Holland's Moth Book

[Kelly Richers]

Jim-I have both editions, as I stated, and there is a significant =
difference.  The primary differences are in the clarity of the "dirty =
brown" moths, such as the majority of non arctiid noctuids.  Otherwise, =
yes, the Dover issue is fine for say 80% of the moths one needs to view.  =
It is, of course, virtually worthless in California, but that is due to =
the limited specimens represented from west of the Rockies in the book, =
not the plates.
 
>>> "DR. JAMES ADAMS" <JADAMS at em.daltonstate.edu> 01/09/01 06:25AM >>>
Listers,
 
    I, for one, find the plates in my 1968 Dover Edition Softcover=20
Copy of Holland's Moth Book quite good.  I have from time to time=20
used it to (correctly) identify, along with other resouces for updated=20
nomentclature, several moths from out west.  Even some of the line=20
drawings in the text are sufficient for this (eg. Argillophora furcilla=20
and Cerathosia tricolor).  Either I got a good copy or the lack of=20
quality has been overexagerated.  Having only used this copy,=20
however, and having only seen very worn copies of earlier editions,=20
perhaps fresh copies of the hardback edition really *are* a lot=20
better.  Could be that being spoiled on a really good copy makes=20
the Dover softcover appear really bad!
 
    james
 
Dr. James K. Adams
Dept. of Natural Science and Math
Dalton State College
213 N. College Drive
Dalton, GA  30720
Phone: (706)272-4427; fax: (706)272-2533
U of Michigan's President James Angell's=20
  Secret of Success: "Grow antennae, not horns"
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------=20
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl=20
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20010109/3b17b4fe/attachment.html