> > ---->>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 1:34 AM
> >------->>>> Subject: Whats this?
> >
> > > I'm a person who pays attention to bugs and critters. I wonder what this
> >
> > is.
> >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> > >
> > > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
> --
> --
> Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
> NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
> "At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
> butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
> National Nature Reserve
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From sphinxangelorum at bigfoot.com Sun Apr 7 11:55:09 2002
From: sphinxangelorum at bigfoot.com (Pierre A Plauzoles)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 08:55:09 -0700
Subject: Help with Cocoon
References: <3CA74E30.513632B@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <3CB06BDC.D7676D62@bigfoot.com>
--------------59F75DDBE325A8D8F71F52D5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
D Marven wrote:
> Hi Guys & Gals
> Could anybody point me in the direction of a website that
> would show pictures of the cocoons of both Hyalophora euryalus and
> Antheraea polyphemus.
Here is one of Antheraea polyphemus. Admittedly, the author did enlarge
the picture considerably, but it does give you a good idea of what to look
for.
http://www.naturenorth.com/spring/bug/silkmoth/slkim7.html
As I understand it, the cocoon usually hangs onto a twig or is lodged
against the trunk of a tree, but it can often be among fallen leaf litter
if it is knocked down.
> Thanks in Advance
> Derrick
--------------59F75DDBE325A8D8F71F52D5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
D Marven wrote:
Hi Guys & Gals
Could anybody point me in the direction of a website that
would show pictures of the cocoons of both Hyalophora euryalus and
Antheraea polyphemus.
Here is one of Antheraea polyphemus. Admittedly, the author
did enlarge the picture considerably, but it does give you a good idea
of what to look for.
http://www.naturenorth.com/spring/bug/silkmoth/slkim7.html
As I understand it, the cocoon usually hangs onto a twig or is lodged
against the trunk of a tree, but it can often be among fallen leaf litter
if it is knocked down.
Thanks in Advance
Derrick
--------------59F75DDBE325A8D8F71F52D5--
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gatrelle at tils-ttr.org Mon Apr 8 01:18:03 2002
From: gatrelle at tils-ttr.org (Ron Gatrelle)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 01:18:03 -0400
Subject: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
References:
Message-ID: <007001c1debc$c2807160$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Quinn"
Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
> There is one tidbit of knowledge to be gleaned from 100 years of birding,
> and that is without the 100,000+ birders there would only be a few 100
> ornithologists.
>
> Take away the birders and there would be very little public support or
> funding for ornithological research and conservation.
>
> If funds were commiserate with need (instead of with popular appeal) then
> North American freshwater mussels would get the lions share of research
> funding, not birds.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Mike Quinn
And this is our sad but true reality check. That which is cute, pretty,
appealing to the public is indeed very often what generates the attention
that brings about the conservation. If ants were gaudy like birds and
butterflies there would doubtless be an uproar over all the native species
that Fire Ants are displacing. Government and private funding would be
more and the programs much more aggressive (and ecosafe). This is an all
around life lesson not so much a birder lesson. Although, as Mike states,
this is probably (by far) the best example of the way it is and the
disproportionate way it works. If the squeaky wheel gets the oil, the
pretty thing get the conservation (sad little seal babies vs. disappearing
picnic poaching ants.)
Now, what was that logic about how that rather than searching for
undocumented subspecies of relatively well known things like butterflies we
(lepsters) should be shifting more attention to the species of other orders
not much is known about. So if we apply that same logic/principle here,
we need to stop enlisting more and more people into bird watching - and
tell them to go where the need is - mite and fungi watching, field guides,
societies. But that is not going to happen. Thus, while hoping that more
people get interested in flies and mites, we at the same time should be
encouraging and thanking those working on tying up the loose ends and
working out the fine details of Lepidoptera rather than demeaning or
belittling them. After all, compared to what we know about birds, leps are
still very under studied, plus, there are 20 times more people interested
in and working on birds than butterflies and moths.
"Popular appeal" vs. "need" a correct analysis . Why can't what you have
just said be taken to mean that many (most?) birders are more interested
in appeal than need? Now, how about drawing that lesson from birders?
Ignore the mussels, let's have more about birds? I would hope that if
there were 100,000 lepidopterists here in the US that we would be raising
funds for, and engaging on behalf of, our poor cousin disciplines that lack
appeal but have great need. But that would not likely happen either.
Therefore I conclude that there is no basic difference between the average
birder and lepster as human nature causes us to become interested in and
support only that which interests us.
Our choice it seems is to light a candle or curse the darkness. Be
thankful for all research, at all levels, and for all doing it. Or, do
what you have done, belittle someone for compiling an non-line list of
common names for all taxa of butterflies and skippers - at their own
personal expense and time. It does no harm and some folks actually
appreciate it - specifically those to whom it appeals. (It does not appeal
to those who see no need for it - that is their right and no one is trying
to twist their arm or make them use it.) You will never hear me complain
about you doing your thing, too bad you have to complain about me doing
mine. And what irony, I don't even personally like common names, but am
doing this to facilitate those who do -- and for that I'm getting snow
balls thrown at me. Amazing.
Ron Gatrelle
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From agrkovich at tmpeng.com Mon Apr 8 08:12:56 2002
From: agrkovich at tmpeng.com (Grkovich, Alex)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:12:56 -0400
Subject: FW: Re: APOLOGY ETC.
Message-ID:
Apparently, "free speech" is not an important ideal at MassLeps...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grkovich, Alex
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 7:51 AM
> To: 'Earle Baldwin'
> Cc: 'marj at mrines.com'; 'BrianRFG at aol.com'; 'mchampag at foxboro.com'
> Subject: RE: Re: APOLOGY ETC.
>
> Earle,
>
> Actually, I was going to post a public apology to you copied to the
> "Group". I was most curious as to what sort of responses I would receive
> from the "Group".
>
> I didn't realize when I wrote the "Group" that I was likening you with an
> 8 year old. That was not my intention. I was actually pointing my finger
> at the "Leaders". They are responsible if someone such as yourself, who is
> an excellent "birder", does not know something as elementary as elementary
> to butterfly study as this subject. You are not expected to know such
> things. Just as I wrote previously that while having enough knowledge
> about birds to "be dangerous", I am not an Ornithologist.
>
> Earle, you are a gentleman, and I am truly sorry that I appeared to insult
> you this way. Believe me, it was not my intention. It did not occur to me
> that I had until someone pointed this out to me. Which is why, our words
> always have to be very carefully measured.
>
> Still, you made some sort of reference to me in your first response post
> of me as a "collector". Why was this? Why does it bother you and other so
> much that I "collect". You also were rather demeaning. Earle,
> Lepidopterists collect. We always have. And my words to the "Group" are
> only a reflection of some of the bias I have felt from the "Group". You
> would be interested in knowing that the Butterfly Association to the south
> of you does not have an official "anti-collecting" bias. This type of bias
> is slowly disappearing across the country. Most groups are too smart to
> discourage Lepidopterists from participating. My words in that regard
> stand: "Where are the Lepidopterists"? Mr. Cassie is hardly a "butterfly
> expert"; yet he pretends to be, acts the part. I saw, over the course of a
> year on the list, too many examples of this.
>
> You and Marj think the "Group" will benefit from excluding someone like
> me? You are moving farther toward censorship; nothing more than this. In a
> way, the "Group" has died this morning, free speech has died. While I
> certainly need reflection, so do the Leaders of the "Group". Me, in a way,
> it's a relief. And, there are other p[laces to go to; I already found them
> which is why I posted so little over the past half-year or so.
>
> Mr. Cassie's "anti-collecting agenda", which he appears to push onto
> everyone, is little more than an assault on the Civil Rights of people
> like myself. And an assault that has nothing whatsoever to do with
> scientific fact. And first, it's my net that goes; what next? My hunting
> license? My fishing rod? My gun, perhaps? Where does it end, Earle? Will I
> someday need a "Permit" to go to the supermarket? To the next town? To the
> toilet? Do we finally become a sterile people who are forbidden to touch
> anything? To walk anywhere? Why don't you think about that? All these
> women who love "walks": Do they have husbands who hunt and fish? How will
> THEY feel when their men can no longer do what they love? Watch out,
> Earle; this is a dangerous agenda.
>
> Earle, YOU are the ones that need reflection when you are biased (without
> examination) toward a person like me. And finally, without collecting, how
> do you identify? How do you study? You can't Earle. Photos are almost
> useless, except to show-off "beautiful pictures" of "beautiful
> butterflies".
>
> Again, Earle, my deepest apology to you. I need a measure of growth. But
> so do every one of you who has been biased toward me, and especially those
> who might be "cheering" because I am "gone". I apologized a number of
> times to Cassie last year, tried to make him understand my position with
> respect to "collecting". He doesn't seem to care, doesn't wish to listen.
> He has an agenda. And he is also not even a Lepidopterist, but a birder.
> You'll agree if you think about it, there's something wrong with that.
>
> I hope we do meet sometime. I'm sure we will.
>
> Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Earle Baldwin [SMTP:earlebaldwin at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 12:46 AM
> To: agrkovich at tmpeng.com
> Subject: Fwd: Re: [MassLep] changes to the list
>
> It is unfortunate that you have not seen the responses to Marj blocking
> you from the list. You really need to look in the mirror. It is seldom a
> person get's a true wake up call. Take this opportunity for a little
> growth. Your sarcasm and dull wit betray you. And thank you. The kindness
> of others in the wake of your delusional conduct has been refreshing. In
> the attached posting I mean what I say. I hope you have the pleasure of
> meeting me one day. I have your words deeply imprinted within. God be with
> you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...reexamine all you have been told at school or church or in any book,
> dismiss what insults your own soul... Walt Whitman
> >From: Earle Baldwin
> >Reply-To: earlebaldwin at hotmail.com
> >To: marj at mrines.com, MassLep at topica.com
> >Subject: Re: [MassLep] changes to the list
> >Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 00:29:05 -0500
> >
>
> _____
>
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> .
> << Message: Re: [MassLep] changes to the list >>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From policydad at yahoo.com Mon Apr 8 08:10:44 2002
From: policydad at yahoo.com (Alex Segarra)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:10:44 -0400
Subject: caterpillar identifications
References:
Message-ID:
Richard:
The paddle caterpillar is Acronicta funeralis.
Good luck, Alex
"Richard Seaman" wrote in message
news:e85e72ef.0204051800.1ecb031a at posting.google.com...
> folks,
>
> If anyone can identify any of the unidentified caterpillars on this
> page, then I'd be most grateful:
>
> http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Nature/Caterpillars/index.html
>
> And if you can correct any misidentified caterpillars, then I'd be
> somewhat less than most grateful, but grateful nonetheless.
>
> thanks,
>
> Richard.
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From barb at birdnut.obtuse.com Mon Apr 8 15:10:45 2002
From: barb at birdnut.obtuse.com (Barb Beck)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:10:45 -0600
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
Message-ID:
Well Mike I do not know about the lepidopterists but I am sure the butterfly
watchers following Glassberg could learn a heqq of a lot from birders. A
large number of birdwatchers are not lapping up the anti-scientific,
pseudoscientific statements expressed by the head of NABA. Birders have
several scientifically responsible organizations.
There is a tiny radical wacko faction centered in the eastern US which cut
mist nets but most bird watchers are not running around chanting "Nets are
shotguns" We use mist nets, other types of nets to trap birds as well as
giant fish landing nets with padded rims to catch the Great Gray Owls (Strix
nebulosa) and sometimes Northern Hawk Owls (Surninia ulula) that come to our
feet after mice... just like we net butterflies. In this case we are
catching them not to id them but to band them, take measurements on them,
age and sex them by size and feather characteristics so we can better
understand these birds and their population dynamics.
Most Birding databases and scientific butterfly databases keep the data to
the precision in which it can be recorded - be it species or subspecies
particularly where we have overlapping subspecies as with Myrtle and Audubon
Warblers and several other east west pairs. There is not a significant
faction among birdwatchers who disapprove of this and certainly there is NO
case where a species which the naming group admits is a good species is left
as a subspecies AND data for it is not kept separate. The leader of the
antiscientific wing of the butterfly watchers even though he knows the
overlapping ranges of several species which he has lumped still flatly
declares that keeping the stuff by species will not hurt because it can
always be separated later by range. (He is not easily confused by facts)
Not only are some species entered in our birding databases by ssp some are
also aged when they are entered...keeping the data at the precision at which
it was recorded. The common names we used are not set by one person or a
couple people apparently willy nilly changing some Sulphurs to yellows and
giving other species names which are not common or useful. The AOU naming
committee runs by far different rules.
There is still some work that needs to be done on birds which require
specimens. We do not have a leader of a major birding group standing up and
declaring that everything is known about birds and we need no more
collecting. Often, however, collecting is unnecessary because tiny blood or
feather samples work. There are also lots of birds which are turned in
after being killed hitting windows, tall buildings or being electrocuted on
our power lines.
There are a lot of Glassberg's butterfly watchers that need to learn a few
things from birders. They blame collectors for the demise of their
favourite bugs while completely ignoring the fact that to have the bugs you
must have the proper habitat. Their leader trashes habitat for two days to
get his perfect trophy photo of a rare Satyr with about 9 other people when
simply netting and cooling it, photographing it and releasing it unharmed
would saved a lot of habitat and who knows how many immature and eggs which
were trampled in the quest. In the same issue he divulges the whereabouts
of an other endangered species supposedly so his minions could rush to the
site and get their trophy photos while trashing that habitat.
Birders are encouraged by their peers and books to identify as precisely as
possible and to only report to the precision of that identification. They
are not taught to identify every Epidnoax flycatcher as a Least Flycatcher
much as the NABA minions identify any Azure sp as a Spring Azure. If they
have a difficult group such as the Emidonox Flycatchers they are taught to
merely put down Epidonax sp.
Birders try to work with ornithologists. Naba members tend to want to tie
the hands of Lepidopterists... calling those who do scientific collecting
"immoral collectors". They are swallowing the rhetoric of their leader that
"no more collection is necessary". We have a whole NE corner of this
province that has just gotten any access - a huge area larger than several
of your NE states. We have nothing from this and other areas here and the
butterfly watchers here as well as the scientific collectors are not happy
to just sit back and say "we already know everything so nothing new can be
there"
The butterfly watchers we have here in Alberta are not afraid to carefully
use nets to identify and release - They can differentiate a net from a
shotgun. They realize that the wild stories about butterflies having their
legs ripped off by netting in nonsense and wacko rhetoric spread on the
internet by the anti science wackos in some areas of the eastern US. Our
counts are all run with nets even though they were airbrushed out of the
photo of our students on the Cardinal River Divide count last year in the
NABA mag. Contrary to what Glassberg says we obviously are not discouraging
people by having them use nets because with a population less that 1 percent
of the US we hold almost 10 percent of the NABA counts. We use binoculars
where we can and nets where necessary to take a closer look. If a group
finds a butterfly of which it is not certain about the id the butterfly is
cooled in a vial and taken to the expert who can ascertain its proper id
before letting it loose in the same place where it was caught. Some but not
all of us also collect specimens for scientist who have requested them
because most importantly we realize that there is a lot still to learn about
our butterflies. Those who do not collect specimens respect the decision of
those who do. I really hate to kill a butterfly but do it so send things in
to be studied There are people willing to do the studies if we get the
samples to them. The notion spread by the leader of the NABA that every
butterfly netted on counts that use nets is killed is absolute nonsense.
Alberta butterfly watchers realize that if we do not know what we have and
what habitat they use they cannot get protected. They have not had their
attention diverted away from the need to protect habitat by the
pseudoscientific rantings of some that it is collectors who are driving
butterflies to extinction. The cars driven by your nice little NABA members
as they go to their beautiful non violent butterfly watching sessions
probably killed more butterflies than if they had nuked every butterfly they
saw through their glasses. An if they ventured off the path to get a closer
look more killed there as well as trampled habitat. We are very very
fortunate here because Glassberg does not understand how to identify our
butterflies (his book is essentially worthless for the colias and speyeria)
and we have good books written by people who do. His wacko antiscientific
philosophy has not taken hold here.
As I have said often ornithology has a lot of support and funding because
there are a lot of birders out there concerned about birds AND THE SCIENCE.
A group of people who want to see butterflies and think they are only
endangerd by collectors and are not worried enough about whether they are
looking at a Spring Azure or some other Azure not are NOT going to support
research to find out what we have and how to protect it. They are already
being told by a pseudoscientist that we know everything there is about
butterflies and no more should be collected. They need to learn that that is
untrue to encourage scientific collection by those willing to do it.
I fully agree with the need to discourage trophy and unnecessary collection.
In the past there has been some terrible cases of trophy collection by
museums. BUT there is a big difference between trophy collection and
scientific collection. They must realize the validity of the latter.
If a good portion of the butterfly watchers are going to be lead by
antiscientific radical philosophy they are going to do more to help
butterflies than they will to help mussels. Pseudo scientific naming scheme
and pseudo scientific data storing scheme which does not record the species
which are present is not going to help matters.
The butterfly watchers need to take a look at the birders and adopt a more
scientific view or at least appreciate the work that the scientists working
with butterflies are doing. They need to appreciate the fact that
butterflies must at times still be netted to be accurately identified on
some counts. They need to appreciate that in some parts of the continent the
mix of butterflies is much more complicated and less known that what they
have in the eastern US They need to appreciate that everything that we need
to know about butterflies to protect them is not known and that hindering
those who are trying to learn what we have and what habitat they use is only
going to doom species and ssp.
Finally note Glassbergs antiscientific approach to the Miami Blue. He is
clued out that others have formed a group to attempt to learn to raise them,
what their food plant is, planting the things which they think is the food
plant, in general doing something to restore the butterfly. Glassberg is
announcing the location to his minions in his magazine so they can all go
trample habitat like he illustrates in the same issue if the magazine to get
their perfect trophy photo. It never occurs to the guy to try to find out
what is going on.
100,000 NABA butterfly watchers who do not see any need for science are not
going to support butterfly research at all - they are only going to suppress
it.
Barb Beck
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
From: "Mike Quinn"
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 17:21:19 -0500
There is one tidbit of knowledge to be gleaned from 100 years of birding,
and that is without the 100,000+ birders there would only be a few 100
ornithologists.
Take away the birders and there would be very little public support or
funding for ornithological research and conservation.
If funds were commiserate with need (instead of with popular appeal) then
North American freshwater mussels would get the lions share of research
funding, not birds.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Quinn
New Braunfels, TX
ento at satx.rr.com
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gatrelle at tils-ttr.org Mon Apr 8 16:27:16 2002
From: gatrelle at tils-ttr.org (Ron Gatrelle)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 16:27:16 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
References:
Message-ID: <01c801c1df3b$c6aee620$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barb Beck"
Yale. Edu"
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:10 PM
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
> Well Mike I do not know about the lepidopterists but I am sure the
butterfly
> watchers following Glassberg could learn a heqq of a lot from birders. A
> large number of birdwatchers are not lapping up the anti-scientific,
> pseudoscientific statements expressed by the head of NABA. Birders have
> several scientifically responsible organizations.
Barb,
I want to thank you on behalf of a lot of people - both birders and
lepsters. I have snipped the rest of the post as everyone should already
have it. Your post leads to an apology from me to all serious birders for
guilt by association. Barb, your post means a lot to countless
Lepidopterists the world over - professional and amaeteur alike. Just as
butterfly poachers have given _all_ collectors a bad image, those few
extremists who have given the impression of birding as a narrow, over
simplified, anti-interaction thing and have thus been telling lepsters they
too need to have a simplified & hands off methodology toward butterflies
and moths, has left a bad taste in many Lepidopterists minds.
Fortunately, those who are _both_ serious birders and butterflyers, like
yourself, are the only ones who can set the record straight. Thanks for
speaking so matter-of-factly about what real birders feel, think, and do.
I have had a couple of personal posts from well known birders letting
me known that the hypersensitive, oversimplified, type of lepsters are
probably not very good birders either.
It is also one thing for various of us to disagree about any number of
things - like Mike and I on what he considers micro-management (and I
necessary availability) of common names. These are areas where we can
express our opinions, vent our passions, and end up agreeing to disagree.
But political agendaism and falsification of information to the vulnerable
is something all of us should cry out against.
Again, thanks. It took courage to open up like this.
