A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

[mbpi at juno.com]

Hi Ron, and All...

I'm afraid that one has to "start" somewhere, whether or not it is the
"full monty" or half-baked.  It leads to questions by the discerning
reader, and prompts them to delve further into the available
literature...if they are so inclined.

I think it is "unfair" to poo-poo any literature that doesn't state "all
the facts" or back-up its assumptions or conjectures.  Even Darwin didn't
fully comprehend what he had discovered in his original "journal"
pubication (!)  So what!  That doesn't discount his initial findings!  It
gave him, and others, an opportunity to expand on his discoveries, and
obviously opened up countless other venues for research, speculation and
argument.

If I were to make a comparison in my humble opinion (ha!):  I started
learning computers when they first entered the mainstream, and despite
the fact that just about any dolt can "point and click" a mouse button
through a menu, how many people really "know" how a computer program
works, much less the potential they have at their fingertips (!)  I'd say
few...VERY few.  And that's because they didn't start at "ground zero." 
I can attest that there is so much superfluous BS ensconced in computer
programming today, that even the most ignorant individual can work
his/her way through  the myriad of menus provided to obtain some
semblance of "results" to satisfy his or her needs.  I can also attest
that much of what is available to the "average Joe" is unnecessary, and
designed to "make money" in the lucrative field of computer technology. 
I lost interest in computer technology when it became glutted with
exteraneous BS that rendered it impossible to actually "use it" to its
fullest potential.  And I feel sorry for those who don't realize that
potential because they have had the technology "dictated" to them instead
of having to figure it all out from its inception.  You'd be surprised at
what you've missed (!)  Yes, I am a "computer snob," and you, Ron, are a
"Lepidoptera snob" :-)

So it is with learning about Lepidoptera.  I may not be as "old as
Methusala" or spent the last 10,000 years studying the evolution of
"knowledge" on the aforementioned subject, but please don't discount the
current "field guides" or lack of appropriate back-up research.  They are
just as relevant to the masses as our currently "dumbed down" computer
technology... (!)

M.B. Prondzinski
USA

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:33:33 -0400 "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
writes:
> 
> Kenelm Philip wrote:
> >
> > Some of you may have received a mailing from the Mariposa Press
> > describing some new books. I was interested to read that the book 
> 'But-
> > terflies of the World' by Sbordoni & Forestiero will answer the  
> question
> > "...why do Norwegians, Alaskans, and Manitobans see polar 
> fritillary
> > butterflies only every other year?"
> >
> > Alaska is a largeish state--1/5th the area of the contiguous 48
> > states, and nearly equal to them in linear extent. It's sometimes 
> not
> > safe to say that 'butterflies in Alaska' do thus and so--you have 
> to add
> > where _in_ Alaska. It's true that _Boloria polaris_ flies in odd 
> years
> > only in Interior Alaska (in alpine tundra)--but it flies every 
> summer on
> > the Seward Peninsula, in the Brooks Range, and on the North Slope.
> >
> > One may hope that the person at the publisher who wrote this blurb
> > is the one who made the error, rather than the authors...
> >
> > Ken Philip
> > fnkwp at uaf.edu
> 
> I think this is actually a fairly common error.  Folks who live 
> outside a
> region who have a good broad knowledge, but no or little specific 
> knowledge
> of said region, end up putting out a good bit of misinformation due 
> to
> assumptions.  This is one reason why I endorse and use state and 
> regional
> books so much - and have few on the eastern US, western US, or 
> national
> scope.  A "set" of books covering various states or areas of the 
> eastern
> US, for example, basically renders owning an "eastern" field guide 
> of
> little use - in my opinion.
> 
> Post the publication of Butterflies of North America, James Scott 
> has
> communicated with me more than one southeastern US 
> species/subspecies
> treatment he would have done differently had he known more 
> specifics.
> Specifics, often gained from our exchanges of information and 
> specimens.
> One is A. midea midea being limited to the GA SC coast and A. midea
> annickae as a distinct ssp.
> 
> The Butterflies of Canada is a very good book.  But when compared to 
> the
> Butterflies of British Columbia by Guppy and Shepard the differences 
> are
> profound.  In a way these are apples and oranges - but broad books 
> (on any
> subject) can never supply the depth of information found in those of 
> more
> limited scope.  Thus, anyone who is interested in developing any 
> kind of
> knowledgeable depth at all on Lepidoptera will have to invest in 
> that great
> body of available literature that goes well beyond that the surface
> "guides" of today.
> 
> Ron Gatrelle
> 
> 
>  
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> 
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
>  
> 

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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