[rng-concern]

I remember listening to the radio (I believe on cbc canada), and one issue of studying any living thing is, whether your animal/creature of choice is in vogue currently or not. People below have mentioned funding which ties into that, but, if you're studying birds it's a lot easier to publish, there's more of an ecosystem and conferences, etc... than if you were to study some insect that nobody has heard of. Even within existing conferences you might not get "top-billing", even if you're presenting.

Pity as the things nobody has ever heard of are probably the most interesting.

I wish I remembered more details so could link something.

[mc_maurer]

It's a pretty widely known thing that studying charismatic megafauna gets you lots of money. However, they're also generally WAY more of a pain to study. Fewer individuals, larger home ranges, expensive permits, etc. A good friend studies basking sharks and the shark research world is insanely competitive, full of crazy type A folks. Compared to the insect ecology world (where I come from), which is full of pretty chill stoners and weirdos.

[Biganon]

I wonder if the group studying an animal slowly evolves to resemble this animal

[kazinator]

> studying charismatic megafauna gets you lots of money

May I ask how so? Is it from producing popular documentaries or something? Or is there the research grant money from conservationist institutions or societies? (I can see how that wouldn't be there for parasites).

[insane_dreamer]

My takeaway is that to be an ecological researcher one must be crazy, weird, or stoned :)