Ron Gatrelle
TILS president
Charleston, SC - USA
http://www.tils-ttr.org
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From entomology at butterflyhouse.org Mon Apr 8 16:47:20 2002
From: entomology at butterflyhouse.org (Mark Deering)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 15:47:20 -0500
Subject: Speyeria clemencei comstockii (Comstock)
References: <01c801c1df3b$c6aee620$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
Message-ID: <003601c1df3e$94412bf0$1001a8c0@entomology>
Hello All
All of these discussions on subspecies leads me to this question. Can anyone
who is very familiar with the Speyeria of the West Coast please tell me a
little bit about this butterfly. I actually have a specimen collected by
Comstock from around 1920, labelled by hand "Speyeria clemencei comstockii
(Comstock).
Any information that anyone can offer would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Mark Deering
Collections Manager and Curator of Butterflies
The Sophia Sachs Butterfly House
15193 Olive Blvd
Chesterfield, MO 63017
(636) 530-0076
www.butterflyhouse.org
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From todd.redhead at sympatico.ca Mon Apr 8 17:48:55 2002
From: todd.redhead at sympatico.ca (Todd Redhead)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:48:55 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders
?
References:
Message-ID: <3CB21047.162B4DB5@sympatico.ca>
Barb Beck wrote:
> I fully agree with the need to discourage trophy and unnecessary collection.
> In the past there has been some terrible cases of trophy collection by
> museums. BUT there is a big difference between trophy collection and
> scientific collection. They must realize the validity of the latter.
Hi Barb,
Can a non-scientist have a scientific collection? If so, in your opinion, what
would be the requirements of such? I am a non-scientist collector, and I have
the idea in my mind that I will learn through my collection and that my
collection has scientific value, if not today, maybe in the future. What
constitutes "unnecessary collection"?
Todd
P.S. I'm not trying to bait you here - I really do want to know your (and
others) opinion. BTW - I do appreciate what you've written regarding the
parallels between leps and birds.
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu Mon Apr 8 18:40:13 2002
From: gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu (Michael Gochfeld)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:40:13 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders
?
References:
Message-ID: <3CB21C4D.E10B1072@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
What Barb says about birders is mostly true. They are tolerant of banders, but
less enthusiastic about collectors.
When Steve Russell (I think it was) collected the Black-tailed Gnatcatcher in
Arizona, it elicited abundant wrath from the birder community----not so much
because it wasn't necessary to document a bird that could be netted, handled,
measured, and photographed, but because it couldn't be listed any more.
Maybe that's too cynical.
But as a bander I've had birders (and lay-people too) voice objections to my
perceived "mistreatment" of cute little birds. And the birds themselves voice
displeasure as well and bite fiercely, to boot. You wouldn't believe how much
anti-scientific sentiment a chickadee in the hand can voice.
Mike Gochfeld
Barb Beck wrote:
> Well Mike I do not know about the lepidopterists but I am sure the butterfly
> watchers following Glassberg could learn a heqq of a lot from birders. A
> large number of birdwatchers are not lapping up the anti-scientific,
> pseudoscientific statements expressed by the head of NABA. Birders have
> several scientifically responsible organizations.
>
> There is a tiny radical wacko faction centered in the eastern US which cut
> mist nets but most bird watchers are not running around chanting "Nets are
> shotguns" We use mist nets, other types of nets to trap birds as well as
> giant fish landing nets with padded rims to catch the Great Gray Owls (Strix
> nebulosa) and sometimes Northern Hawk Owls (Surninia ulula) that come to our
> feet after mice... just like we net butterflies. In this case we are
> catching them not to id them but to band them, take measurements on them,
> age and sex them by size and feather characteristics so we can better
> understand these birds and their population dynamics.
>
> Most Birding databases and scientific butterfly databases keep the data to
> the precision in which it can be recorded - be it species or subspecies
> particularly where we have overlapping subspecies as with Myrtle and Audubon
> Warblers and several other east west pairs. There is not a significant
> faction among birdwatchers who disapprove of this and certainly there is NO
> case where a species which the naming group admits is a good species is left
> as a subspecies AND data for it is not kept separate. The leader of the
> antiscientific wing of the butterfly watchers even though he knows the
> overlapping ranges of several species which he has lumped still flatly
> declares that keeping the stuff by species will not hurt because it can
> always be separated later by range. (He is not easily confused by facts)
> Not only are some species entered in our birding databases by ssp some are
> also aged when they are entered...keeping the data at the precision at which
> it was recorded. The common names we used are not set by one person or a
> couple people apparently willy nilly changing some Sulphurs to yellows and
> giving other species names which are not common or useful. The AOU naming
> committee runs by far different rules.
>
> There is still some work that needs to be done on birds which require
> specimens. We do not have a leader of a major birding group standing up and
> declaring that everything is known about birds and we need no more
> collecting. Often, however, collecting is unnecessary because tiny blood or
> feather samples work. There are also lots of birds which are turned in
> after being killed hitting windows, tall buildings or being electrocuted on
> our power lines.
>
> There are a lot of Glassberg's butterfly watchers that need to learn a few
> things from birders. They blame collectors for the demise of their
> favourite bugs while completely ignoring the fact that to have the bugs you
> must have the proper habitat. Their leader trashes habitat for two days to
> get his perfect trophy photo of a rare Satyr with about 9 other people when
> simply netting and cooling it, photographing it and releasing it unharmed
> would saved a lot of habitat and who knows how many immature and eggs which
> were trampled in the quest. In the same issue he divulges the whereabouts
> of an other endangered species supposedly so his minions could rush to the
> site and get their trophy photos while trashing that habitat.
>
> Birders are encouraged by their peers and books to identify as precisely as
> possible and to only report to the precision of that identification. They
> are not taught to identify every Epidnoax flycatcher as a Least Flycatcher
> much as the NABA minions identify any Azure sp as a Spring Azure. If they
> have a difficult group such as the Emidonox Flycatchers they are taught to
> merely put down Epidonax sp.
>
> Birders try to work with ornithologists. Naba members tend to want to tie
> the hands of Lepidopterists... calling those who do scientific collecting
> "immoral collectors". They are swallowing the rhetoric of their leader that
> "no more collection is necessary". We have a whole NE corner of this
> province that has just gotten any access - a huge area larger than several
> of your NE states. We have nothing from this and other areas here and the
> butterfly watchers here as well as the scientific collectors are not happy
> to just sit back and say "we already know everything so nothing new can be
> there"
>
> The butterfly watchers we have here in Alberta are not afraid to carefully
> use nets to identify and release - They can differentiate a net from a
> shotgun. They realize that the wild stories about butterflies having their
> legs ripped off by netting in nonsense and wacko rhetoric spread on the
> internet by the anti science wackos in some areas of the eastern US. Our
> counts are all run with nets even though they were airbrushed out of the
> photo of our students on the Cardinal River Divide count last year in the
> NABA mag. Contrary to what Glassberg says we obviously are not discouraging
> people by having them use nets because with a population less that 1 percent
> of the US we hold almost 10 percent of the NABA counts. We use binoculars
> where we can and nets where necessary to take a closer look. If a group
> finds a butterfly of which it is not certain about the id the butterfly is
> cooled in a vial and taken to the expert who can ascertain its proper id
> before letting it loose in the same place where it was caught. Some but not
> all of us also collect specimens for scientist who have requested them
> because most importantly we realize that there is a lot still to learn about
> our butterflies. Those who do not collect specimens respect the decision of
> those who do. I really hate to kill a butterfly but do it so send things in
> to be studied There are people willing to do the studies if we get the
> samples to them. The notion spread by the leader of the NABA that every
> butterfly netted on counts that use nets is killed is absolute nonsense.
> Alberta butterfly watchers realize that if we do not know what we have and
> what habitat they use they cannot get protected. They have not had their
> attention diverted away from the need to protect habitat by the
> pseudoscientific rantings of some that it is collectors who are driving
> butterflies to extinction. The cars driven by your nice little NABA members
> as they go to their beautiful non violent butterfly watching sessions
> probably killed more butterflies than if they had nuked every butterfly they
> saw through their glasses. An if they ventured off the path to get a closer
> look more killed there as well as trampled habitat. We are very very
> fortunate here because Glassberg does not understand how to identify our
> butterflies (his book is essentially worthless for the colias and speyeria)
> and we have good books written by people who do. His wacko antiscientific
> philosophy has not taken hold here.
>
> As I have said often ornithology has a lot of support and funding because
> there are a lot of birders out there concerned about birds AND THE SCIENCE.
> A group of people who want to see butterflies and think they are only
> endangerd by collectors and are not worried enough about whether they are
> looking at a Spring Azure or some other Azure not are NOT going to support
> research to find out what we have and how to protect it. They are already
> being told by a pseudoscientist that we know everything there is about
> butterflies and no more should be collected. They need to learn that that is
> untrue to encourage scientific collection by those willing to do it.
>
> I fully agree with the need to discourage trophy and unnecessary collection.
> In the past there has been some terrible cases of trophy collection by
> museums. BUT there is a big difference between trophy collection and
> scientific collection. They must realize the validity of the latter.
>
> If a good portion of the butterfly watchers are going to be lead by
> antiscientific radical philosophy they are going to do more to help
> butterflies than they will to help mussels. Pseudo scientific naming scheme
> and pseudo scientific data storing scheme which does not record the species
> which are present is not going to help matters.
>
> The butterfly watchers need to take a look at the birders and adopt a more
> scientific view or at least appreciate the work that the scientists working
> with butterflies are doing. They need to appreciate the fact that
> butterflies must at times still be netted to be accurately identified on
> some counts. They need to appreciate that in some parts of the continent the
> mix of butterflies is much more complicated and less known that what they
> have in the eastern US They need to appreciate that everything that we need
> to know about butterflies to protect them is not known and that hindering
> those who are trying to learn what we have and what habitat they use is only
> going to doom species and ssp.
>
> Finally note Glassbergs antiscientific approach to the Miami Blue. He is
> clued out that others have formed a group to attempt to learn to raise them,
> what their food plant is, planting the things which they think is the food
> plant, in general doing something to restore the butterfly. Glassberg is
> announcing the location to his minions in his magazine so they can all go
> trample habitat like he illustrates in the same issue if the magazine to get
> their perfect trophy photo. It never occurs to the guy to try to find out
> what is going on.
>
> 100,000 NABA butterfly watchers who do not see any need for science are not
> going to support butterfly research at all - they are only going to suppress
> it.
>
> Barb Beck
> Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
>
> Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
> From: "Mike Quinn"
> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 17:21:19 -0500
>
> There is one tidbit of knowledge to be gleaned from 100 years of birding,
> and that is without the 100,000+ birders there would only be a few 100
> ornithologists.
>
> Take away the birders and there would be very little public support or
> funding for ornithological research and conservation.
>
> If funds were commiserate with need (instead of with popular appeal) then
> North American freshwater mussels would get the lions share of research
> funding, not birds.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Mike Quinn
> New Braunfels, TX
> ento at satx.rr.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From MWalker at gensym.com Mon Apr 8 19:12:05 2002
From: MWalker at gensym.com (Mark Walker)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:12:05 -0400
Subject:
Message-ID: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A39E@hqmail.gensym.com>
Jim wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Taylor [mailto:drivingiron at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:00 AM
> To: Ron Gatrelle; LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re:
>
> Do all of you feel as gloomy as Ron re LEPS-L future?
I knew this would happen just as soon as people started talking about going
off and starting their own discussion groups.
Ron is correct that the substance has waned, but I don't think it has so
much to do with security, spam, broad content, or even feuding - I think it
has to do with all of us trying to manage so many emails coming in from so
many sources.
I don't wish to see LEPS-L fade away - perhaps because I am old school - but
also because I don't look forward to the day when this sort of thing could
cost money. I like the fact that this is operated through academia and not
hosted by Yahoo, which is a service provider that depends on dollars through
volume.
I really don't know how much longer I'll be enjoying this anyway - computers
are beginning to bore the crap out of me (which is troublesome, seeing as
they are my livelihood). Soon enough I will probably go back to lepping
within a vacuum, where the only interaction I get from colleagues will be
the occasional hook up in the field.
Sigh.
Mark Walker
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From MWalker at gensym.com Mon Apr 8 19:43:17 2002
From: MWalker at gensym.com (Mark Walker)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:43:17 -0400
Subject: Florida
Message-ID: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A39F@hqmail.gensym.com>
Stan,
Believe it or not, you can find lots of great leps within minutes of your
hotel. Late April could very well be one of the best times to go, also.
I always enjoy driving out towards Kissimmee (and past Kissimmee towards St.
Cloud) - look for lantana, especially in old abandoned orange groves. In
late April 1998 I found lantana loaded with Great Purple Hairstreaks.
You'll find all your swallowtails in this habitat, also. Look for skippers
along roadsides with plenty of surrounding reeds, grasses, and palmetto
(highways heading east are best). The little white flowers (bidens) are
good attractants, as are any thistle that might be in bloom. North of
Orlando is good, too. I found a nice series of White-M Hairstreaks on
lantana that was growing in a ditch along highway 40 just east of Ocala. I
did all my collecting during lunch breaks (one to two hours), so you
shouldn't have any problem finding bugs even with your limited schedule. In
fact, you might find that a couple of hours are about all you can handle!
Ocala National Forest can be good, though you'll do best where there is
plenty of nectar.
I know many other places that are good, but are more like an hour away. Let
me know if you want more suggestions.
Good luck and happy hunting,
Mark Walker.
-------------------
Stan wrote:
I will be attending a work related conference in Orlando (will be staying
near Disney Land-The All Star Music Resort) from the 14th to the 17th. I
won't have much time to do any collecting, if at all. About all I have is
possibly the morning of the 14th, and the late afternoon and evening of the
17th. Can anyone recommend any collecting spots near Orlando for both
butterflies and moths (although I am not a serious Heterocera'er(moth'er))?
Should I just forget about any kind of collecting given the short time I
have? It seems the latter is probably the best course of action. Any advice
would be appreciated. Stan
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From patfoley at csus.edu Mon Apr 8 19:54:37 2002
From: patfoley at csus.edu (Patrick Foley)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 16:54:37 -0700
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
References:
<3CB21047.162B4DB5@sympatico.ca>
Message-ID: <3CB22DBD.CED5078F@csus.edu>
Todd,
Make sure you label your specimens accurately (locality, date etc. See Borror and
White's Peteron Field GUide to INsects or many another book). Then preserve your
specimens from damage. Then contribute them to an insect museum when you die or
before. Small local collections of no special interest to an insect museum may be
welcome in a school or other educational oraginzation.
Patrick Foley
Todd Redhead wrote:
> Barb Beck wrote:
>
> > I fully agree with the need to discourage trophy and unnecessary collection.
> > In the past there has been some terrible cases of trophy collection by
> > museums. BUT there is a big difference between trophy collection and
> > scientific collection. They must realize the validity of the latter.
>
> Hi Barb,
>
> Can a non-scientist have a scientific collection? If so, in your opinion, what
> would be the requirements of such? I am a non-scientist collector, and I have
> the idea in my mind that I will learn through my collection and that my
> collection has scientific value, if not today, maybe in the future. What
> constitutes "unnecessary collection"?
>
> Todd
>
> P.S. I'm not trying to bait you here - I really do want to know your (and
> others) opinion. BTW - I do appreciate what you've written regarding the
> parallels between leps and birds.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From mbpi at juno.com Mon Apr 8 19:55:26 2002
From: mbpi at juno.com (mbpi at juno.com)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:55:26 -0500
Subject: Fw: Re: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
Message-ID: <20020408.185529.-246649.3.mbpi@juno.com>
Drat! I always forget to "cc:" the list! My apology for bringing up
"Glassberg" again... I'm pretty darned sick of "defending" him, even
though I'm not particulary "fond" of him myself (!)
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: mbpi at juno.com
To: barb at birdnut.obtuse.com
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:38:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry, Barb, but you really don't KNOW the "100,000" NABA members
(including me), or Jeff Glassberg and his "minions." You speak with a
"forked and biased tongue," and your ignorance on the subject is apparent
from your verbose posting (!)
Perhaps you should do a little more research on the "100,000" and
determine where exactly their interests and allegiance lie! I think
you'd be surprised that the "100,000" are as diverse in their pursuit and
interest in butterflies, as the individuals that subscribe to this
listserv. They run the gamut: from collectors to net-swingers; from
watchers to habitat trouncers; from gardners to habitat restorers; from
extremists to fringe dwellers; from professionals to amateurs. It is a
broad group that defies being "pigeonholed," regardless of its leader's
beliefs.
Jeff may be a "threat" (to people like you), but he is no "Svengali..."
no "Jim Jones..." no "Hitler..." no "Charles Manson..." no "terrorist..."
indeed, he's not even "charismatic"! He hasn't even managed to set up a
NABA Chapter here in Chicago (!) Obviously, his influence doesn't have
the extensive grasp that one would surmise from the "fearful posts" one
often reads on this listserv.
I speak from experience, not "hearsay." Regardless of Jeff's pursuit to
establish his eminent domain (with all his human foibles), he HAS
definitely opened up for the mainstream public, an interest in
butterflies and their dominion that no "collector" has ever achieved, or
for that matter, CARED to SHARE with the "non-scientific" community (!)
I rest my case...
M.B. Prondzinski
Mary Beth Prondzinski
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:10:45 -0600 "Barb Beck"
writes:
> Well Mike I do not know about the lepidopterists but I am sure the
> butterfly
> watchers following Glassberg could learn a heqq of a lot from
> birders. A
> large number of birdwatchers are not lapping up the
> anti-scientific,
> pseudoscientific statements expressed by the head of NABA. Birders
> have
> several scientifically responsible organizations.
>
> There is a tiny radical wacko faction centered in the eastern US
> which cut
> mist nets but most bird watchers are not running around chanting
> "Nets are
> shotguns" We use mist nets, other types of nets to trap birds as
> well as
> giant fish landing nets with padded rims to catch the Great Gray
> Owls (Strix
> nebulosa) and sometimes Northern Hawk Owls (Surninia ulula) that
> come to our
> feet after mice... just like we net butterflies. In this case we
> are
> catching them not to id them but to band them, take measurements on
> them,
> age and sex them by size and feather characteristics so we can
> better
> understand these birds and their population dynamics.
>
> Most Birding databases and scientific butterfly databases keep the
> data to
> the precision in which it can be recorded - be it species or
> subspecies
> particularly where we have overlapping subspecies as with Myrtle and
> Audubon
> Warblers and several other east west pairs. There is not a
> significant
> faction among birdwatchers who disapprove of this and certainly
> there is NO
> case where a species which the naming group admits is a good species
> is left
> as a subspecies AND data for it is not kept separate. The leader of
> the
> antiscientific wing of the butterfly watchers even though he knows
> the
> overlapping ranges of several species which he has lumped still
> flatly
> declares that keeping the stuff by species will not hurt because it
> can
> always be separated later by range. (He is not easily confused by
> facts)
> Not only are some species entered in our birding databases by ssp
> some are
> also aged when they are entered...keeping the data at the precision
> at which
> it was recorded. The common names we used are not set by one person
> or a
> couple people apparently willy nilly changing some Sulphurs to
> yellows and
> giving other species names which are not common or useful. The AOU
> naming
> committee runs by far different rules.
>
> There is still some work that needs to be done on birds which
> require
> specimens. We do not have a leader of a major birding group
> standing up and
> declaring that everything is known about birds and we need no more
> collecting. Often, however, collecting is unnecessary because tiny
> blood or
> feather samples work. There are also lots of birds which are turned
> in
> after being killed hitting windows, tall buildings or being
> electrocuted on
> our power lines.
>
> There are a lot of Glassberg's butterfly watchers that need to learn
> a few
> things from birders. They blame collectors for the demise of their
> favourite bugs while completely ignoring the fact that to have the
> bugs you
> must have the proper habitat. Their leader trashes habitat for two
> days to
> get his perfect trophy photo of a rare Satyr with about 9 other
> people when
> simply netting and cooling it, photographing it and releasing it
> unharmed
> would saved a lot of habitat and who knows how many immature and
> eggs which
> were trampled in the quest. In the same issue he divulges the
> whereabouts
> of an other endangered species supposedly so his minions could rush
> to the
> site and get their trophy photos while trashing that habitat.
>
> Birders are encouraged by their peers and books to identify as
> precisely as
> possible and to only report to the precision of that identification.
> They
> are not taught to identify every Epidnoax flycatcher as a Least
> Flycatcher
> much as the NABA minions identify any Azure sp as a Spring Azure. If
> they
> have a difficult group such as the Emidonox Flycatchers they are
> taught to
> merely put down Epidonax sp.
