Red-spotted Admirals??

[Ron Gatrelle]

Clay Taylor wrote


> Alex -
>     It's the same old story - money.
>     Think of all the money generated by the sales of "butterfly
binoculars",
> field guides, accessories, etc., and travel dollars that they bring to
the
> table.  You don't think the Texas Butterfly Festival is put on by the
> Mission, TX Chamber of Commerce only because it's a fun event, do you?
> Heck, if someone wanted to give you money to show them to a new butterfly
> species for their life list, would you turn it down?  If yes, why?
>

Well, it took guts to say that. Money as a motive and then a corrupter is
such a big topic with me because of all the greed in the church world - Do
they still sell bibles in Christian bookstores?  (My wife works part time
at one. I at times tell her to just quit.)

I think Alex and I come from the same point of view. I don't think people
like he and I are against any of the very _potentially_ positive things the
birders are bringing to the area of the broad multifaceted world of
interest in Lepidoptera. It is what is being destroyed (in our view) of the
scientific aspect of it. And to me, the biggest part of what I mean by
scientific is the preservation of them via biological and taxonomic
information on them.  By lumping all the aphrodites into one Aphrodite
destroys the existent knowledge - there are several Aphrodites - some much
scarcer than others. This knowledge was once in every Field Guide and
state/regional book published _ for new and average lepsters_  till the
dumbed down could-be-written-by-anybody ones started coming out. There are
as many subspecies found in my kid's Little Golden Book of butterflies -
and it only cost $3.

Many of today's Field Guides are raped versions of Klots, Dornfield,
Grath/Tilden, Higgins/Riley and on and on. They are gooooood money makers
though. There is a reason I do not own one single Glassberg book. I agree
with Alex, and challenge those in the east who do not have the old Klots
book to get one and use it for just one season. While some areas are
definately out of date, one might be surprised how ofen it would become
consulted along with Harris, Allen, Gochfeld, Brock, Klassen, Heitzman,
Neilsen, Emmel, and then one would be led naturally to Jordan & Rothschild,
Scudder, Seitz, Blaint, deeper and deeper.

Next, there is no comparison to be made between _birds and Lepidoptera_ in
many many areas. For example, I can not say "between birds and butterflies"
as that would be inaccurate. The equivalent would be "between birds_ and
_butterflies, moths and skippers."  It is dumbed down immediately when one
says "birder - butterflyer".  Thus, when I say there is no comparison
between birds and Lepidoptera - I am not trying to be smart, elitist,
scientific, or any such thing in using the word Lepidoptera. It's just
accurate.

For one (be they professional or avocational) to say "I am a birder" is
exactly the same as saying "I am an Ornithologist" as nothing is left out.
Because Lepidoptera are butterflies, skippers and moths I can not say I am
a butterflyer because most of my interest is in skippers. We have had no
problem calling ourselves lepidopterists for a couple centuries. I don't
mind the terms lepster or lepper as a slang, but butterflyer is way off
base - unless that is all that one is. A moth-er, skipper-er, or
butterfly-er. Requireing a birder to call himself such represents him fine.

Asking a moth-er to call theirself a butterflyer would be a big deal to the
moth-er. The very fact that many cross over birders probably don't see
why - says it all.

Ron


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl