primary article source, simplification is evident but most of the major points and information is presented, giving some similarity. Unfortunately the differences outweigh the similarities making the primary source much more informative and thoroughly researched opposed to the secondary source being a shortened, easy to read website article that highlights most of the core points.

Thyreophora cynophila (a rediscovered, thought to be extinct fly) is the focal point of these two articles in which they describe the insects’ physical and behavioural attributes. Both articles explain that this rediscovered fly was first found in 1978 and was thought to be extinct since the 1840s: more than 160 years. It has ‘come back from the dead’ and has been found in Madrid, Spain, six specimens are being studied in the University of Acala in Madrid. The major aspects of the fly that were thoroughly researched were, why it was thought to be extinct for so long, its natural habitat, behavioral characteristics and the (discussions throughout history of the fly) -mostly in primary source. The two articles differ in many ways, their layout, amount of information, and style of writing change drastically due to the fact that they are very different methods of presenting information to the public.

Firstly the secondary article was found on the newscientist.com website and is written by Rowan Hooper who had to condense a very detailed and instructive primary source in order to create an easily accessible/legible web page. This compression of details is completely necessary in this regard because it enables a quick and simple read, while still being extremely educational. Furthermore the layout of the article fits the media and the general public’s needs, meaning it’s written in short detailed paragraphs that highlight the major points and give, for the most part, the primary article source justice. Hooper writes for the Zoologger which is a weekly column for the newscientist.com site and it researches extraordinary animals/organisms from around the world, this column clearly targets the general public interested in animals, thus it is written as a sort of news report, quick, easy to read and targeted towards people who would be interested. This is a very different style of writing than the primary source. In addition the secondary article has just highlighted the major points of the primary source but didn’t include all of the information that primary source presents, fortunately this doesn’t take away from or the primary article or misunderstand it. The facts are presented clearly just like in the primary source.

As for the primary source in comparison to the secondary was written in the Systematic Entomology vol. 35, issue 4 pages 607-613, October 2010 by Daniel Martin-Vega. This journal is strictly informational and highly descriptive, a lot more complex than the secondary source. It’s called (Back from the dead: Thyreophora cynophila (Panzer, 1798) (Diptera: Piophilidae) ‘globally extinct’ fugitive in Spain) and it goes even deeper into the physical and behavioural features of the fly. The two articles describe that the fly is a colourful, nocturnal animal that feeds n rotting flesh of dead mammals (written differently in both articles though). In addition it is written with a more complex terminology distinguishing it as a educational journal. Also the primary article has many segments such as materials and methods (used during insect examination), results of the examination, graphic designs of the fly and discussion on the taxonomy/history of the fly which differs greatly from the secondary article. These differences are due to the fact that the primary article is an educational journal directed towards a different audience than the secondary article.

In conclusion the secondary article didn’t vary a significant amount from the primary because it illustrated the most important points that the primary described and left out the more scientific facts that were less important and would take away from the simplicity. The author of the secondary article wanted to accommodate his audience by creating an ‘abstract form’ really of the primary article which didn’t take away from the author of the primary articles point of view or opinion. Both articles were written in different styles which created small differences but in the end most of the information was the same and thus didn’t change the overall major points which were most important.