>
> Birders try to work with ornithologists. Naba members tend to want
> to tie
> the hands of Lepidopterists... calling those who do scientific
> collecting
> "immoral collectors". They are swallowing the rhetoric of their
> leader that
> "no more collection is necessary". We have a whole NE corner of
> this
> province that has just gotten any access - a huge area larger than
> several
> of your NE states. We have nothing from this and other areas here
> and the
> butterfly watchers here as well as the scientific collectors are not
> happy
> to just sit back and say "we already know everything so nothing new
> can be
> there"
>
> The butterfly watchers we have here in Alberta are not afraid to
> carefully
> use nets to identify and release - They can differentiate a net from
> a
> shotgun. They realize that the wild stories about butterflies having
> their
> legs ripped off by netting in nonsense and wacko rhetoric spread on
> the
> internet by the anti science wackos in some areas of the eastern US.
> Our
> counts are all run with nets even though they were airbrushed out of
> the
> photo of our students on the Cardinal River Divide count last year
> in the
> NABA mag. Contrary to what Glassberg says we obviously are not
> discouraging
> people by having them use nets because with a population less that 1
> percent
> of the US we hold almost 10 percent of the NABA counts. We use
> binoculars
> where we can and nets where necessary to take a closer look. If a
> group
> finds a butterfly of which it is not certain about the id the
> butterfly is
> cooled in a vial and taken to the expert who can ascertain its
> proper id
> before letting it loose in the same place where it was caught. Some
> but not
> all of us also collect specimens for scientist who have requested
> them
> because most importantly we realize that there is a lot still to
> learn about
> our butterflies. Those who do not collect specimens respect the
> decision of
> those who do. I really hate to kill a butterfly but do it so send
> things in
> to be studied There are people willing to do the studies if we get
> the
> samples to them. The notion spread by the leader of the NABA that
> every
> butterfly netted on counts that use nets is killed is absolute
> nonsense.
> Alberta butterfly watchers realize that if we do not know what we
> have and
> what habitat they use they cannot get protected. They have not had
> their
> attention diverted away from the need to protect habitat by the
> pseudoscientific rantings of some that it is collectors who are
> driving
> butterflies to extinction. The cars driven by your nice little NABA
> members
> as they go to their beautiful non violent butterfly watching
> sessions
> probably killed more butterflies than if they had nuked every
> butterfly they
> saw through their glasses. An if they ventured off the path to get a
> closer
> look more killed there as well as trampled habitat. We are very
> very
> fortunate here because Glassberg does not understand how to identify
> our
> butterflies (his book is essentially worthless for the colias and
> speyeria)
> and we have good books written by people who do. His wacko
> antiscientific
> philosophy has not taken hold here.
>
> As I have said often ornithology has a lot of support and funding
> because
> there are a lot of birders out there concerned about birds AND THE
> SCIENCE.
> A group of people who want to see butterflies and think they are
> only
> endangerd by collectors and are not worried enough about whether
> they are
> looking at a Spring Azure or some other Azure not are NOT going to
> support
> research to find out what we have and how to protect it. They are
> already
> being told by a pseudoscientist that we know everything there is
> about
> butterflies and no more should be collected. They need to learn that
> that is
> untrue to encourage scientific collection by those willing to do
> it.
>
> I fully agree with the need to discourage trophy and unnecessary
> collection.
> In the past there has been some terrible cases of trophy collection
> by
> museums. BUT there is a big difference between trophy collection
> and
> scientific collection. They must realize the validity of the
> latter.
>
> If a good portion of the butterfly watchers are going to be lead by
> antiscientific radical philosophy they are going to do more to help
> butterflies than they will to help mussels. Pseudo scientific
> naming scheme
> and pseudo scientific data storing scheme which does not record the
> species
> which are present is not going to help matters.
>
> The butterfly watchers need to take a look at the birders and adopt
> a more
> scientific view or at least appreciate the work that the scientists
> working
> with butterflies are doing. They need to appreciate the fact that
> butterflies must at times still be netted to be accurately
> identified on
> some counts. They need to appreciate that in some parts of the
> continent the
> mix of butterflies is much more complicated and less known that what
> they
> have in the eastern US They need to appreciate that everything that
> we need
> to know about butterflies to protect them is not known and that
> hindering
> those who are trying to learn what we have and what habitat they use
> is only
> going to doom species and ssp.
>
> Finally note Glassbergs antiscientific approach to the Miami Blue.
> He is
> clued out that others have formed a group to attempt to learn to
> raise them,
> what their food plant is, planting the things which they think is
> the food
> plant, in general doing something to restore the butterfly.
> Glassberg is
> announcing the location to his minions in his magazine so they can
> all go
> trample habitat like he illustrates in the same issue if the
> magazine to get
> their perfect trophy photo. It never occurs to the guy to try to
> find out
> what is going on.
>
> 100,000 NABA butterfly watchers who do not see any need for science
> are not
> going to support butterfly research at all - they are only going to
> suppress
> it.
>
>
> Barb Beck
> Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
>
>
> Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders
> ?
> From: "Mike Quinn"
> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 17:21:19 -0500
>
> There is one tidbit of knowledge to be gleaned from 100 years of
> birding,
> and that is without the 100,000+ birders there would only be a few
> 100
> ornithologists.
>
> Take away the birders and there would be very little public support
> or
> funding for ornithological research and conservation.
>
> If funds were commiserate with need (instead of with popular appeal)
> then
> North American freshwater mussels would get the lions share of
> research
> funding, not birds.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Mike Quinn
> New Braunfels, TX
> ento at satx.rr.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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/web/.
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From r_seaman at hotmail.com Mon Apr 8 21:19:40 2002
From: r_seaman at hotmail.com (Richard Seaman)
Date: 8 Apr 2002 18:19:40 -0700
Subject: caterpillar identifications
References: <187EA9C3.41FEE3F1.0019DFA7@aol.com>
Message-ID:
Eric,
Thanks very much for your input! I checked your photo, and it
does seem to be a match, so I'll update the wallpaper page in the next
day or so.
regards,
Richard.
PuerNux at aol.com wrote in message news:<187EA9C3.41FEE3F1.0019DFA7 at aol.com>...
> Richard,
> I am pretty sure that #12 (your "pinstripedcaterpillar.jpg") is Cucullia asteroides, probably found on asters. Saw one just like it last summer, so I hope others agree with my ID. (see http://www.cedarcreek.umn.edu/insects/album/027075464ap.html for another picture)
> The "BlackAndRedCostaRicanCaterpillar.jpg" (third to last) is some sort of Nymphalid, I think, but others would be able to help you more.
>
> -Eric Hossler
>
> >folks,
> >
> >If anyone can identify any of the unidentified caterpillars on this
> >page, then I'd be most grateful:
> >
> >http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Nature/Caterpillars/index.html
> >
> >And if you can correct any misidentified caterpillars, then I'd be
> >somewhat less than most grateful, but grateful nonetheless.
> >
> >thanks,
> >
> >Richard.
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From MWalker at gensym.com Mon Apr 8 22:05:35 2002
From: MWalker at gensym.com (Mark Walker)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:05:35 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b
irders ?
Message-ID: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3A3@hqmail.gensym.com>
Todd asked:
>
> Can a non-scientist have a scientific collection?
Todd also shared that he considers his own collection to have scientific
value, which of course I agree with. I may also be inclined to suggest that
having a scientific collection makes a person a scientist anyway - even if
they don't particularly want to be one.
Mark Walker
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From r_seaman at hotmail.com Mon Apr 8 21:45:05 2002
From: r_seaman at hotmail.com (Richard Seaman)
Date: 8 Apr 2002 18:45:05 -0700
Subject: caterpillar identifications
References: , <20020405211936.00717.00001595@mb-cq.aol.com>
Message-ID:
Louise,
Glad you enjoyed the website. The butterfly wallpaper page
generates quite a few hits, second only to some of the military
aircraft pages. The caterpillar pages see rather fewer visitors!
I guess that's probably an unfortunate commentary on the state of
the world.
Richard.
jjcardinal at aol.com (JJCardinal) wrote in message news:<20020405211936.00717.00001595 at mb-cq.aol.com>...
> >http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Nature/Caterpillars/index.html
>
> I cannot I.D. your caterpiller. I did, however enjoy visiting your web site.
> Thanks for posting the URL!
>
> Louise Dawson
> www.jjcardinal.com
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From r_seaman at hotmail.com Mon Apr 8 21:38:24 2002
From: r_seaman at hotmail.com (Richard Seaman)
Date: 8 Apr 2002 18:38:24 -0700
Subject: caterpillar identifications
References: ,
Message-ID:
Alex,
When I was first trying to identify this caterpillar I thought it
was Acronicta funeralis, but I thought I came across some photos of
other species which looked very similar, so I figured it was better to
leave it unidentified, rather than misidentify it.
However, now that I search again, I can't find any other
similar-looking caterpillars, so I'll go with Acronicta funeralis, and
someone can correct me if I'm wrong!
To your knowledge, are there other caterpillars which look like
this, and if so, then how does one distinguish Acronicta funeralis
from the others? I'm starting to think that I just got confused
somehow, and this was the only reasonable identification all along!
thanks,
Richard.
"Alex Segarra" wrote in message news:...
> Richard:
> The paddle caterpillar is Acronicta funeralis.
>
> Good luck, Alex
>
> "Richard Seaman" wrote in message
> news:e85e72ef.0204051800.1ecb031a at posting.google.com...
> > folks,
> >
> > If anyone can identify any of the unidentified caterpillars on this
> > page, then I'd be most grateful:
> >
> > http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Nature/Caterpillars/index.html
> >
> > And if you can correct any misidentified caterpillars, then I'd be
> > somewhat less than most grateful, but grateful nonetheless.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Richard.
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gatrelle at tils-ttr.org Tue Apr 9 03:12:55 2002
From: gatrelle at tils-ttr.org (Ron Gatrelle)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 03:12:55 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
References: <20020408.185529.-246649.3.mbpi@juno.com>
Message-ID: <022e01c1df95$f8c3fec0$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: mbpi at juno.com
> To: barb at birdnut.obtuse.com
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:38:42 -0500
> Subject: Re: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
> birders ?
>
> Sorry, Barb, but you really don't KNOW the "100,000" NABA members
> (including me), or Jeff Glassberg and his "minions." You speak with a
> "forked and biased tongue," and your ignorance on the subject is apparent
> from your verbose posting (!)
>
Actually, I think Barb has had a good bit of personal interaction with
Jeff. Her interaction and yours have been in two different situations. So
you are both correct. Kind of like the current spouse and the ex-spouse in
their view of the common current. (Note I stayed away from gender here as
it works both ways.)
There are many people who have had and continue to have very pleasant
relationships with Jeff - but there are others to whom it has only been
bad. I can say this for two reasons. One is that this is the way it is
with all of us. To some we are great to others we stink. The other reason
is that I have been told some pretty jaw dropping stories of first person
personal conflict. Now I do not relay specifics as it is just hearsay. I
have never had any personal dealings, conversations, or correspondence with
Jeff at all. We might get along great -- or not.
> Perhaps you should do a little more research on the "100,000" and
> determine where exactly their interests and allegiance lie! I think
> you'd be surprised that the "100,000" are as diverse in their pursuit and
> interest in butterflies, as the individuals that subscribe to this
> listserv. They run the gamut: from collectors to net-swingers; from
> watchers to habitat trouncers; from gardners to habitat restorers; from
> extremists to fringe dwellers; from professionals to amateurs. It is a
> broad group that defies being "pigeonholed," regardless of its leader's
> beliefs.
I know Barb is already fully aware of the above as she is one of the first
to point out the vary same things - naba is filled with very different
types - she is one of them. Her use of 100,000 was a total hypothetical.
There is no 100,000 nabaites. This was simply understood by me to be a
valid straw man to line up with the 100,000 birders mentioned by Mike.
Barb was saying _if_ there 1) ended up being this many and 2) if they all
adopted Jeff's views in several areas, then it would be a messed up bunch.
> Jeff may be a "threat" (to people like you), but he is no "Svengali..."
> no "Jim Jones..." no "Hitler..." no "Charles Manson..." no "terrorist..."
Some who known him say he is.
> indeed, he's not even "charismatic"!
Some who know him say he is.
These two statments are meaningless as both beauthy and the beast are in
the eye of the beholder.
snip.
>
> I speak from experience, not "hearsay."
So is Barb. (Are we moving the two checkers back and forth in the corner
yet.)
> Regardless of Jeff's pursuit to establish his eminent domain (with all
his human foibles),
So are you here admitting that from being on the inside you can attest that
he is largely motivated by ego to build and rule his own little kingdom?
That he can not be voted out as he "owns" naba. It is his and thus he is
naba? This is what I hear. I wish I knew the truth on this.
> he HAS definitely opened up for the mainstream public, an interest in
> butterflies and their dominion that no "collector" has ever achieved, or
> for that matter, CARED to SHARE with the "non-scientific" community (!)
First, NABA has done it -- not him. You give no credit to the many people
(including Barb) who have worked very hard at working NABA on a daily
basis. If he dropped out tomorrow, NABA would not miss a beat. Yes, he
deserves all the credit for original vision, hard work, and start up. But
like a great quarterback, without the rest of the team, he is nothing. For
some time NABA has been and is much greater than one person.
Second, your comments are typical of those who know nothing about Clench,
Remington, and the boys who started Lep. Soc. This just shows how much you
are a Johnny-come-lately who doesn't know what she is talking about. It
shows you are in fact a party liner. Your true colors come out. Use of
the C word for the uncaring bastards - like Klots, Clarke, Thorne, Riley,
Harris, Howe, Heitzman, the Millers, Neilson, King, the Mathers, Ehrlich,
the Emmels -- scores.
To all reading this. MB got this in her head from someplace - she really
thinks it is true. But it did not come from a true knowledge of the
pioneers (the collectors) who wrote the popular guides and became mentors
for 12 year old kids in Iowa like me back in the 1940's, 50's, and 60's.
Heads of museums who cared and wrote silly kids about butterflies and
moths - who mentored. Without these men and women there would be no Jeff
Glassberg, no Pyles or Oplers. This rewriting of history was put in her
head - as it has been put in the heads of hundreds. You tell a tree by
its fruit - not its official beat around the issues press releases.
Sorry Mary Beth, but you are way off on this one.
Ron Gatrelle
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From agrkovich at tmpeng.com Tue Apr 9 07:49:43 2002
From: agrkovich at tmpeng.com (Grkovich, Alex)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:49:43 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b
irders ?
Message-ID:
Any "collecting", which is not for profit, is "scientific". Why else would
anyone risk snakebite, blackflies, sinking to his waste in a bog
(alone....without anyone to assist him or to even hear him), ticks, heat,
falling off a cliff (almost happened to me in Colorado two years ago) etc.
for a BUG, unless it's science? Unless I'm selling, then I'm interested in
learning. Simple as that. It's this pseudoscientific group that barb wrote
about yesterday, that's been selling the idea to an ignorant public that
"scientific collecting" must be associated with collecting in association
with a museum or a university etc. Absolutely false...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Walker [SMTP:MWalker at gensym.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:06 PM
> To: 'todd.redhead at sympatico.ca'; barb at birdnut.obtuse.com
> Cc: Leps-L at Lists. Yale. Edu
> Subject: RE: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from
> ... b irders ?
>
> Todd asked:
>
> >
> > Can a non-scientist have a scientific collection?
>
> Todd also shared that he considers his own collection to have scientific
> value, which of course I agree with. I may also be inclined to suggest
> that
> having a scientific collection makes a person a scientist anyway - even if
> they don't particularly want to be one.
>
> Mark Walker
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From mikayak3 at comcast.net Tue Apr 9 08:20:54 2002
From: mikayak3 at comcast.net (Mike Soukup)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 08:20:54 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
References:
Message-ID: <3CB2DCA6.42F9BCBA@comcast.net>
You're my new hero! - oh, make that heroine.
Barb Beck wrote:
> Well Mike I do not know about the lepidopterists but I am sure the butterfly
> watchers following Glassberg could learn a heqq of a lot from birders. A
> large number of birdwatchers are not lapping up the anti-scientific,
> pseudoscientific statements expressed by the head of NABA. Birders have
> several scientifically responsible organizations.
>
> There is a tiny radical wacko faction centered in the eastern US which cut
> mist nets but most bird watchers are not running around chanting "Nets are
> shotguns" We use mist nets, other types of nets to trap birds as well as
> giant fish landing nets with padded rims to catch the Great Gray Owls (Strix
> nebulosa) and sometimes Northern Hawk Owls (Surninia ulula) that come to our
> feet after mice... just like we net butterflies. In this case we are
> catching them not to id them but to band them, take measurements on them,
> age and sex them by size and feather characteristics so we can better
> understand these birds and their population dynamics.
>
> Most Birding databases and scientific butterfly databases keep the data to
> the precision in which it can be recorded - be it species or subspecies
> particularly where we have overlapping subspecies as with Myrtle and Audubon
> Warblers and several other east west pairs. There is not a significant
> faction among birdwatchers who disapprove of this and certainly there is NO
> case where a species which the naming group admits is a good species is left
> as a subspecies AND data for it is not kept separate. The leader of the
> antiscientific wing of the butterfly watchers even though he knows the
> overlapping ranges of several species which he has lumped still flatly
> declares that keeping the stuff by species will not hurt because it can
> always be separated later by range. (He is not easily confused by facts)
> Not only are some species entered in our birding databases by ssp some are
> also aged when they are entered...keeping the data at the precision at which
> it was recorded. The common names we used are not set by one person or a
> couple people apparently willy nilly changing some Sulphurs to yellows and
> giving other species names which are not common or useful. The AOU naming
> committee runs by far different rules.
>
> There is still some work that needs to be done on birds which require
> specimens. We do not have a leader of a major birding group standing up and
> declaring that everything is known about birds and we need no more
> collecting. Often, however, collecting is unnecessary because tiny blood or
> feather samples work. There are also lots of birds which are turned in
> after being killed hitting windows, tall buildings or being electrocuted on
> our power lines.
>
> There are a lot of Glassberg's butterfly watchers that need to learn a few
> things from birders. They blame collectors for the demise of their
> favourite bugs while completely ignoring the fact that to have the bugs you
> must have the proper habitat. Their leader trashes habitat for two days to
> get his perfect trophy photo of a rare Satyr with about 9 other people when
> simply netting and cooling it, photographing it and releasing it unharmed
> would saved a lot of habitat and who knows how many immature and eggs which
> were trampled in the quest. In the same issue he divulges the whereabouts
> of an other endangered species supposedly so his minions could rush to the
> site and get their trophy photos while trashing that habitat.
>
> Birders are encouraged by their peers and books to identify as precisely as
> possible and to only report to the precision of that identification. They
> are not taught to identify every Epidnoax flycatcher as a Least Flycatcher
> much as the NABA minions identify any Azure sp as a Spring Azure. If they
> have a difficult group such as the Emidonox Flycatchers they are taught to
> merely put down Epidonax sp.
>
> Birders try to work with ornithologists. Naba members tend to want to tie
> the hands of Lepidopterists... calling those who do scientific collecting
> "immoral collectors". They are swallowing the rhetoric of their leader that
> "no more collection is necessary". We have a whole NE corner of this
> province that has just gotten any access - a huge area larger than several
> of your NE states. We have nothing from this and other areas here and the
> butterfly watchers here as well as the scientific collectors are not happy
> to just sit back and say "we already know everything so nothing new can be
> there"
>
> The butterfly watchers we have here in Alberta are not afraid to carefully
> use nets to identify and release - They can differentiate a net from a
> shotgun. They realize that the wild stories about butterflies having their
> legs ripped off by netting in nonsense and wacko rhetoric spread on the
> internet by the anti science wackos in some areas of the eastern US. Our
> counts are all run with nets even though they were airbrushed out of the
> photo of our students on the Cardinal River Divide count last year in the
> NABA mag. Contrary to what Glassberg says we obviously are not discouraging
> people by having them use nets because with a population less that 1 percent
> of the US we hold almost 10 percent of the NABA counts. We use binoculars
> where we can and nets where necessary to take a closer look. If a group
> finds a butterfly of which it is not certain about the id the butterfly is
> cooled in a vial and taken to the expert who can ascertain its proper id
> before letting it loose in the same place where it was caught. Some but not
> all of us also collect specimens for scientist who have requested them
> because most importantly we realize that there is a lot still to learn about
> our butterflies. Those who do not collect specimens respect the decision of
> those who do. I really hate to kill a butterfly but do it so send things in
> to be studied There are people willing to do the studies if we get the
> samples to them. The notion spread by the leader of the NABA that every
> butterfly netted on counts that use nets is killed is absolute nonsense.
