more Thunberg, 1791

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "1_iron" <1_iron at msn.com>
Subject: Re: more Thunberg, 1791


> Hey:
>
> Why are y'all arguing about this when you could be out catching a bug?
>
> Jim Taylor


 Eric wrote:
 > I recommend that some research be done before wading in too deep with
 > conclusions.

> This is what I just said... "It is still inclusive."


Hey Jim,
    Thanks for this post it served a great function.   I just happened to
notice that somehow or other my originally intended word _inconclusive_
ended up as inclusive...  Big difference huh.  When I copied and pasted the
statement it was just repeated.  Inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive,
inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive... Perhaps my first post will now
make sense:

"I guess I should give my verdict based on Eirc's (Metzler's) info.  It is
still inCONclusive.  It _could be_ that the "authorship" of the book was
Becklin's _but_ the "authorship" in the text coined by Thunberg.  _Or_,
Becklin
was the author of both the book and the names.  _If_ this latter situation
is
the case, then one is left to wonder how Thunberg's name ever got in there
at all?"    ["There" referring to future publications as the "author"
attribution.  Eric's (Metzler's),   was worded that way to avoid confusion
with Eric's (Becklin's).  I point this out as someone may have missed why I
put (Metzler's) in brackets.]

Why do you see this as an argument rather than an investigation?   Now I
did try to defend myself against what I took as an unfair remark re me by
Eric in reply to what he took as an aspersion on the Emmel's by me.     But
this whole thing is just trying to reach a proper concussion.  (Let me
check my spelling there -- nope conclusion.) (It was a pun/joke -
concussion/conclusion - just get the L out and put in a little s.)

On catching bugs.   I actually collect very few specimens.  I need a
"reason" to do so.  I don't just continue to fill a drawer with dozens or
scores or hundreds of the same thing from _the same place_ every year.  My
collecting is totally related to my research.   I would rather "collect"
(search out) information. (I do some recreational collecting and even
purchase occasional exotics when I have money.  So this is not all
"business" with me.  But my focus is going after species/specimens directly
related to my research.)  Even when I exchange specimens it is in very
small numbers and it is to acquire just two or three typical pairs of
something specific (I try to get topotypes as much as possible or as close
to them as I can) so I will have them for any future consultation.   When
on the trail of something outside my region, I then just borrow series from
folks in other regions/museums.  When I first got to this part of the
country 30 years ago I collected a lot of specimens as the fauna here was
virtually undocumented and thus unknown.  That job is now 98% done re
butterflies and skippers (I don't do moths).  The SC/GA Sandhills still
require some serious taxonomic attention - but it is the wrong season now.

Ron Gatrelle.

PS.  I am possibly going to lose all email service shortly in connection
with the Excite bankruptcy and my Comcast internet provider.   So you won't
have RG to kick around any more ---- That's a joke. Quoting Richard Nixon.
Hey, I'll be back.   See ya.


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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