> Alberta butterfly watchers realize that if we do not know what we have and
> what habitat they use they cannot get protected. They have not had their
> attention diverted away from the need to protect habitat by the
> pseudoscientific rantings of some that it is collectors who are driving
> butterflies to extinction. The cars driven by your nice little NABA members
> as they go to their beautiful non violent butterfly watching sessions
> probably killed more butterflies than if they had nuked every butterfly they
> saw through their glasses. An if they ventured off the path to get a closer
> look more killed there as well as trampled habitat. We are very very
> fortunate here because Glassberg does not understand how to identify our
> butterflies (his book is essentially worthless for the colias and speyeria)
> and we have good books written by people who do. His wacko antiscientific
> philosophy has not taken hold here.
>
> As I have said often ornithology has a lot of support and funding because
> there are a lot of birders out there concerned about birds AND THE SCIENCE.
> A group of people who want to see butterflies and think they are only
> endangerd by collectors and are not worried enough about whether they are
> looking at a Spring Azure or some other Azure not are NOT going to support
> research to find out what we have and how to protect it. They are already
> being told by a pseudoscientist that we know everything there is about
> butterflies and no more should be collected. They need to learn that that is
> untrue to encourage scientific collection by those willing to do it.
>
> I fully agree with the need to discourage trophy and unnecessary collection.
> In the past there has been some terrible cases of trophy collection by
> museums. BUT there is a big difference between trophy collection and
> scientific collection. They must realize the validity of the latter.
>
> If a good portion of the butterfly watchers are going to be lead by
> antiscientific radical philosophy they are going to do more to help
> butterflies than they will to help mussels. Pseudo scientific naming scheme
> and pseudo scientific data storing scheme which does not record the species
> which are present is not going to help matters.
>
> The butterfly watchers need to take a look at the birders and adopt a more
> scientific view or at least appreciate the work that the scientists working
> with butterflies are doing. They need to appreciate the fact that
> butterflies must at times still be netted to be accurately identified on
> some counts. They need to appreciate that in some parts of the continent the
> mix of butterflies is much more complicated and less known that what they
> have in the eastern US They need to appreciate that everything that we need
> to know about butterflies to protect them is not known and that hindering
> those who are trying to learn what we have and what habitat they use is only
> going to doom species and ssp.
>
> Finally note Glassbergs antiscientific approach to the Miami Blue. He is
> clued out that others have formed a group to attempt to learn to raise them,
> what their food plant is, planting the things which they think is the food
> plant, in general doing something to restore the butterfly. Glassberg is
> announcing the location to his minions in his magazine so they can all go
> trample habitat like he illustrates in the same issue if the magazine to get
> their perfect trophy photo. It never occurs to the guy to try to find out
> what is going on.
>
> 100,000 NABA butterfly watchers who do not see any need for science are not
> going to support butterfly research at all - they are only going to suppress
> it.
>
> Barb Beck
> Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
>
> Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
> From: "Mike Quinn"
> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 17:21:19 -0500
>
> There is one tidbit of knowledge to be gleaned from 100 years of birding,
> and that is without the 100,000+ birders there would only be a few 100
> ornithologists.
>
> Take away the birders and there would be very little public support or
> funding for ornithological research and conservation.
>
> If funds were commiserate with need (instead of with popular appeal) then
> North American freshwater mussels would get the lions share of research
> funding, not birds.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Mike Quinn
> New Braunfels, TX
> ento at satx.rr.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From idleweed at tusco.net Tue Apr 9 08:12:03 2002
From: idleweed at tusco.net (David Smith)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 12:12:03 GMT
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
References: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3A3@hqmail.gensym.com>
Message-ID:
Hello,
This is a subject that I am interested in. I have heard that many
museums do not want and are not interested in small private collections. Who
takes them when a collector dies? What good is a collection if it is not
preserved for other people to study? I would think that small concentrated
local collections would be valuable to scientists. I am fortunate because I
live in Ohio and belong to the Ohio Lepidopterists and they will at least
save some parts of a collection. What do other people do with their small
collections that may have undescribed species or range extensions of
species? My understanding is that at least some (many) are thrown out or
allowed to deteriorate. Is this belief that I have not the truth, I hope so.
David Smith
"Mark Walker" wrote in message
news:6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3A3 at hqmail.gensym.com...
> Todd asked:
>
> >
> > Can a non-scientist have a scientific collection?
>
> Todd also shared that he considers his own collection to have scientific
> value, which of course I agree with. I may also be inclined to suggest
that
> having a scientific collection makes a person a scientist anyway - even if
> they don't particularly want to be one.
>
> Mark Walker
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 09:06:05 2002
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:06:05 +0100
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b irders ?
In-Reply-To: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3A3@hqmail.gensym.com>
References: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3A3@hqmail.gensym.com>
Message-ID: <02040913534701.01244@localhost.localdomain>
On Tuesday 09 April 2002 03:05 am, Mark Walker wrote:
> Todd asked:
> > Can a non-scientist have a scientific collection?
>
> Todd also shared that he considers his own collection to have scientific
> value, which of course I agree with. I may also be inclined to suggest
> that having a scientific collection makes a person a scientist anyway -
> even if they don't particularly want to be one.
>
> Mark Walker
I suspect this may provoke a reaction. Yes, I am being provocative.I have a
grin on my face writing this but I can justify _every_ point. I find Mark's
assertion utterly illogical. Perhaps this will actually get some people
thinking about what science really is! :-)
Every time the need for collecting comes up it is defended as being
scientific. Every collection is a scientific collection that is its
justification. I often find myself explaining this to people myself. There
is a scientific justification. Of course there is.
_However_ the evidence from this list shows that there is often a lamentable
lack of logical and scientific thinking amongst certain collectors.
Regular observers will know that certain people on this list claim to be
scientific but advance or support the most illogical, irrational and
unscientific ideas.
If we were to believe it all we would believe according to one person that
_all_ of physics is wrong, _all_ of genetics is wrong. _all_ of geology is
wrong and _all_ of linguistics is wrong etc.etc.etc. Why? because some
"Talibanesque Mullah " told him so. This is not science but anti-science.
Then there is the lepidopterist who thinks it is quite reasonable to suppose
the US government is secretly surveiling its populus with Black Helicopters!
Seriously folks! It is all there in the archives!
Others who believe in ridiculous consipracy theories like the one about
the government officials faking data in a lynx survey. Look at the data. The
story is obviously, clearly, utterly "what ever superlative" FALSE!!!
To be fair it isn't just collectors but I am constantly worried by people who
fall for hoaxes. It wouldn't be fair to criticise Americans for not knowing
rude British slang but other things that are said that are equally obviously
hoaxes and people should know. Yet they still fall for it. BE scientific
_check_ the data _first_.
Some people worry about the survival of the study of lepidoptera.
Well certain kinds of lepidopterist are bound to exist in the future.
There is one born every minute! :-)
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 09:10:55 2002
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:10:55 +0100
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b irders ?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <02040914105501.02218@localhost.localdomain>
On Tuesday 09 April 2002 12:49 pm, Grkovich, Alex wrote:
> Any "collecting", which is not for profit, is "scientific". Why else would
> anyone risk snakebite, blackflies, sinking to his waste in a bog
> (alone....without anyone to assist him or to even hear him), ticks, heat,
> falling off a cliff (almost happened to me in Colorado two years ago) etc.
> for a BUG, unless it's science?
No this isn't logical. There is an alternative explanation. They would do it
because they _enjoy_ doing it.
Unless I'm selling, then I'm interested in
> learning.
Yes, that may be the case for you but it isn't necessarily the case for
everybody.
Simple as that. It's this pseudoscientific group that barb wrote
> about yesterday, that's been selling the idea to an ignorant public that
> "scientific collecting" must be associated with collecting in association
> with a museum or a university etc. Absolutely false...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Walker [SMTP:MWalker at gensym.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:06 PM
> > To: 'todd.redhead at sympatico.ca'; barb at birdnut.obtuse.com
> > Cc: Leps-L at Lists. Yale. Edu
> > Subject: RE: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from
> > ... b irders ?
> >
> > Todd asked:
> > > Can a non-scientist have a scientific collection?
> >
> > Todd also shared that he considers his own collection to have scientific
> > value, which of course I agree with. I may also be inclined to suggest
> > that
> > having a scientific collection makes a person a scientist anyway - even
> > if they don't particularly want to be one.
> >
> > Mark Walker
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
--
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu Tue Apr 9 09:37:44 2002
From: gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu (Michael Gochfeld)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 09:37:44 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders
?
References:
Message-ID: <3CB2EEA8.54074F@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
I can't agree with Alex about that "which is not for profit, is
'scientific'".
Many people collect butterflies for purely aesthetic reasons, just as
many people who watch, attract, and
photograph butterflies (or even census them) do so for aesthetic rather
than scientific reasons.
I think it was Paul Ehrlich who railed against this arguing that
butterflies are not postage stamps.
I do agree that one can be scientific about one's collecting without
being affiliated with a scientific institution.
Mike Gochfeld
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From drivingiron at earthlink.net Tue Apr 9 09:47:16 2002
From: drivingiron at earthlink.net (Jim Taylor)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:47:16 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
References: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3A3@hqmail.gensym.com>
Message-ID: <001201c1dfcd$112df9c0$5ac5b83f@1swch01>
I have donated (and donate) to the Florida State Collection of Arthropods,
and I intend my collection to go there when I croak. I think John Heppner is
eager to get leps from different parts of the country.
Jim Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Smith"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
> Hello,
> This is a subject that I am interested in. I have heard that many
> museums do not want and are not interested in small private collections.
Who
> takes them when a collector dies? What good is a collection if it is not
> preserved for other people to study? I would think that small concentrated
> local collections would be valuable to scientists. I am fortunate because
I
> live in Ohio and belong to the Ohio Lepidopterists and they will at least
> save some parts of a collection. What do other people do with their small
> collections that may have undescribed species or range extensions of
> species? My understanding is that at least some (many) are thrown out or
> allowed to deteriorate. Is this belief that I have not the truth, I hope
so.
>
> David Smith
> "Mark Walker" wrote in message
> news:6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3A3 at hqmail.gensym.com...
> > Todd asked:
> >
> > >
> > > Can a non-scientist have a scientific collection?
> >
> > Todd also shared that he considers his own collection to have scientific
> > value, which of course I agree with. I may also be inclined to suggest
> that
> > having a scientific collection makes a person a scientist anyway - even
if
> > they don't particularly want to be one.
> >
> > Mark Walker
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From bbarton at kali.com.cn Tue Apr 9 22:06:57 2002
From: bbarton at kali.com.cn (bbarton at kali.com.cn)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:06:57 -1900
Subject: Don't lose your job or business - Sell Products on The Internet.............407
Message-ID: <0000759e4f38$00005f87$0000328a@mail2.jubiipost.dk>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020409/e3d1e1b4/attachment.html
From Niklas.Wahlberg at zoologi.su.se Tue Apr 9 10:22:19 2002
From: Niklas.Wahlberg at zoologi.su.se (Niklas Wahlberg)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:22:19 +0200
Subject: Fw: Taxonomy With Technology- Red Adm.
In-Reply-To: <02032923584504.01968@localhost.localdomain>
References: <004c01c1d767$c5adf580$381c58d9@server>
<004c01c1d767$c5adf580$381c58d9@server>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020409161248.00bc87a8@mail.it.su.se>
Some time ago the thread below popped up. Unfortunately I was away at that
time, so my reply comes only now. What can I tell you? not much I'm afraid.
I've sequenced the COI gene for the three individuals pictured on my
website and the results are ambiguous. Actually the two European
individuals are more different to each other than either is to the American
individual! What this tells me is that there is potentially a lot of
interesting variation in Vanessa atalanta (amiraali) that needs to be
documented, especially since it's so widespread. Ditto with Vanessa cardui
(ohdakeperhonen). And that is what I intend to do. I have a bunch of
specimens from Europe that are waiting to be sequenced, but I only have the
one individual from North America. As always, anybody with a net >;-) who
wants to help, I'll be happy to receive stuff to be sequenced.
Cheers,
Niklas
At 23:58 29.03.2002 +0000, Neil Jones wrote:
>On Friday 29 March 2002 09:22 pm, Guy Van de Poel & A. Kalus wrote:
> > Niklas, have you read this ?
> >
> > Guy.
>
>Of course. Niklas's work on molecular phylogeny.
>
>Actually it seems that he has already sampled both US and European
>specimens.
>
>http://www.zoologi.su.se/research/wahlberg/Nymphalinae/atalanta.htm
>
>Is there anything you can tell us, Niklas?
>
>--
>Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
>NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
>"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
>butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
>National Nature Reserve
Niklas Wahlberg
Department of Zoology
Stockholm University
S-106 91 Stockholm
SWEDEN
Phone: +46 8 164047
Fax: +46 8 167715
http://www.zoologi.su.se/research/wahlberg/
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 10:38:02 2002
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:38:02 +0100
Subject: The truth about the Lynx study
Message-ID: <02040915380203.02218@localhost.localdomain>
The false story about this Lynx study has been posted here a few times.
There are several motives that people may have had. Some on this list are
just plain opposed to all conservation measures in principle. Others naively
believe what they are told. Others may have an interest in conservation but
put their commercial interests ahead of conservation ones.
It is not only relevant here because it debunks misinformation. In the big
picture it has relevance to creatures like the Miami Blue. The Lynx story was
started by people who do not care for the preservation of nature and
_actively_ oppose it. Likewise on this list there are those who _actively_
oppose the conservation of creatures like the Miami Blue . There are those
who profess to want to conserve it but naively distrubute or support
propaganda against this aim and there are people who put their commercial
interests before the Miami Blue and are prepared to potentially sacrifice it
for these commercial interests.
This article may be summed up in one sentence
"There is no evidence whatsoever to support either a conspiracy or a
cover-up. "
-- OUTSIDE magazine, April, 2002
Dispatches: Investigation
Debunking Lynxgate
As lawmakers accuse seven government biologists of fraud, the truth is
drowned out by the headlines
By Daniel Glick
"THE ONLY THING we were doing was trying to get to the truth," says
Mitch Wainwright, a 46-year-old Forest Service wildlife biologist based
in Amboy, Washington. Instead he got an unwanted starring role in the
most bizarre environmental flap of recent memory: Lynxgate.
Details of "the great biofraud," as the The Washington Times has dubbed
the affair, first emerged just before Christmas. Wainwright and six
other state and federal wildlife scientists in Washington State
allegedly "planted" clumps of wild lynx fur in the Gifford Pinchot and
Wenatchee national forests. The intent, say their accusers, was to
trigger the protections that are imposed when a threatened species like
the Canada lynx is found living in a new area, namely closure of the
forest to recreationists and loggers.
For their roles in a green conspiracy that seemed worthy of Oliver
Stone, Wainwright and five colleagues were reassigned to other
programs-one other retired-and were told to keep their mouths shut.
Wainwright was very reluctant to speak to Outside, fearing not only for
his job but also for the future of all endangered-species programs in
the United States.
Why? Because industry groups, pundits, and conservative lawmakers-led by
Republican House Committee on Resources chairman James Hansen of Utah
and Scott McInnis of Colorado, the Republican who chairs the
subcommittee that oversees national forests-are using the lynx
controversy to launch wide-ranging attacks on endangered-species
policies past, present, and future. "There is so much fear out there
about how [the Endangered Species Act] works," says McInnis spokesman
Blain Rethmeier. Then again, at least some of the fear has been inspired
by McInnis himself. Last year, after four wilderness firefighters
perished in a blaze in Washington State, he charged that Forest Service
officials may have been culpable by delaying a decision allowing a
helicopter to scoop water from a river containing threatened fish. The
charge was later proven false.
What emerges is not a scientific scandal but a case study in
media-amplified demagoguery.
It's all pretty rousing stuff, but the real untold story is that the
great lynx biofraud is baloney. Outside interviewed 25 scientists,
investigators, and policy makers familiar with the incident, and
reviewed all the relevant reports. What emerges is not a scientific
scandal but a case study in media-amplified demagoguery. There is no
evidence whatsoever to support either a conspiracy or a cover-up. The
scientists didn't "plant" lynx fur in the forests. They didn't plot to
invoke the Endangered Species Act through falsified data. And even if
they had, it wouldn't have worked, because any evidence of lynx would
have to be confirmed with further research before new management
decisions could be made.
Lynxgate's selectively told tale of environmental skullduggery has so
angered some biologists that they've started using the M word. "It's
McCarthy politics all over again," says Elliott Norse, a founder of the
Society for Conservation Biology, an Arlington, Virginia-based group
that encourages biodiversity research. "It's the stupidest thing I've
ever heard."
To understand this fracas and why it has staying power, it helps to know
a little bit about the threatened Canada lynx, a cousin to the bobcat
found in Canada, the Rockies, and across a northern swath of the United
States. The cat first landed at the center of controversy in 1998, when
ecoterrorists cited the need to protect its habitat as justification for
burning down $12
million worth of facilities at the Vail ski resort. But our story begins
the following year, in 1999, when an interagency team of American
biologists began a three-year, 16-state survey to determine where in the
nation the cat still roamed, and where it didn't. The team's primary
scientific tool is a simple rubbing post, wrapped in carpet, laced with
attractant scent, studded
with small tacks, and placed in the woods. Drawn by the odor, critters
brush against the tacks and leave behind hairs, which are then collected
and sent to the Carnivore Conservation Genetics Laboratory in Missoula,
Montana. If a submitted sample turns out to be lynx, that means the cat
exists in the woods where it was collected.
The problem was that in previous lynx studies, biologists had complained
that the lab's results were screwy. In one case, technicians reported
that submitted hair samples came from feral house cats-though the fur in
question was taken from the middle of a wilderness. (The lab says it has
clear protocols in place to correctly identify samples.) So in 1999, and
again in
2000, several biologists working on the survey on behalf of the U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife independently decided to test the men
and women in white coats by sending them hairs from a captive lynx. One
biologist even sent in hairs plucked from "Harry"-a stuffed bobcat that
he keeps in his office.
In September 2000, somebody at the Forest Service sounded an alarm about
the use of these "unauthorized" control samples. A departmental criminal
investigation cleared the biologists of any wrongdoing, but a second
report, prepared by a Portland, Oregon, private investigation firm and
completed last June, notes that the biologists claim to have done
everything aboveboard, except for a small detail: The national lynx
study doesn't authorize using control samples, whether they're taken
from Harry or a captive lynx. The scientists shrugged, and the whole
thing landed in a binder on a shelf.
In mid-December, someone tipped off The Washington Times, and the paper
subsequently ran with news that "wildlife biologists planted false
evidence of a rare cat species in two national forests." Other papers
followed suit with bombastic editorials, and the fur really began to
fly. Congressman Hansen called for a top-to-bottom federal review of the
lynx survey. The scandal, he warned, threatened the very economy of
rural America. "This hoax, if it hadn't been discovered," Hansen said,
"could have wrecked some people's way of life."
Mitch Wainwright and the other alleged conspirators, whose names were
blacked out of the private investigator's report, could do nothing but
sit tight as a maelstrom began to rage around them. Interior Secretary
Gale Norton and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, who oversee Fish and
Wildlife and the Forest Service respectively, each put their Office of
Inspector General on the case. A congressional hearing was scheduled for
February 28.
But while Wainwright declined to discuss specifics, citing the
investigation, he flatly denies the conspiracy charges.
"There was no collusion," he says, "no agenda."
The strangest thing about the so-called planted fur samples is the
assumption that saws and snowmobiles will fall silent wherever lynx are
discovered. In fact, there are virtually no cases in which the presence
of lynx has changed management policies. Lynx certainly didn't stop the
Forest Service from approving the Vail ski area's planned expansion into
what Colorado state biologists considered prime lynx habitat on the
White River National Forest.
When presented with this fact, Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for Hansen's
committee, would only refer back to the private investigator's findings.
"There is clearly no smoking gun in that report," she allows. "But there
are unanswered questions." She declined to elaborate, citing the pending
congressional investigation, except to add that the biologists' use of
unauthorized control samples was "a questionable way to conduct a
study."
Wainwright acknowledges that he erred by not following the chain of
command. "We did things wrong," he says, citing their failure to clear
the control samples with the head of the lynx program. (The biologists'
immediate supervisors were aware of the control samples.) The small
point is well taken, but the bigger picture here should give pause to
anyone concerned over how easily politics trumps science inside the
Beltway.
"Anything endangered-species related is now being called into question,"
says Eric Wingerter, national field director for Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, a green-tilted group that includes federal
land managers. And the conservative press rushed to provide those
critics with a soapbox: "The tendency of true believers," sniffed an
opinion piece in The Weekly Standard, "is to defend any means to their
end. "Indeed, post-Lynxgate, some lawmakers have called for a review of
an unrelated federal grizzly-bear research program, while others are
rehashing dubious stories that federal biologists faked data that
touched off the spotted-owl wars of the eighties. "The people with the
agenda aren't the biologists," says Wingerter. "And the biologists are
scared to death."
For his part, Forest Service scientist Mitch Wainwright, who is now
working on timber-sale evaluations, does plead guilty-"of na?vet?." But
as for charges that he and his colleagues were engaged in a crusade, he
is emphatic. "Nothing," he says, "could be further from the truth."
http://outside.away.com/outside/news/lynxgate_1.adp
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From rjparcelles at yahoo.com Tue Apr 9 10:57:32 2002
From: rjparcelles at yahoo.com (Bob Parcelles,Jr.)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: BOYD HILL ...A SUNDAY BUTTERFLY SURVEY
Message-ID: <20020409145732.25407.qmail@web12206.mail.yahoo.com>
Hi,
On Sunday I went to Boyd Hill Nature Park in south St.
Petersburg, FL to primarily plan a future Ecology Today TV production
on "Gopher Tortoise Ecology". Well the leps were flying and I did a
survey by tram and by foot. I was assisted by C2M Intern Harry
Hoffman and by Dave McGuire, a Friends of Boyd Hill Volunteer. While
there we, along with Ranger Greg Coston, decided that a "tour" would
make a good subject for an episode in our planned Nature Potpourri TV
Series.
THE SURVEY:
Time: 9:ooAm-3:oo PM
Sunny, 79-85 Degrees F, Breezy and of moderate humidity.
The following Species were Identified:
Spicebush Swallowtail...(18)
E. Black Swallowtail....(1)
Giant swallowtail.......(1)
Zebra Swallowtail.......(1)
Barred Sulphur..........(3)
Cloudless Giant Sulpher.(134)!
Orange-barred Sulpher...(19)
Cabbage White...........(1)!
Monarch.................(2)
Zebra Longwing..........(5)
Gulf fritillary.........(17)
Viceroy.................(14)
Phaon Crescent..........(1) !
American Painted Lady...(4) !
Fiery Skipper...........(1)
Possible Long-tailed skipper but not good enough to count
since it is listed R on the checklist (1996). It could have been
either a Dorantes or Longtail-tailed Skipper (*Urbanus proteus*)
**********
Boyd Hill is a delightful place with many trails and quite
a few habitats. Hammocks, Pine Flatwoods, Sand Pine Scrub, and
Wetlands (edge of lakes, ponds, streams, marshes & swamps). It is
remarkable in that it is owned and operated by a City. Visit if you
have a chance.There are upcoming workshops and a count led by our own
Tim Adams.
Bob
PS For TILS TALK, LEPS-L and Nature Potpourri:
I used a "Butterfly check List For Boyd Hill Nature Park and Lake
Maggiore" (1996). This was posted on LepsRus a neat listserve serving
Florida and flroida lepers. It has all types but is non-consumptive
in focus with no negative editorial content.
With all of the discussions we have been having with regard to
watching and collecting, subspecies, standardizing common names and
even making sure each subspecies has a common name, I have a problem.
There are hundreds of NABA counts coming up, it seems that some thing
is dead wrong! I did not take the time to check if I could have been
dealing with subspecies on this little walk and ride Sunday. If my
work is of ANY scientific value it should have included subspecies,
at least where phenotypicaly identifiable by sight! Here we have NABA
saying the counts are the # 1 way of surveying Butterflies in NA and
they do not even count (or in most cases give a common name to)
subspecies. Here you have a handful (3 or 4 of people) lead by one
man taking over the common naming of butterflies and for the most
part not recognizing subspecies. Only the newest and most navie have
a 100% dedication to his policies and agenda as barb and others have
pointed out. we need Rons work to progress with all of our feedback
to standardize common names where NABA left off (dropped the ball) We
all know that subspecies are where it is at when you are concerned
with the protection of living populations! Obviously, there is and
would be a problem if subspecies were listed as common names on a
checklist and vcounters picked that for a siting ased soley on
location. Knowing there might be opher indicators, such as behavior,
associatve plants for the most part we have to accept limitations due
to the fact that we are "watching" and not examining specimens in the
hand or in the lab. While I like Barb's philosopy in counting, I can
see that the numbers of surveys and numbers of participants can
contribut useful data. I plan to participate in at least 12 NABA
counts this season...I do not want to see us waste our time to a
certain extent. I see the need for EVERYONE to pay the dues and join
NABA and start a true dialogue on the direction pf and promotion of
Lepidoptery in this country. Leroy should run for President!!!
My point is we need to smarten up not dumb down. Glassberg and 4,000
subscribers and members can not dictate lepidoptery to many 10's of
thousands who have been scientific in their approach. No one elected
Jeff to take over the science of lepidoptery nor the hobby of and to
dictate policy to anyone. Many of, if not most of his members are
quite intelligent and see points on both sides. There should be NO
sides. Those who abuse collecting and those who trample habitat to
photograph and those who abuse the public trust can not share the
feild with me and that is no threat just a promise. He coexisted on
this planet with me until he treated the project as beneath his
dignity. He will rue that article for many yuears to come. NABA does
not need the negative feedback it is causing. I have at least 7
reporters wanting rebuttal interviews. They are coming in due time,
not out of any vindicativness, but only because the Miami Blue needs
PR for public support and no one needs there efforts or credibility
atttacked.
Jeff Glassberg, after putting the Miami Blue at risk by selfishly
sending hordes to the population deserves no place of "honor in the
Project". And Anne Kilmer's post as she got on the "big boat" went
way beyond policy on the Miami Blue Butterfly Restoration Project. To
go beyond our agreed on overtures to Glassberg personally (we are
alrady working with NABA chapters), Her Assitant Directors are
already in place and no one else is authorized at this point. It is
very nice to wax poetic and write witty prose but poems do not get
the job done. It takes work not rhetoric at some point.
When she disembarks she will have a very unpleasant surprise. Sorry
but that's the way its gotta be. We do not have puppets nor do we
need any puppetmasters...that is Dark Humor.
=====
Bob Parcelles, Jr
Pinellas Park, FL
RJP Associates, C2M-BWPTi
rjparcelles at yahoo.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturepotpourri
"Change your thoughts and you change your world."
- Norman Vincent Peale
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 11:01:00 2002
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:01:00 +0100
Subject: Fw: Taxonomy With Technology- Red Adm.
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020409161248.00bc87a8@mail.it.su.se>
References: <004c01c1d767$c5adf580$381c58d9@server> <5.0.2.1.2.20020409161248.00bc87a8@mail.it.su.se>
Message-ID: <02040916010004.02218@localhost.localdomain>
On Tuesday 09 April 2002 03:22 pm, Niklas Wahlberg wrote:
> Some time ago the thread below popped up. Unfortunately I was away at that
> time, so my reply comes only now. What can I tell you? not much I'm afraid.
> I've sequenced the COI gene for the three individuals pictured on my
> website and the results are ambiguous. Actually the two European
> individuals are more different to each other than either is to the American
> individual! What this tells me is that there is potentially a lot of
> interesting variation in Vanessa atalanta (amiraali) that needs to be
> documented, especially since it's so widespread. Ditto with Vanessa cardui
> (ohdakeperhonen). And that is what I intend to do. I have a bunch of
> specimens from Europe that are waiting to be sequenced, but I only have the
> one individual from North America. As always, anybody with a net >;-) who
> wants to help, I'll be happy to receive stuff to be sequenced.
>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
Thanks for giving us this Niklas. It is fascinating. I find your work really
interesting. It is very interesting to know that there could be a lot of
variation in such a widespread and mobile species.
I am just a little unclear of what we can all do for you. Do you still need
specimens of cardui from Europe?
I think you mean you only have one N. American atalanta. Do you need
American cardui as well?
I think there is an opportunity for people on this list to help with this
research here. From what I have seen on Niklas's website the specimens
can be quite battered. They don't need to be pristine.
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From mikayak3 at comcast.net Tue Apr 9 13:02:37 2002
From: mikayak3 at comcast.net (Mike Soukup)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 13:02:37 -0400
Subject: help - I need leaves!!!
Message-ID: <3CB31EAD.DEE9C324@comcast.net>
I have an EXTREMELY early batch of Actias larvae in first instar. I had
brought in a Sweetgum tree a month ago - and it leafed out nicely.
Unfortunately, I had more ova than I though and these buggers have
almost defoliated "my one tree". I have given some larvae away and have
also brought in another tree and taken alot of cuttings and have them
indoors also - but, they will not be leafed out soon enough. If there
is anybody from down South who could ship me a BIG box of sweetgum
overnite, I would gladly pay for the shipping and handling (I'll even
send you leaves back in another month!!) . If not, I am going to have
to drive to NC within the next few days.
And, in case nobody can help with the shipment, can anybody at least
tell me how far south I will need to drive before the Sweetgums have
leaves???
You can reply off-list.
Thanks in advance!!!!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020409/96ba3a16/attachment.html
From neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 9 13:18:33 2002
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:18:33 +0100
Subject: help - I need leaves!!!
In-Reply-To: <3CB31EAD.DEE9C324@comcast.net>
References: <3CB31EAD.DEE9C324@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <02040918183301.03174@localhost.localdomain>
On Tuesday 09 April 2002 06:02 pm, Mike Soukup wrote:
> I have an EXTREMELY early batch of Actias larvae in first instar. I had
> brought in a Sweetgum tree a month ago - and it leafed out nicely.
> Unfortunately, I had more ova than I though and these buggers have
> almost defoliated "my one tree". I have given some larvae away and have
> also brought in another tree and taken alot of cuttings and have them
> indoors also - but, they will not be leafed out soon enough. If there
> is anybody from down South who could ship me a BIG box of sweetgum
> overnite, I would gladly pay for the shipping and handling (I'll even
> send you leaves back in another month!!) . If not, I am going to have
> to drive to NC within the next few days.
>
> And, in case nobody can help with the shipment, can anybody at least
> tell me how far south I will need to drive before the Sweetgums have
> leaves???
>
> You can reply off-list.
Oops. Looks as if you're up a creek without a paddle. :-)
I am replying to everyone since this may help.
This may help people in general with the timing of things.
It will only apply to the USA I fear.
Hopkin's Law of Bioclimatics will perhaps give a hint as to how far you have
to travel.
http://kck.kancrn.org/phenology/cbackground.cfm
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gatrelle at tils-ttr.org Tue Apr 9 14:17:28 2002
From: gatrelle at tils-ttr.org (Ron Gatrelle)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:17:28 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
References: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3A3@hqmail.gensym.com>
<001201c1dfcd$112df9c0$5ac5b83f@1swch01>
Message-ID: <027901c1dff2$cf37b9e0$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Taylor"
To: ;
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
> I have donated (and donate) to the Florida State Collection of
Arthropods,
> and I intend my collection to go there when I croak. I think John Heppner
is
> eager to get leps from different parts of the country.
>
> Jim Taylor
This is very true. However, if they are moths they are apt to get a lot
better curatorial care than butterflies there. I know space is very used
up there - but the way valuable _butterfly_ collections donated years ago
(Arbogast, Heitzman etc) are just stacked it the isles in cardboard boxes
waiting to be crushed or knocked over is a disgrace. John is not a
butterfly person -- and it shows.
HE IS ONE FINE FELLA - This is about curation and space - not John.
Some museums are not keen on receiving specimens only because the Museums
have cut way back on staff, budget and no more space in the morgue.
Otherwise they will never turn down specimens - these "scientific"
instructions are the greatest collectors of ALL TIME. Where else can one
go and find 10 drawers of Cabbage Whites. Does one want to see extinct
leps? They are in the Big museums by the hundreds. Scientific
collecting? Most people with a postage stamp-butterfly-collection make
due with just one or two pair. I digress.
OK, I'll say it. The most adamant and game hog collectors are with
museums. Hey, they are the ones still shooting the birds. They love it --
that is why they are there. They are not some noble cut above the "lay"
collector. Myth. Go to a museum and get to know the people - they are up
to their necks in dead stuff.
Ron
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From rjparcelles at yahoo.com Tue Apr 9 14:20:29 2002
From: rjparcelles at yahoo.com (Bob Parcelles,Jr.)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Paul gets but Kicked by Pat foley on Ecolog
Message-ID: <20020409182029.59248.qmail@web12206.mail.yahoo.com>
Editor's Note:
This was posted on Ecolog in reply to Paul Cherubini's frequent,
repititous posts defending Pierre Dupont's ridiculous statements.
Paul has centered on attacking Foley and Ehrich even after Ehrich's
wife posts!
YOU ARE ARE THERE TO SEE PAUL GET HIS ARSE KICKED GOOD BY PAT FOLEY!
:) .
This is one of many posts countering Paul. Pete Dupont was getting
some middle of the roaders to express middle of the road views until
Paul jumped in. They recognize a non, anti, scientist when they see
one.
Right on Ecologists of America.
We come into the 21 st century with our eyes wide open. Instead of
wide shut!
See ya John Dupont, wherever they currentlyt have you under guard.
You would have made a good CEO. Maybe in the next life.
rjp
++================>
Ecologgers,
I would like to clarify my quote and express what I feel is a near
consensus in the "academic" ecology community.
1) Paul Ehrlich has done much good scientific work.
2) Paul Ehrlich has done great work in raising the spectres of
overpopulation, habitat loss, biodiversity loss and
resourceoverexploitation to the general public.
3) Paul Ehrlich has been wrong about the exact timing on many
crises,sometimes because his doomsaying has actually helped people to
recognizeand deal with the problems, sometimes because he was just
wrong.
4) Being wrong is an inevitable part of science. Our job is to get it
right. Let us do that.
5) The problems Paul Ehrlich has identified are real and need real
attention.
6) Pierre DuPont, Bjorn Lomberg and Paul Cherubini are not
scientists,nor are they trying to solve real problems. What do they
have to contribute? What is their agenda? Will they help fix the
world or just whine about Paul Ehrlich? There are real problems out
there.
Help fix them or go away
.Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu
++======================>>
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Paul Cherubini wrote
:> I think part of what Pete Dupont was complaining about is the
general> decline in academic integrity that seems to have occurred in
the 70's, 80's> and 90's following Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb
book. I mean
> most academic professionals I have encountered appear to> support
Ehrlich for wildly overstating ecological threats 30 years ago.>
Example: today a government professional wrote me privately:
>> "Paul - while you don't say what your personal viewpoint on the
> Ehrlich issue is, I can guess it is not positive. I would agree
with
> Pat Foley that overstating dangers has its place when>
communicating with the blissfully complacent - it's how parent
s> keep their children from playing in the street, for instance!"
>> Nowadays overstating environmental threats seems to be the>
cultural norm. For example, consider some of the headlines
> we were reading three years ago:>
************************************************************************************
Bob Parcelles, Jr.
Pinellas Park, FL
Ecologist, RJP Associates
BWPTi/C2M
Reply To: parcbob at aol.com
Phone: (727) 548-9775
Fax: (720) 441-3682
Nature Potpourri
Care2's Race for the Rainforest
#####################################################################
=====
Bob Parcelles, Jr
Pinellas Park, FL
RJP Associates, C2M-BWPTi
rjparcelles at yahoo.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturepotpourri
"Change your thoughts and you change your world."
- Norman Vincent Peale
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gatrelle at tils-ttr.org Tue Apr 9 14:34:40 2002
From: gatrelle at tils-ttr.org (Ron Gatrelle)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:34:40 -0400
Subject: Fw: Taxonomy With Technology- Red Adm.
References: <004c01c1d767$c5adf580$381c58d9@server>
<5.0.2.1.2.20020409161248.00bc87a8@mail.it.su.se>
<02040916010004.02218@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <029701c1dff5$35f959c0$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Jones"
To: "Niklas Wahlberg" ; "leps list"
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Taxonomy With Technology- Red Adm.
>
> I think there is an opportunity for people on this list to help with this
> research here. From what I have seen on Niklas's website the specimens
> can be quite battered. They don't need to be pristine.
> --
Neil -- Probably without knowing (although you know this) you just gave one
of the ways one can tell a scientific collector/collection from a non.
Specimen condition. Those with the _eye_ to science are more concerned
with other things than "reared perfect" specimens all laid out like
starched shirts. Function over form. We all like the form though - cake
and eat it too :-)
Ron
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From lawrence.gall at yale.edu Tue Apr 9 15:16:56 2002
From: lawrence.gall at yale.edu (Lawrence F. Gall)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:16:56 -0400
Subject: pending amendments to LEPS-L
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20020409151038.00aafb30@lfg2.mail.yale.edu>
Hello LEPS-L subscribers,
Some important information about the list.
I want everyone to have advance notice of changes that will be made to LEPS-L
on Monday 15 April. At that time, the list will be amended so that (a) only
subscribers to LEPS-L may post, and (b) all subsequent requests to subscribe
to LEPS-L will require a brief confirmatory reply to a piece of email.
Everyone who is a subscriber as of Monday morning 15 April will
automatically be re-subscribed, using their email address of record in
the LEPS-L subscription list from Monday morning.
Basically, LEPS-L for years has had a "wide open door" policy, and this
is being amended now to an "open door" policy for any/all who confirm
their subscription intent. This is a common configuration for lists, and
should greatly curtail the type of first-time-on-target spam recently
aimed at leps-l at lists.yale.edu It should not change the gateway behavior
between LEPS-L and sci.bio.entomology.lepidoptera (note that someone
can still post to LEPS-L through s.b.e.l. even if that person is not
a LEPS-L subscriber per se; but recent spam has been directed at
leps-l at lists.yale.edu rather than via the gateway).
Some folks may experience problems after Monday 15 April, as follows.
If your subscription address in LEPS-L after Monday does not
exactly match the reply-to address that you are using in your email
software, you will not be able to post to leps-l at lists.yale.edu, because
of the more stringent validation being made against the list of subscribers.
(You will still be able to *receive* posts, because of the less restrictive
manner in which incoming email to you typically gets validated. For example,
at many institutions, people have an address jane.doe at university.edu But
using @department.university.edu or @building.department.university.edu
if often happily accepted as an equivalent by computers that route email at
the institution).
In order to minimize complications, prior to next Monday, please determine
whether your subscription address in LEPS-L -- which we'll call
your "old" address for discussion -- in fact matches your "current"
reply-to address as it appears in your email software:
1. Compose some email to listproc at lists.yale.edu, and in the body of that
email simply say REV LEPS-L -- you will be emailed the current list of
subscribers. It's always best to send plain text email only to
listproc at lists.yale.edu, and turn off any automatic signature that you
have in your email software. Here's what the request might look like:
from: lawrence.gall at yale.edu
to: listproc at lists.yale.edu
subject: review
--------------------------------(body of email is below)-----
REV LEPS-L
2. Find yourself in the list of subscribers that is mailed back to you.
3. If your "current" reply-to address matches your "old" address in the
LEPS-L subscription list, you should be done.
4. However, if these mismatch, then consider unsubscribing the "old"
address in the LEPS-L subscription list, and immediately resubscribing
under your "current" address (HINT: set your reply-to address in your
email program to the "old" address, then do the unsubscribe; then set
your reply-to address back to the "current" address, and resubscribe)
5. Please seek some local computing help first if you're confused by
item 4. above. However, I'm always available for anyone who
experiences unyielding problems.
I'll repeat this email at the end of this week.
Best regards,
Larry
......................................................................
: Lawrence F. Gall, Ph.D. e-mail: lawrence.gall at yale.edu :
: Head, Computer Systems Office & voice: 1-203-432-9892 :
: Curatorial Affiliate in Entomology FAX: 1-203-432-9816 :
: Peabody Museum of Natural History http://www.peabody.yale.edu :
: P.O. Box 208118, Yale University :
: New Haven, CT 06520-8118 USA :
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From SUNSOL at prodigy.net Tue Apr 9 14:49:32 2002
From: SUNSOL at prodigy.net (Sunsol)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:49:32 GMT
Subject: help - I need leaves!!!
References: <3CB31EAD.DEE9C324@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <0JGs8.6366$Yk7.1277513746@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C1DFBC.90CD3DA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What else do they eat? Persimmons? Birch? Walnut? Has anything else =
leafed out? Sally
------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C1DFBC.90CD3DA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What else do they eat? Persimmons? =
Birch? Walnut?=20
Has anything else leafed out? Sally
------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C1DFBC.90CD3DA0--
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From cmbb at sk.sympatico.ca Tue Apr 9 16:24:59 2002
From: cmbb at sk.sympatico.ca (Martin Bailey)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:24:59 -0600
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
References: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3A3@hqmail.gensym.com>
<001201c1dfcd$112df9c0$5ac5b83f@1swch01>
<027901c1dff2$cf37b9e0$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
Message-ID: <001f01c1e004$bcc4f540$f663a58e@k2j4g8>
Ron Gatrelle:
> OK, I'll say it. The most adamant and game hog collectors are with
> museums. Hey, they are the ones still shooting the birds. They love
it --
> that is why they are there. They are not some noble cut above the "lay"
> collector. Myth. Go to a museum and get to know the people - they are up
> to their necks in dead stuff.
If your local museum does not have a specimen of that rare or unusual bird
or bug that you sighted, they will make it a point of going out and
"collecting" it. I never give detailed directions over these computer lists
on how to get to anything. There is poaching with a gun for trophies and
there is poaching for trophies backed by vague scientific reasonings.
Martin Bailey
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From fnjjk1 at uaf.edu Tue Apr 9 20:21:22 2002
From: fnjjk1 at uaf.edu (James Kruse)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:21:22 -0900
Subject: museum 'poachers'
In-Reply-To: <001f01c1e004$bcc4f540$f663a58e@k2j4g8>
Message-ID:
on 4/9/02 11:24 AM, Martin Bailey at cmbb at sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
> If your local museum does not have a specimen of that rare or unusual bird
> or bug that you sighted, they will make it a point of going out and
> "collecting" it. I never give detailed directions over these computer lists
> on how to get to anything. There is poaching with a gun for trophies and
> there is poaching for trophies backed by vague scientific reasonings.
>
> Martin Bailey
>
Talk about conspiracy theories and black helicopters...
It is "funny" how many people believe that if a museum hears of your rare
sighting, they dispatch the 'killing team' to take care of business. When
birds from the Palaearctic stray to Alaska, many birders flock up to see
them. The museum always gets calls from these folks asking if the bird is
"still there or did the museum collect it yet?"! As far as I know, the
museum ornithologists are not sneaking over to people's houses and shooting
birds off their feeders. On the other hand, serious "life-list birders"
clearly are not so inhibited, since every time one of these rare birds show
up in town, hundreds of people fly up from all over the U.S. and Canada and
invade private property to get a look/picture for their life lists. Yes, the
first couple of them ask permission, but then the rest show up and hang out
for days or weeks.
Speaking for myself, I am not trolling the net for lepidopteran species on
my "list" and then traveling across the country and trampling anyone's
butterfly garden to collect (or get a photo). I think a more valid concern
is that every time you post to a list-serve, someone collects your email to
send you spam later.
We have lynx here. I have seen them. Oh-oh... what have I done?
(fade in background caterwauling of lynx, and then the distant thunder of
black helicopters with guns bristling.... and as they get closer, the logo
of the local museum can be seen...)
Jim
James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
Curator of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum
907 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK, USA 99775-6960
tel 907.474.5579
fax 907.474.1987
http://www.uaf.edu/museum/ento
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From bfly4u at swbell.net Tue Apr 9 20:26:05 2002
From: bfly4u at swbell.net (Kathy Reinertsen)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:26:05 -0500
Subject: museum 'poachers'
References:
Message-ID: <3CB3869D.DC5FAC19@swbell.net>
Do Museums pay for rare specimens?
Do people make money collecting for Museums, ect.?
Ed Reinertsen
James Kruse wrote:
> on 4/9/02 11:24 AM, Martin Bailey at cmbb at sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> > If your local museum does not have a specimen of that rare or unusual bird
> > or bug that you sighted, they will make it a point of going out and
> > "collecting" it. I never give detailed directions over these computer lists
> > on how to get to anything. There is poaching with a gun for trophies and
> > there is poaching for trophies backed by vague scientific reasonings.
> >
> > Martin Bailey
> >
>
> Talk about conspiracy theories and black helicopters...
>
> It is "funny" how many people believe that if a museum hears of your rare
> sighting, they dispatch the 'killing team' to take care of business. When
> birds from the Palaearctic stray to Alaska, many birders flock up to see
> them. The museum always gets calls from these folks asking if the bird is
> "still there or did the museum collect it yet?"! As far as I know, the
> museum ornithologists are not sneaking over to people's houses and shooting
> birds off their feeders. On the other hand, serious "life-list birders"
> clearly are not so inhibited, since every time one of these rare birds show
> up in town, hundreds of people fly up from all over the U.S. and Canada and
> invade private property to get a look/picture for their life lists. Yes, the
> first couple of them ask permission, but then the rest show up and hang out
> for days or weeks.
>
> Speaking for myself, I am not trolling the net for lepidopteran species on
> my "list" and then traveling across the country and trampling anyone's
> butterfly garden to collect (or get a photo). I think a more valid concern
> is that every time you post to a list-serve, someone collects your email to
> send you spam later.
>
> We have lynx here. I have seen them. Oh-oh... what have I done?
>
> (fade in background caterwauling of lynx, and then the distant thunder of
> black helicopters with guns bristling.... and as they get closer, the logo
> of the local museum can be seen...)
>
> Jim
>
> James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
> Curator of Entomology
> University of Alaska Museum
> 907 Yukon Drive
> Fairbanks, AK, USA 99775-6960
> tel 907.474.5579
> fax 907.474.1987
> http://www.uaf.edu/museum/ento
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From cmbb at sk.sympatico.ca Tue Apr 9 20:30:52 2002
From: cmbb at sk.sympatico.ca (Martin Bailey)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:30:52 -0600
Subject: museum 'poachers'
References:
Message-ID: <000001c1e027$143d69c0$db62a58e@k2j4g8>
James Kruse, PhD.:
> Talk about conspiracy theories and black helicopters...
>
> It is "funny" how many people believe that if a museum hears of your rare
> sighting, they dispatch the 'killing team' to take care of business. When
> birds from the Palaearctic stray to Alaska, many birders flock up to see
> them. The museum always gets calls from these folks asking if the bird is
> "still there or did the museum collect it yet?"! As far as I know, the
> museum ornithologists are not sneaking over to people's houses and
shooting
> birds off their feeders. On the other hand, serious "life-list birders"
> clearly are not so inhibited, since every time one of these rare birds
show
> up in town, hundreds of people fly up from all over the U.S. and Canada
and
> invade private property to get a look/picture for their life lists. Yes,
the
> first couple of them ask permission, but then the rest show up and hang
out
> for days or weeks.
>
> Speaking for myself, I am not trolling the net for lepidopteran species on
> my "list" and then traveling across the country and trampling anyone's
> butterfly garden to collect (or get a photo). I think a more valid concern
> is that every time you post to a list-serve, someone collects your email
to
> send you spam later.
Terribly sorry but I must persist. (A sure sign of paranoia!)
I do know of a case where a bird that was not suppose to be here was sighted
on a pond not too far out of town. The boys from the museum, with guns in
hand, scurried out to collect the species. They missed.
Far more saddening was the case of a museum staff member who traded in
mammal skulls. (I hope that you can appreciate that I am not willing to give
actual details.)
The professional hobbiest was convicted for dealing in endangered species.
(Rare collectors' items, those skulls.) However, his union stood behind him
against management's "attempts" to fire him. He still works at the same
museum.
While I will agree with you that the second example that I present is an
aberration, the first one is not.
So I pose this question to you: Why must you add to your collection
specimens that you will never get enough examples of to make meaningful
comparative analyses? Where the addition of that specimen to your collection
will not advance our knowledge of the species in question.
Martin Bailey,
greetings from: Weyburn, SK., Canada.
49.39N 103.51W
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From fnjjk1 at uaf.edu Tue Apr 9 22:01:18 2002
From: fnjjk1 at uaf.edu (James Kruse)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:01:18 -0900
Subject: museum 'poachers'
In-Reply-To: <000001c1e027$143d69c0$db62a58e@k2j4g8>
Message-ID:
on 4/9/02 3:30 PM, Martin Bailey at cmbb at sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
> Terribly sorry but I must persist. (A sure sign of paranoia!)
I don't mind, and as far as paranoia goes, I was only keeping with some of
the current sentiments expressed by other recent posters (Neil). Like most
paranoia, there is always a faint ring of truth somewhere.
>
> I do know of a case where a bird that was not suppose to be here was sighted
> on a pond not too far out of town. The boys from the museum, with guns in
> hand, scurried out to collect the species. They missed.
(snip and paste)
> While I will agree with you that the second example that I present is an
> aberration, the first one is not.
>
There are always bad people and various examples of what bad things they
have done in every profession. The fact that something occasionally does
happen does not necessarily make it the general practice of an entire
profession. I would disagree that this incident is not an aberration,
although it may not be an aberration with those particular individuals.
> Far more saddening was the case of a museum staff member who traded in
> mammal skulls. (I hope that you can appreciate that I am not willing to give
> actual details.)
>
> The professional hobbiest was convicted for dealing in endangered species.
> (Rare collectors' items, those skulls.) However, his union stood behind him
> against management's "attempts" to fire him. He still works at the same
> museum.
Ah, here we have a qualifier - "endangered species". Bad person, bad result,
and I am sorry to hear about it. Now if they were vole skulls of a
non-endangered species that were being traded, I am not so sure you'd have a
problem with it. Maybe I am wrong here.
> So I pose this question to you: Why must you add to your collection
> specimens that you will never get enough examples of to make meaningful
> comparative analyses? Where the addition of that specimen to your collection
> will not advance our knowledge of the species in question.
At the time of the collecting, you don't know that the specimen you
collected yesterday will never be collected by you again. That I may 'never
get enough samples to make comparative analyses' is a hind-sight thought
that I do not have the benefit of. Maybe the next curator will find more and
he/she will be really happy that I picked up the couple that I did.
Secondly, vouchers of stray occurrences can be very valuable, especially as
certain patterns of straying becomes evidence of habitat change due to
things like global warming. That being said, I _do_ think that certain high
profile straying events should be documented with pictures and notebook
entries. Using one's brain and sense of prudence is a good thing. After all,
we are all ambassadors to some degree, like it or not.
Jim
James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
Curator of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum
907 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK, USA 99775-6960
tel 907.474.5579
fax 907.474.1987
http://www.uaf.edu/museum/ento
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gatrelle at tils-ttr.org Tue Apr 9 21:03:58 2002
From: gatrelle at tils-ttr.org (Ron Gatrelle)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 21:03:58 -0400
Subject: museum 'poachers'
References:
Message-ID: <02f701c1e02b$98a8cf20$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kruse"
To: "Lepslist"
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:21 PM
Subject: museum 'poachers'
snip
> Speaking for myself, I am not trolling the net for lepidopteran species
on
> my "list" and then traveling across the country and trampling anyone's
> butterfly garden to collect (or get a photo). I think a more valid
concern
> is that every time you post to a list-serve, someone collects your email
to
> send you spam later.
> Jim
By the way when I posted earlier that Museum collectors "... are not some
noble cut above the "lay" collector. Myth. Go to a museum and get to
know the people - they are up to their necks in dead stuff." This was
not intended as a slam to the museum people - it was a slam to the _myth_
protrayed by the politically correct that there is supposedly this group of
"scientific collectors" who are only found in museums and institutions who
are noble while all _lay_ collectors is a slime bags. All collectors
collect for the same reason -- they enjoy it. BUT- the question is what
is the_it_ they enjoy?
This is also why Martin's post was good. He cut through the pretence and
cloak of science (one still ends up with a trophy).
And Jim's is great too because it points out the hypocrracy of those
non-consumptive types who are just as rude, and as driven as any poacher,
in their quest for that trophy photo or last check on their brag, I mean,
life list.
One thing is for sure, one can not be a _scientific_ collector, without
first being a _collector_. Does this mean that without collecting there
can be no science? In the broadest truth. Yes, it does mean that.
Conversely, I have never heard of a scientific watcher - but I have sure
heard of rude, obsessive, ones. Does this mean one can not accomplish
science via watching? I am going to say yes and no. Observation is a
watching but watching is not always observation. Scientific
observation -- I have heard that phrase. I have never heard the phrase
scientific watching. Perhaps that is why we have no Scientific Butterfly
Watchers. But we have a lot of people involved in Scientific Butterfly
Observation. The difference? The latter records data the former just
makes a list.
My conclusion is that the prisms we filter our phrases through cast only
the imagery we wish. They don't really prove anything. In life, we who
are "involved" with lepidoptera - regardless of our education in it or
practice of it - are all either scientific or non scientific based on the
motive of our hearts and goals of our minds. Or, you can't judge a book
by its cover - just its content.
I am enjoying this thread as there are a lot of good points being made on
all sides. (Or is that, from all perspectives?) Mirrors are most useful
when aimed at ourselves, but only if we look into them.
Oooooh tooo long a day. I will end with Jim's words above -- speaking for
myself.
Ron
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From fnjjk1 at uaf.edu Tue Apr 9 22:06:12 2002
From: fnjjk1 at uaf.edu (James Kruse)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:06:12 -0900
Subject: museum 'poachers'
In-Reply-To: <3CB3869D.DC5FAC19@swbell.net>
Message-ID:
on 4/9/02 3:26 PM, Kathy Reinertsen at bfly4u at swbell.net wrote:
> Do Museums pay for rare specimens?
Occasionally. Most are EXTREMELY wary of public peddlers however.
> Do people make money collecting for Museums, ect.?
I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean there aren't.
Jim
James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
Curator of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum
907 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK, USA 99775-6960
tel 907.474.5579
fax 907.474.1987
http://www.uaf.edu/museum/ento
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From mbpi at juno.com Tue Apr 9 22:01:59 2002
From: mbpi at juno.com (mbpi at juno.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:01:59 -0500
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
Message-ID: <20020409.210201.-279325.2.mbpi@juno.com>
Oh boy, I knew if I rebutted someone would "butt" me! This is LONG, so
if you don't have the time or inclination...PLEASE STOP NOW!!!! I know I
would...
What we have going here, is a classic case of "male and female
miscommunication." Where Ron is totally misinterpreting what I've
written, Barb and I are having a completely rational and coherent
exchange off the airwaves.
Regardless of my not really having the time OR the inclination to rebutt
the butt...I will attempt to explain myself in the hopes that the male
contigent will get a grasp on what I actually said. Keep in mind I have
just started a new job, and have yet to do my income tax because our
government neglected to give me some necessary information to expedite my
return (!)
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 03:12:55 -0400 Ron Gatrelle
writes:
>
> Actually, I think Barb has had a good bit of personal
> interaction with
> Jeff. Her interaction and yours have been in two different
> situations. So
> you are both correct.
No she hasn't: there's nothing really "personal" about contrived phone
conversations or email exchanges. between two people who have never met.
Without actually meeting a person, it's very hard to determine subtle
nuances that are best observed. Everyone attempts to "save face," but
seeing the face, as well as other subtle cues, says more than simply
words can convey...
> There are many people who have had and continue to have very
> pleasant
> relationships with Jeff - but there are others to whom it has only
> been
> bad. I can say this for two reasons. One is that this is the way
> it is
> with all of us. To some we are great to others we stink. The other
> reason
> is that I have been told some pretty jaw dropping stories of first
> person
> personal conflict. Now I do not relay specifics as it is just
> hearsay. I
> have never had any personal dealings, conversations, or
> correspondence with
> Jeff at all. We might get along great -- or not.
Ah...but I have! And yet, you discount me!!!!
>
> > Perhaps you should do a little more research on the "100,000" and
> > determine where exactly their interests and allegiance lie! I
> think
> > you'd be surprised that the "100,000" are as diverse in their
> pursuit and
> > interest in butterflies, as the individuals that subscribe to
> this
> > listserv. They run the gamut: from collectors to net-swingers;
> from
> > watchers to habitat trouncers; from gardners to habitat restorers;
> from
> > extremists to fringe dwellers; from professionals to amateurs. It
> is a
> > broad group that defies being "pigeonholed," regardless of its
> leader's
> > beliefs.
>
> I know Barb is already fully aware of the above as she is one of the
> first
> to point out the vary same things - naba is filled with very
> different
> types - she is one of them. Her use of 100,000 was a total
> hypothetical.
> There is no 100,000 nabaites.
So why make a point of it?! Did YOU think that MOI thought so?! All I
was doing was "continuing" the hypothetical thread...
>This was simply understood by me to
> be a
> valid straw man to line up with the 100,000 birders mentioned by
> Mike.
> Barb was saying _if_ there 1) ended up being this many and 2) if
> they all
> adopted Jeff's views in several areas, then it would be a messed up
> bunch.
Yawn......zzzzzzz.....
> > Jeff may be a "threat" (to people like you), but he is no
> "Svengali..."
> > no "Jim Jones..." no "Hitler..." no "Charles Manson..." no
> "terrorist..."
>
> Some who known him say he is.
I think you mean "know" as opposed to "known"....
>
> > indeed, he's not even "charismatic"!
>
> Some who know him say he is.
>
> These two statments are meaningless as both beauthy and the beast
> are in
> the eye of the beholder.
>
> snip.
I'm not quite sure what "statments" and "beauthy" mean, but I'm quite
sure what "charismatic" means...which has nothing to do with "looks" or
"the eye of the beholder." Charisma is a quality that is universally
recognized by others, regardless of the person's physical attributes or
compromised character.
>
> >
> > I speak from experience, not "hearsay."
>
> So is Barb. (Are we moving the two checkers back and forth in the
> corner
> yet.)
Yes...
> > Regardless of Jeff's pursuit to establish his eminent domain (with
> all
> his human foibles),
>
> So are you here admitting that from being on the inside you can
> attest that
> he is largely motivated by ego to build and rule his own little
> kingdom?
> That he can not be voted out as he "owns" naba. It is his and thus
> he is
> naba? This is what I hear. I wish I knew the truth on this.
Oh for goodness sake...are you truly that "naive" or does someone have to
hit you over the head with a Schmidt box!!!!
>
> > he HAS definitely opened up for the mainstream public, an interest
> in
> > butterflies and their dominion that no "collector" has ever
> achieved, or
> > for that matter, CARED to SHARE with the "non-scientific"
> community (!)
>
> First, NABA has done it -- not him. You give no credit to the many
> people
> (including Barb) who have worked very hard at working NABA on a
> daily
> basis. If he dropped out tomorrow, NABA would not miss a beat.
> Yes, he
> deserves all the credit for original vision, hard work, and start
> up. But
> like a great quarterback, without the rest of the team, he is
> nothing. For
> some time NABA has been and is much greater than one person.
Indeed: In ALL of life, NOBODY is much greater than the rest of the
team!!! Including you...
>
> Second, your comments are typical of those who know nothing about
> Clench,
> Remington, and the boys who started Lep. Soc. This just shows how
> much you
> are a Johnny-come-lately who doesn't know what she is talking about.
Well...I do have to admit... I'm NOT as OLD as YOU (!)
> It
> shows you are in fact a party liner. Your true colors come out.
Please inform my ignorance: What, exactly IS a "party liner?!" (Before I
"rebutt.") And what do you mean by my "true colors?" By questioning
mine, you've left your's open for question as well....
> Use of
> the C word for the uncaring bastards - like Klots, Clarke, Thorne,
> Riley,
> Harris, Howe, Heitzman, the Millers, Neilson, King, the Mathers,
> Ehrlich,
> the Emmels -- scores.
Perhaps they were "before my time?!" Mea culpa.... not to discount them,
or my time and place of being "born." None of them ever materialized in
my life when I was "ripe and ready." Unfortunately for YOU, Jeff and his
"minions" DID (!) I suspect the aforementioned were all out
"collecting..."
>
> To all reading this. MB got this in her head from someplace - she
> really
> thinks it is true.
Oh REALLY?! What do YOU know about my "psyche"? You've never even MET
ME (!) But you are discounting what I've gleaned from this
listserv...and by so doing, you discredit YOURSELF.
But it did not come from a true knowledge of
> the
> pioneers (the collectors) who wrote the popular guides and became
> mentors
> for 12 year old kids in Iowa like me back in the 1940's, 50's, and
> 60's.
So you were "12 years old" through three decades....interesting (!)
> Heads of museums who cared and wrote silly kids about butterflies
> and
> moths - who mentored. Without these men and women there would be no
> Jeff
> Glassberg, no Pyles or Oplers. This rewriting of history was put in
> her
> head - as it has been put in the heads of hundreds. You tell a
> tree by
> its fruit - not its official beat around the issues press releases.
So what you just said is: I'm a "fruitcake." Well...it takes one to
know one (!)
>
> Sorry Mary Beth, but you are way off on this one.
And likewise, I'm SURE (!) ;-))
> Ron Gatrelle
>
Mary Beth Prondzinski
>
________________________________________________________________
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/web/.
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From mbpi at juno.com Tue Apr 9 22:05:09 2002
From: mbpi at juno.com (mbpi at juno.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:05:09 -0500
Subject: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
Message-ID: <20020409.210511.-279325.3.mbpi@juno.com>
As I recall...when I worked at AMNH, I was told that the museum receieved
countless "donations" of specimens...many poorly preserved and/or
inadequately documented. By the same token, the museum's imposed ethical
creed forbade them to dispose, sell or barter these donations; so, they
are inundated with scientifically "worthless" specimens that either "take
up space," or are creatively utilized through "lending" and "educational"
programs to schools, community groups, exhibits, and assorted other
outreach programs. Let's give them SOME credit! It's like getting
someone's cast-off wardrobe (which I've been subjected to on countless
occasions), and not really wanting those cast-offs, while also not
wanting to offend the "giver" in their philanthropic intent. It's a
double-edged sword...
As for all the "collecting" that resident museum curators supposedly
do... from what I've observed, the age of "trophy collecting" has pretty
much gone with the wind. The major "big collections" are received or
acquired from private collectors, many with HUGE "price tags" that
contradict the "cause for furthering scientific knowledge" of the
collectors' supposed motives (!)
And all those "cardboard boxes" stacked up in less than adequate
storage...that's where I come in! Granted, there is no "monetary
compensation" for someone like me who sees the need to weed through the
stacks of specimens, transfer them to drawers and label them...that is
left to the dedicated "volunteers" who spend countless hours performing
the "mundane" tasks that nobody on the "payroll" wants (much less cares)
to do. And there are many people who have spent YEARS doing just that...
Unfortunately, I need to be on the "payroll" to continue such a venture,
not being "independently wealthy" or retired.
So, museums aren't QUITE the "happy collectors" that Ron envisions them
to be...
I hate to say it...but...some of you really NEED to expand your horizons
beyond your glass towers (!)
M.B. Prondzinski
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:17:28 -0400 Ron Gatrelle
writes:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Taylor"
> To: ;
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from
> ...
> birders ?
>
>
> > I have donated (and donate) to the Florida State Collection of
> Arthropods,
> > and I intend my collection to go there when I croak. I think John
> Heppner
> is
> > eager to get leps from different parts of the country.
> >
> > Jim Taylor
>
> This is very true. However, if they are moths they are apt to get a
> lot
> better curatorial care than butterflies there. I know space is
> very used
> up there - but the way valuable _butterfly_ collections donated
> years ago
> (Arbogast, Heitzman etc) are just stacked it the isles in cardboard
> boxes
> waiting to be crushed or knocked over is a disgrace. John is not a
> butterfly person -- and it shows.
>
> HE IS ONE FINE FELLA - This is about curation and space - not John.
>
> Some museums are not keen on receiving specimens only because the
> Museums
> have cut way back on staff, budget and no more space in the morgue.
> Otherwise they will never turn down specimens - these "scientific"
> instructions are the greatest collectors of ALL TIME. Where else
> can one
> go and find 10 drawers of Cabbage Whites. Does one want to see
> extinct
> leps? They are in the Big museums by the hundreds. Scientific
> collecting? Most people with a postage stamp-butterfly-collection
> make
> due with just one or two pair. I digress.
>
> OK, I'll say it. The most adamant and game hog collectors are with
> museums. Hey, they are the ones still shooting the birds. They
> love it --
> that is why they are there. They are not some noble cut above the
> "lay"
> collector. Myth. Go to a museum and get to know the people - they
> are up
> o their necks in dead stuff.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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/web/.
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu Tue Apr 9 23:14:04 2002
From: gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu (Michael Gochfeld)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 23:14:04 -0400
Subject: museum 'poachers'
References:
Message-ID: <3CB3ADFB.D36A6498@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
James Kruse implied that paid collecting for museums is uncommon, and it
probably is today.
Historically, many museums hired collectors. Rothschild (c1900) hired
collectors for birds and butterflies and probably lots else. He was
particularly interested in island populations..
The AMNH mounted several series of major expeditions, for example the
Whitney South Seas Expedition which lasted for many years. It was under
the supervision of Rollo Beck, about whom many interesting stories were
told. At any one time Beck supervised at least several paid shooters
and preparators on ship.
Museums were more inclined to pay for specimens years ago than today.
At the AMNH circa 1970, a man contacted bird curator Dean Amadon about
the "value" of two Passenger Pigeons that he had found in some attic.
Dean assigned the task to me (lowest on totem pole) with the admonition
that the museum had plenty of Passenger Pigeons, and wouldn't pay a
cent, but would accept a donation. I conveyed this information to the
"peddler" and he peddled somewhere else. Private collectors no doubt
would have paid a lot for his specimens.
The museum also sponsored the Partridge expedition to northern
Argentina. Bill Partridge was an indefatigible collector and put quite
a team of collectors and skinners in the field. When the specimens
arrived at the museum there were literally over a hundred of several
species from a single location. Dean Amadon told me that he was really
embarrassed by the over-collection, more than any museum should have
from a single site. He quietly dispersed the collection to other
museums.
Museums certainly paid for private collections. In the 1930's when
Walter Rothschild found himself in some financial embarrassment, he
tried to sell part of his bird collection to the BMNH. The Museum or
the GOvt demurred, but Robert Cushman Murphy of the AMNH lept into the
breach with a fistful of dollars and the invaluable collection was
transported to the U.S. where it doubled the AMNH bird holdings. There
was a huge outcry in Britain, but to no avail. Money spoke louder than
nationalism. Rothschild's Cassowary collection and his collection of
aberrant specimens stayed in Britain and are now at Tring. I don't know
what happened to the butterflies.
Paying for specimens wasn't always the best idea. The late (and
lately-referred to) Gene Eisenmann, told me that the AMNH paid the
Ollalla brothers to collect bird specimens in Amazonia, with an aim
toward getting birds from opposite sites of river systems. Apparently
they were paid by the bird. Too much work, and maybe the birds didn't
actually occur on both sides of the river. So an unknown number of
specimens were deliberately mis-labelled.
I remember hearing that Rothschild collectors also mis-labelled some
bird specimens attributing them to islands where the species never
occurred (and which they never visited).
There's probably a rich history in the butterfly world as well.
On the opposite note, the Malayan National Museum approached the widow
of an important butterfly collector, who chose instead to sell off an
incomparable collection, piece by piece to many bidders, thereby
reducing its former high scientific value to nothingness.
Mike Gochfeld
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gatrelle at tils-ttr.org Wed Apr 10 00:31:22 2002
From: gatrelle at tils-ttr.org (Ron Gatrelle)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:31:22 -0400
Subject: butterflies and museums
Message-ID: <034301c1e048$91965460$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
A couple of threads have crossed paths. So I will just put this title up
as it is more indicative. Let me begin by saying that I have been an
"official" research associate with the Florida state collection of
arthropods for a long time. Now about a million :-) other people have this
same claim to fame. The FSCA research associate program is responsible
for having brought millions of specimens into that institution - all for
free. They didn't pay for any that I know of. The benefit for the
associates is that we gain access to the collections, research facilities,
and get a tax donation.
Mary Beth said: As for all the "collecting" that resident museum curators
supposedly do... from what I've observed, the age of "trophy collecting"
has pretty much gone with the wind. The major "big collections" are
received or acquired from private collectors, many with HUGE "price tags"
that contradict the "cause for furthering scientific knowledge" of the
collectors' supposed motives (!)
I know most of the "big" butterfly collectors today and none of them are
getting "huge" prices for their collections as they retire or die. The
"major" butterlfy collectors do not sell their collections - they keep them
till they pretty much have on foot in the grave. And then all they get is
a tax deduction.
When the late JF Gates Clarke of the Smithsonian came to my home several
years ago he came to see my collection and talk me into donating it to the
USNM when I kicked off. He sure as heck didn't offer to guy it. The big
collections are donated. One of the very biggest is the Preston collected
that is going to the Allyn Museum (U of Fla). With the limited staff at
most museums today and financial limitations I doubt if any have bought any
butterfly/moth collections in a long long time. If anyone on this list
has inside info on this one way or the other please let us known.
And even if they did sell the collection when they were 88 and in the
nursing home - how is that supposed to show they were just phonies as Mary
insulates in: "many with HUGE 'price tags' that contradict the 'cause for
furthering scientific knowledge' of the collectors' supposed motives (!)"
Where is she getting this stuff? This is sure not the case with bug
collections/collectors. Bugs are at the bottom of the pecking order -
perhaps the dinosaur bone collections, or bird collections are where the
money is - but not bugs!! The average butterfly might be worth what 50 or
75 cents? This is the same old cynical line collectors always end up
hearing. All this does is reinforce to us the perception we pick up from
non-collectors - and that is that in the final analysis we are _all_
viewed as just a bunch of low life's on the same plain as poachers - we do
it just for the money.
Ron Gatrelle
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From ruthobed8 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 10 05:48:50 2002
From: ruthobed8 at yahoo.com (Mrs. Ruth Obed. )
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 05:48:50
Subject: please help us
Message-ID: <200204100448.g3A4mHF06838@quickgr.its.yale.edu>
Mrs. Ruth Obed
c/o Anthony Egobia
Anthony Egobia & co
Legal practitioners
2 falohun steet, Aguda
S/L Lagos, Nigeria.
Fax: 234-1-7594260
I am Mrs. Ruth Obed, widow of the late Lt. Col. M. Obed, the former military Administrator of Kaduna state of Nigeria. my late husband was one of the victims of the 7th November 1996 ADC Aircraft Boing 727 that crashed in Lagos.
I have just been informed by our family attorney, Barrister Anthony Egobia that my late husband operated a secret account with the Union Bank Plc into which a total sum of Thirty million United state Dollars ($30,000,000.00) was lodged in. This above mentioned amount was paid in and credited in the name of his American business friend Engr. John Creek who unfortunately died in the same mishap. The attorney now advised me to seek in confidence a foreign partner whom this fund would be transferred into his/her bank account for disbursement as directed by my late husband's WILL.
It has been resolved that 20% will be your share for nominating an account for this purpose and any other assistance you will give in this regard. 10% has been slated out for the reimbursement of local and international expenses which may be incurred in the transfer process. finally, 70% will come to my children and my self and good part of this shall be directed towards executing my late husband's WILL, which is to buy shares and stocks in foreign country to secure his children's future.
To facilitate the conclusion of this project if accepted by you, do send to me promptly via email your response or you direct it to my family attorney through his direct fax line: 234-1-7594260. You should please furnish us with the following details:
1. The bank Account number to be used for the remittance.
2. Name and address of the bank.
3. Your telephone, fax and mobile numbers for easy communication
Please note that I have been assured that the transaction will be concluded within (2) weeks upon receiving from you the above listed information. May I at this point emphasis the high level of confidentiality which this business demands and hope you will not betray the trust and confidence which I repose on you. Since the death of my husband, life has been very difficult for my children and I, so this is to say that this fund is the hope of my children and I.
God would bless you as you assist the poor widow and the fatherless children.
Best wishes,
Mrs. Ruth Obed.
NB ; FEEL FREE TO CALL ME ATTORNEY IN HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER- 234-8033313397 IN THE PERSON OF BARRISTER ANTHONY EGOBIA, EMAIL ADDRESS ; aegobia at justice.com
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gatrelle at tils-ttr.org Wed Apr 10 01:12:24 2002
From: gatrelle at tils-ttr.org (Ron Gatrelle)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:12:24 -0400
Subject: trophy
Message-ID: <035a01c1e04e$4d1b7300$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
The word "trophy" has been used by myself and others here from the bad
connotation point of view Well, I here move to the other side of the
debate table. Trophies are also good - I still have my oldest daughters
cheep little bowling trophy - next to mine I got when I was about that same
age. From my Boy Scout merit badges to my Ordination Certificate all are
types of trophies. All the specimens in my collection are trophies. A lot
of work went into finding then, determining them, and curating them in a
scientifically systematic way.
When Bob Robbins makes a collecting trip to the tropics, all the
hairstreaks he brings back to the Smithsonian are indeed trophies. How do
I know this? Because I am a collector. Non-collectors do not know how
collectors feel about this activity. Being a collector and hanging around
other butterfly collectors (institutional and private) in the field, at
society meetings, or at museums we are all the same - excluding the bad
apples.
Hey, you got to see this.
Oooooh, what a tape worm! Where did you get that one - out of King Kong?
Things that make other people throw up - are trophies to some specialists
someplace.
Those watchers who are _really_ into photography of butterflies know the
feeling.
Hey, you got to see this shot.
Wow, what a great collection of photos you have.
Money? A net $25. A cabinet and drawers $1,200. The collection of 900
specimens acquired over a life time of spare time collecting? Priceless
trophies every one. That is why we want to donate them to a safe home in
a museum - they are a part of our very soul - almost family.
Ron Gatrelle
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From rjparcelles at yahoo.com Wed Apr 10 02:46:27 2002
From: rjparcelles at yahoo.com (Bob Parcelles,Jr.)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: please help us...HERE I COME!
In-Reply-To: <200204100448.g3A4mHF06838@quickgr.its.yale.edu>
Message-ID: <20020410064627.84329.qmail@web12204.mail.yahoo.com>
WOW! HERE I COME!
Before all of you go rushing off to do this deed. Let me! i need the
funds for Miami Blue and my old age. Neil, this is not a hoax is it?
Betty really set me back confidence wise.
Please let this be true. A wind fall for sure. I can really buy some
collections with all of this cash. 6 million plus 3 million expenses
(I see a lot of cost already) can buy a lot of ballon vine seeds
also.
Heck I might just buy NABA!
Bob Parcelles, Jr. (Soon to buy a) PhD
PS: Paul I might as well buy you a PhD also...so you can quit picking
on the real ones.
Hell Ruthy I will marry you for 3 million and expenses.
--- "Mrs. Ruth Obed. " wrote:
> Mrs. Ruth Obed
> c/o Anthony Egobia
> Anthony Egobia & co
> Legal practitioners
> 2 falohun steet, Aguda
> S/L Lagos, Nigeria.
> Fax: 234-1-7594260
>
> I am Mrs. Ruth Obed, widow of the late Lt. Col. M. Obed, the former
> military Administrator of Kaduna state of Nigeria. my late husband
> was one of the victims of the 7th November 1996 ADC Aircraft Boing
> 727 that crashed in Lagos.
>
> I have just been informed by our family attorney, Barrister Anthony
> Egobia that my late husband operated a secret account with the
> Union Bank Plc into which a total sum of Thirty million United
> state Dollars ($30,000,000.00) was lodged in. This above mentioned
> amount was paid in and credited in the name of his American
> business friend Engr. John Creek who unfortunately died in the same
> mishap. The attorney now advised me to seek in confidence a foreign
> partner whom this fund would be transferred into his/her bank
> account for disbursement as directed by my late husband's WILL.
>
> It has been resolved that 20% will be your share for nominating an
> account for this purpose and any other assistance you will give in
> this regard. 10% has been slated out for the reimbursement of local
> and international expenses which may be incurred in the transfer
> process. finally, 70% will come to my children and my self and good
> part of this shall be directed towards executing my late husband's
> WILL, which is to buy shares and stocks in foreign country to
> secure his children's future.
>
> To facilitate the conclusion of this project if accepted by you, do
> send to me promptly via email your response or you direct it to my
> family attorney through his direct fax line: 234-1-7594260. You
> should please furnish us with the following details:
>
> 1. The bank Account number to be used for the remittance.
> 2. Name and address of the bank.
> 3. Your telephone, fax and mobile numbers for easy communication
>
> Please note that I have been assured that the transaction will be
> concluded within (2) weeks upon receiving from you the above listed
> information. May I at this point emphasis the high level of
> confidentiality which this business demands and hope you will not
> betray the trust and confidence which I repose on you. Since the
> death of my husband, life has been very difficult for my children
> and I, so this is to say that this fund is the hope of my children
> and I.
>
> God would bless you as you assist the poor widow and the fatherless
> children.
>
> Best wishes,
> Mrs. Ruth Obed.
>
> NB ; FEEL FREE TO CALL ME ATTORNEY IN HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER-
> 234-8033313397 IN THE PERSON OF BARRISTER ANTHONY EGOBIA, EMAIL
> ADDRESS ; aegobia at justice.com
=====
Bob Parcelles, Jr
Pinellas Park, FL
RJP Associates, C2M-BWPTi
rjparcelles at yahoo.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturepotpourri
"Change your thoughts and you change your world."
- Norman Vincent Peale
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From monarch at saber.net Wed Apr 10 04:18:57 2002
From: monarch at saber.net (Paul Cherubini)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:18:57 -0700
Subject: please help us...HERE I COME!
References: <20020410064627.84329.qmail@web12204.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3CB3F571.33F4@saber.net>
Bob Parcelles, Jr. (Soon to buy a) PhD wrote:
> PS: Paul I might as well buy you a PhD also...so you can quit
> picking on the real ones.
Bob, I have a feeling there are a few Ph.D's you don't mind me
picking on. Below I found a New York Times article that
provides more evidence of Dr. Jeffrey Glassberg's anti-collecting
position. This case involved monarch butterflies that were
collected near near Montauk, New York in Sept. 2000 and driven
about 100 miles to New York City for a tagging demonstration
and release by Prof. Orley (Chip) Taylor and some children in
attendance.
The article goes on to describe Jeffrey Glassberg's objections
to Dr. Taylor's demonstration:
"Using monarchs for such an agenda is not universally
popular in the butterfly world. The president of the
North American Butterfly Association, Jeffrey
Glassberg, denounced yesterday's event, calling it a
''circus sideshow.'' Mr. Glassberg, a molecular biologist
by training, said that truly respecting monarchs meant
treating them like wild creatures and observing them in
their natural environment, not trucking them in for
a demonstration."
''Butterflies are wild animals,'' he said. ''To treat them
as little toys that you take around and say, 'Isn't that
cute?' sends completely the wrong message to people.''
The full article can be viewed here:
http://www.mastervision.com/mw2000/NYTIMES%20Sept%2023%202000.htm
Paul Cherubini
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From kahanpaa at gstar.astro.helsinki.fi Wed Apr 10 05:58:15 2002
From: kahanpaa at gstar.astro.helsinki.fi (Jere Kahanpaa)
Date: 10 Apr 2002 09:58:15 GMT
Subject: please help us...HERE I COME!
References: <20020410064627.84329.qmail@web12204.mail.yahoo.com>, <3CB3F571.33F4@saber.net>
Message-ID:
Hi.
Paul Cherubini wrote:
> picking on. Below I found a New York Times article that
> provides more evidence of Dr. Jeffrey Glassberg's anti-collecting
> position. This case involved monarch butterflies that were
> collected near near Montauk, New York in Sept. 2000 and driven
> about 100 miles to New York City for a tagging demonstration
> and release by Prof. Orley (Chip) Taylor and some children in
> attendance.
> The article goes on to describe Jeffrey Glassberg's objections
> to Dr. Taylor's demonstration:
> "Using monarchs for such an agenda is not universally
> popular in the butterfly world. The president of the
> North American Butterfly Association, Jeffrey
> Glassberg, denounced yesterday's event, calling it a
> ''circus sideshow.'' Mr. Glassberg, a molecular biologist
> by training, said that truly respecting monarchs meant
> treating them like wild creatures and observing them in
> their natural environment, not trucking them in for
> a demonstration."
> ''Butterflies are wild animals,'' he said. ''To treat them
> as little toys that you take around and say, 'Isn't that
> cute?' sends completely the wrong message to people.''
Come on, trucking butterflies around and releasing them has nothing in
common with being 'pro-collecting' or 'anti-collecting'!
Personally I am for careful sampling of populations for study and
teaching, but would strongly oppose this kind of operationg *if it is
only for the show*. But this case it isn't: tagging monarchs is (IIRC) a
real scientific research project, isn't it?
The 'master trollers' of usenet should read this newsgroup for a good
show. Maybe they do? While the flamage can sometimes be amusing, I think
it is very harmful for both amateur and professional entomology: nobody
knows how many promising young lepsters-to-be have been scared out of the
group/list by all these venomous comments.
Jere Kahanp??
--
It's hard to think outside the box when you ARE the box.
- unknown, alt.religion.kibology
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu Wed Apr 10 06:58:21 2002
From: gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu (Michael Gochfeld)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 06:58:21 -0400
Subject: [leps-talk] Speyeria clemencei comstockii
References:
Message-ID: <3CB41ACC.19D7D3D@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
Barb Beck wrote:
> We need a comprehensive guide to the Speyeria either in book form if anybody
> out there is crazy enough to attempt it or on the web with good color
> adjusted of photos which show the full range of nasty variations in these
> guys. Are there people in different parts of North America that have stuff
> from their own localities that they are willing to put up.
>
> Barb Beck
> Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Perhaps the web is the wave of the future. It allows revision and comment for
all to see.
I am amazed at the organisms I can find illustrations of on the web----just by
going through google.
Unfortunately you have to know the name of the group to use this pathway.
The trick will be to key in a description (not a Description) of an unknown or
scan in an unknown and let the web key it out for you.
This has been accomplished for medical diagnosis, and I suppose its only a
matter of time before the economic entomologists figture out a way to do it for
insects.
Mike Gochfeld
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu Wed Apr 10 07:12:04 2002
From: gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu (Michael Gochfeld)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:12:04 -0400
Subject: Museum expeditions
References: <3CB3ADFB.D36A6498@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <3CB41E03.C4864A5F@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
Just as a follow-up to my last posting. Museums still mount expeditions to
previously unexplored or under-explored areas.
These often include several disciplines so that many taxa can be collected.
I think that in the last decade the increasing interest in "biodiversity"
per se, has enhanced this activity. The participants are usually museum
curators, assistants, and sometimes outside volunteers.
A number of these expeditions have been chronicled in the popular
literature. For example, ARCTIC SUMMER documents an expedition to Bylot
Island (NWT). A description of an LSU bird expedition to Peru is in A PARROT
WITHOUT A NAME. I had the privilege of seeing that parrot this past
December at Tambopata. Our description of that expedition will include a
chapter on dealing with Federal Express which lost ALL of our film.
Mike Gochfeld
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From nventers at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 10 08:20:52 2002
From: nventers at ntlworld.com (Nigel Venters)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:20:52 +0100
Subject: SUBSCRIBE LEPS-L Nigel Venters
Message-ID: <00d901c1e08a$3639a260$46700050@mrventer>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020410/e7ff280f/attachment.html
From leblanct at netsync.net Wed Apr 10 08:38:47 2002
From: leblanct at netsync.net (Thomas P. LeBlanc)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:38:47 -0400
Subject: please help us
In-Reply-To: <200204100448.g3A4mHF06838@quickgr.its.yale.edu>
Message-ID:
Is there any way to set protocol or whatever is done to only accept mail
from members of this list serv and not telemarketing things. Today, I
received this Email a few times and in the past week I have received 2 or 3
telemarketing letters. Just wondering if there is a chance to keep this
list serv telemarketing free like all the other list servs?
TOM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-leps-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-leps-l at lists.yale.edu]On
Behalf Of Mrs. Ruth Obed.
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:49 AM
To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
Subject: please help us
Mrs. Ruth Obed
c/o Anthony Egobia
Anthony Egobia & co
Legal practitioners
2 falohun steet, Aguda
S/L Lagos, Nigeria.
Fax: 234-1-7594260
I am Mrs. Ruth Obed, widow of the late Lt. Col. M. Obed, the former military
Administrator of Kaduna state of Nigeria. my late husband was one of the
No need to re advertise again for this person!!
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From holli at reptileinfo.com Wed Apr 10 08:32:19 2002
From: holli at reptileinfo.com (Holli Friedland)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:32:19 -0400
Subject: Preakness Clean-up 2002
Message-ID:
Preakness Clean-up 2002 -- Help save insects, butterflies and moths in the
wild!
To Be Held: May 19, 2002, 6 a.m. - 12 p.m. at Pimlico Racetrack, Baltimore,
Maryland
WE TURN TRASH INTO CASH!
Put on your work gloves, some old comfortable shoes and sunscreen, then
come out and help us purchase and protect rainforest. It's a treasure hunt
with a twist! Join more than 180 dedicated volunteers for Preakness Clean-up
2002, which is sponsored by the Mid-Atlantic Reptile Show (MARS) and MARS
Preservation Fund, Inc., a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to
saving rainforest. We will be at Pimlico Racetrack just after sun-up with
our friends from the National Aquarium in Baltimore, The Nature Conservancy
and other dedicated individuals to conduct our annual clean-up at Pimlico
Racetrack the day after the Preakness Stakes. All the proceeds from our work
and the sale of recycled aluminum cans go directly toward the purchase and
permanent protection of rainforest acreage in Costa Rica.
Volunteers can also "clean up" by winning a door prize!! Prizes include
restaurant gift certificates, movie passes, T-shirts, sports memorabilia,
and much, much more. The first 100 volunteers will receive a
Budweiser/Preakness Clean-up T-shirt.
Last year we raised over $9,400. Over the past 12 years, more than
$87,500 has been raised at the clean-up to purchase more than 709 acres of
rainforest in Costa Rica. This year's contribution will go toward buying
land in the Osa peninsula region. This area has a 300 ft. canopy (compared
to Maryland's 75 ft. canopy) and is rich in biodiversity with thousands of
species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and numerous other
creatures. North American song birds such as the Baltimore Oriole are known
to migrate during the winter to this region. This old growth rainforest
reserve also includes important nesting beaches for endangered sea turtles
and is the home to many tropical frogs like the red-eyed tree frog and many
species of poison dart frogs.
We pick up aluminum cans and trash from approximately 2/3 of the
infield. We will once again have a picnic lunch provided by Phillip's Inner
Harbor and door prizes for volunteers following the clean-up. All volunteers
must be 14 years or older to participate (14-17 year olds need a work
permit). VOLUNTEERS MUST BRING WORK GLOVES.
Please call Holli at 410-580-0250 for more information or to sign up as
a volunteer. Visit our web site at www.reptileinfo.com for additional
information. If you cannot be there, but want to help, we will accept your
tax-deductible donation. All donations will go directly toward our land
purchase. Make your check payable to MARS Preservation Fund, Inc., (put
"Preakness Clean-up" in the memo section) P. O. Box 201, Jarrettsville,
Maryland 21084.
Preakness Clean-up . c/o Mid-Atlantic Reptile Show (MARS) . MARS
Preservation Fund, Inc.
P. O. Box 201 . Jarrettsville, MD 21084 . 410-580-0250 . fax 410-653-1705
http:www.reptileinfo.com . mars at reptileinfo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From ParcBob at aol.com Wed Apr 10 10:08:36 2002
From: ParcBob at aol.com (ParcBob at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:36 EDT
Subject: Miami Blue Crew
Message-ID: <41.1b6e4abf.29e5a164@aol.com>
Hi all,
Anyone desiring seeds please write Ed. with a cc to Jose
(jmuniz at amazingbutterflies.com), and myself.
Bob Parcelles, Jr.
*******************************************************************************
*****
Bob Parcelles, Jr.
Pinellas Park, FL
Ecologist, RJP Associates
BWPTi/C2M
Reply To: parcbob at aol.com
Phone: (727) 548-9775
Fax: (720) 441-3682
Nature Potpourri
Care2's Race for the Rainforest
#####################################################################
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020410/2ec046c7/attachment.html
From lawrence_turner at msn.com Wed Apr 10 10:36:04 2002
From: lawrence_turner at msn.com (Lawrence Turner)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:36:04 -0700
Subject: micro
Message-ID:
Is anyone familiar with a micro that feeds on Helianthemum scoparium in central California? It looks like it may belong to the the genus Stilbosis in the Cosmopterigidae.
Larry Turner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020410/6a652a4a/attachment.html
From ParcBob at aol.com Wed Apr 10 11:19:44 2002
From: ParcBob at aol.com (ParcBob at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:19:44 EDT
Subject: Miami blue Crew... Seed Request
Message-ID:
It appears that my reply to Ed Reinertsen bfly4u at swbell.net did not carry the
message I was answering. I thought yahoo sent the original?
He is wondering where to send ballon vine seeds (*Cardiospermum *) for
propagation.
bob
+++++++++++================>
Hi all,
Anyone desiring seeds please write Ed. with a cc to Jose
(jmuniz at amazingbutterflies.com), and myself.
Bob Parcelles, Jr.
parcbob at aol.com
===============>>
Ed wrote:
Hi all
Where can people send seeds to help?
Ed Reinertsen
*******************************************************************************
*****
Bob Parcelles, Jr.
Pinellas Park, FL
Ecologist, RJP Associates
BWPTi/C2M
Reply To: parcbob at aol.com
Phone: (727) 548-9775
Fax: (720) 441-3682
Nature Potpourri
Care2's Race for the Rainforest
#####################################################################
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020410/d385418a/attachment.html
From agrkovich at tmpeng.com Wed Apr 10 11:39:29 2002
From: agrkovich at tmpeng.com (Grkovich, Alex)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:39:29 -0400
Subject: museum 'poachers'
Message-ID:
Martin Bailey wrote:
> So I pose this question to you: Why must you add to your collection
> specimens that you will never get enough examples of to make meaningful
> comparative analyses? Where the addition of that specimen to your
> collection
> will not advance our knowledge of the species in question.
>
> Martin Bailey,
>
> greetings from: Weyburn, SK., Canada.
> 49.39N 103.51W
>
[AG] Excellent question. Why collect either "trash bugs" (to quote
Norbert, I laughed and howled at this term of his), and what exactly defines
a "trophy"?
First, in the late 80's and early 90's, I collected, for example, a
good series of "Common" Ringlets (Coenonympha tullia inornata) (correctly
referred to as Inornate Ringlets) from central NH and Maine. Some years
later, I finally got around to spreading most of them. Then I added a number
of specimens from Mass and a few from VT. As they were essentially, as I
said, "trash bugs", I could have just as easily just "given" them away or
just let them sit there endlessly in stamp envelopes.
Then the question occurred to me not that long ago: The "Common"
Ringlet has quite recently expanded its range into southern New England. (It
is not even mentioned by Klots as occurring at all in New England, although
I suspect that is oversight- it probably has occurred n the Canadian Zone in
New England all along) From where did it expand into say, eastern MA? From
the north or from the west? I have begun to arrange my series of this
butterfly to at least get a preliminary clue about this, if possible. I
suspect (without having examined enough specimens to date) that it MAY have
come from the west, from central New York.
What seems interesting is that, while the species has recently
spread into southern New England, it has apparently not done so in the Upper
Midwest; for example, while occurring abundantly in the Canadian Zone of
northern Michigan and Ontario, I have never found it or heard of it from
southwestern Ontario, southern Michigan etc.
By the way, an excellent compilation of photographs of the various
taxa of C. t. inornata, heinemanii, macissaci etc.(I trust I've spelled
the names correctly - I don't have the books here with me) from the
northeast (Quebec, northern New York, Maritime Provinces etc.) can be fouind
in Louis Handfield's book, "Le Guide des Papillons du Quebec" (Mark, I
recommend this book!).
Also, my two specimens of Papilio polydamas, from St. Thomas, USVI,
would probably qualify as a "trophies" to many people. I will probably never
utilize them in any "research" (but who knows). But my purpose (or
motivation or interest) is to build as complete a reference (or
"scientific") collection as possible. And anyway, I chased the first one for
about 4 hours before I caught it, (once tripping badly, while running, on a
big rock that was hidden in the deep grass) so perhaps I have earned the
"trophy".
Alex
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From rworth at oda.state.or.us Wed Apr 10 13:16:14 2002
From: rworth at oda.state.or.us (Richard Worth)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:16:14 -0700
Subject: Speyeria clemencei comstockii (Comstock)
In-Reply-To: <003601c1df3e$94412bf0$1001a8c0@entomology>
References:
<01c801c1df3b$c6aee620$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
<003601c1df3e$94412bf0$1001a8c0@entomology>
Message-ID:
Hi Mark,
As I recall, the name 'clemencei' had more recently been associated
as a subspecies of 'adiaste'. This is also how it is listed in
Scott's N.Am. Buttermoth ;-) book. My guess is that the name you
have is referenced in Comstck's butterflies. I'm assuming your
specimen is from somewhere near Monterey, CA or central coast and is
very unsilvered and washed out on the underside. I also have a few
specimens of Comstock's, one is a Behr's sulfur, a classic Calif.
buttermoth collected from about the same time period :-)
Best, Rich
>Hello All
>All of these discussions on subspecies leads me to this question. Can anyone
>who is very familiar with the Speyeria of the West Coast please tell me a
>little bit about this butterfly. I actually have a specimen collected by
>Comstock from around 1920, labelled by hand "Speyeria clemencei comstockii
>(Comstock).
>
>Any information that anyone can offer would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanks
>
>Mark Deering
>Collections Manager and Curator of Butterflies
>The Sophia Sachs Butterfly House
>15193 Olive Blvd
>Chesterfield, MO 63017
>(636) 530-0076
>www.butterflyhouse.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
Richard A. Worth
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Plant Division
rworth at oda.state.or.us
(503) 986-6461
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu Wed Apr 10 14:57:27 2002
From: gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu (Michael Gochfeld)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:57:27 -0400
Subject: museum 'poachers'
References:
Message-ID: <3CB48B17.4ED661F9@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
I was intrigued that Alex suspected that the Ringlet had been in the
Canadian Zone of New England for a long time. It certainly has invaded
NJ only in the last few years. In fact it has spread rapidly down the
Hudson Valley (perhaps leapfrogging enroute), so it seems entirely
reasonable that it wasn't around 30 years ago. It was already
widespread in Orange County (southern NY) by 1994 when the first NJ
specimens were obtained.
It is now common and widespread in the northwest. It is mainly a
farm-field roadside butterfly here. MIKE GOCHFELD
"Grkovich, Alex" wrote:
>
> Martin Bailey wrote:
>
> > So I pose this question to you: Why must you add to your collection
> > specimens that you will never get enough examples of to make meaningful
> > comparative analyses? Where the addition of that specimen to your
> > collection
> > will not advance our knowledge of the species in question.
> >
> > Martin Bailey,
> >
> > greetings from: Weyburn, SK., Canada.
> > 49.39N 103.51W
> >
> [AG] Excellent question. Why collect either "trash bugs" (to quote
> Norbert, I laughed and howled at this term of his), and what exactly defines
> a "trophy"?
>
> First, in the late 80's and early 90's, I collected, for example, a
> good series of "Common" Ringlets (Coenonympha tullia inornata) (correctly
> referred to as Inornate Ringlets) from central NH and Maine. Some years
> later, I finally got around to spreading most of them. Then I added a number
> of specimens from Mass and a few from VT. As they were essentially, as I
> said, "trash bugs", I could have just as easily just "given" them away or
> just let them sit there endlessly in stamp envelopes.
>
> Then the question occurred to me not that long ago: The "Common"
> Ringlet has quite recently expanded its range into southern New England. (It
> is not even mentioned by Klots as occurring at all in New England, although
> I suspect that is oversight- it probably has occurred n the Canadian Zone in
> New England all along) From where did it expand into say, eastern MA? From
> the north or from the west? I have begun to arrange my series of this
> butterfly to at least get a preliminary clue about this, if possible. I
> suspect (without having examined enough specimens to date) that it MAY have
> come from the west, from central New York.
>
> What seems interesting is that, while the species has recently
> spread into southern New England, it has apparently not done so in the Upper
> Midwest; for example, while occurring abundantly in the Canadian Zone of
> northern Michigan and Ontario, I have never found it or heard of it from
> southwestern Ontario, southern Michigan etc.
>
> By the way, an excellent compilation of photographs of the various
> taxa of C. t. inornata, heinemanii, macissaci etc.(I trust I've spelled
> the names correctly - I don't have the books here with me) from the
> northeast (Quebec, northern New York, Maritime Provinces etc.) can be fouind
> in Louis Handfield's book, "Le Guide des Papillons du Quebec" (Mark, I
> recommend this book!).
>
> Also, my two specimens of Papilio polydamas, from St. Thomas, USVI,
> would probably qualify as a "trophies" to many people. I will probably never
> utilize them in any "research" (but who knows). But my purpose (or
> motivation or interest) is to build as complete a reference (or
> "scientific") collection as possible. And anyway, I chased the first one for
> about 4 hours before I caught it, (once tripping badly, while running, on a
> big rock that was hidden in the deep grass) so perhaps I have earned the
> "trophy".
>
> Alex
>
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From agrkovich at tmpeng.com Wed Apr 10 17:04:41 2002
From: agrkovich at tmpeng.com (Grkovich, Alex)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:04:41 -0400
Subject: museum 'poachers'
Message-ID:
I don't know, either, for a fact that the Ringlet has been in the Canadian
Zone of New England for a long time, as Mike writes. It would be interesting
if there's anyone reading this (Kent?) who might know for certain. Warren
Kiel of Whitefield, NH, who I communicated with years ago and collected with
once or twice in northern NH (Coos Co) might know.
I suspect that it has longtime been in northen New England, primarily
because the species, in the East, is essentially a Canadian Zone butterfly
and occurs widely in the Canadian Zone across the Upper Midwest and then
through eastern Canada. Now, there is a curious thing that I have noticed
about some of the northern species in the east (Boloria freija, frigga,
chariclea (or titania-?) grandis, Erebia discoidalis and mancinus, Oeneis
chryxus, even Lycaeides idas, etc.) and that is that some of them seem to be
associated with and thus limited in the East to the Canadian Shield areas,
of which northern New England is not a part. They will occur widely for
example, in northern Mich., Minn., and Wisconsin, which are part of the
Canadian Shield (Laurentian Mountain) region, but apparently do not occur in
similar environments (and at similar latitudes) within northern New England
(not even in northern Maine, although B. chariclea grandis does occur
sporadically in northeast New Brunswick and also on Cape Breton Island, Nova
Scotia) which belong to the Appalachian Region. This has always intrigued
me. Now, Oeneis jutta and Boloria eunomia dawsonii do not follow this
pattern, and do occur in northern NH, ME (both are at Wilsons Mills, ME
along Rt. 16 - I have found them both there, most recently on June 12, 1993
- and I wonder if anyone is sharp enough to pick up on the irony of that
visit - ask me and I eagerly will respond in private - you'll get a kick out
of it), and (jutta only?) VT and NY.
So what then is the fact about the Ringlet? At sort of first or second
glance, and with not nearly enough voucher material (of trash bugs (!!! -
God, I love that term)), northern NH and VT material looks darker and redder
(and greener below) than MA/s. ME stuff, and FW ocelli appear to be more
pronounced and occur in a higher pecentage of specimens in the south (which
more resemble central NY populations to me). But this is all VERY
preliminary, and Kent has also suggested to me that in northern VT there is
some variation between the broods. So more vouchers are required.
I'm not surprised that Mike confirms, also, that the Ringlet has spread into
NJ only within the past few years; if it is essentially Canadian Zone, then
it would not have been expected to have been there until recently (?).
Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gochfeld [SMTP:gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 2:57 PM
> To: agrkovich at tmpeng.com
> Cc: 'cmbb at sk.sympatico.ca'; fnjjk1 at uaf.edu; Lepslist
> Subject: Re: museum 'poachers'
>
> I was intrigued that Alex suspected that the Ringlet had been in the
> Canadian Zone of New England for a long time. It certainly has invaded
> NJ only in the last few years. In fact it has spread rapidly down the
> Hudson Valley (perhaps leapfrogging enroute), so it seems entirely
> reasonable that it wasn't around 30 years ago. It was already
> widespread in Orange County (southern NY) by 1994 when the first NJ
> specimens were obtained.
>
> It is now common and widespread in the northwest. It is mainly a
> farm-field roadside butterfly here. MIKE GOCHFELD
>
> "Grkovich, Alex" wrote:
> >
> > Martin Bailey wrote:
> >
> > > So I pose this question to you: Why must you add to your collection
> > > specimens that you will never get enough examples of to make
> meaningful
> > > comparative analyses? Where the addition of that specimen to your
> > > collection
> > > will not advance our knowledge of the species in question.
> > >
> > > Martin Bailey,
> > >
> > > greetings from: Weyburn, SK., Canada.
> > > 49.39N 103.51W
> > >
> > [AG] Excellent question. Why collect either "trash bugs" (to
> quote
> > Norbert, I laughed and howled at this term of his), and what exactly
> defines
> > a "trophy"?
> >
> > First, in the late 80's and early 90's, I collected, for
> example, a
> > good series of "Common" Ringlets (Coenonympha tullia inornata)
> (correctly
> > referred to as Inornate Ringlets) from central NH and Maine. Some years
> > later, I finally got around to spreading most of them. Then I added a
> number
> > of specimens from Mass and a few from VT. As they were essentially, as I
> > said, "trash bugs", I could have just as easily just "given" them away
> or
> > just let them sit there endlessly in stamp envelopes.
> >
> > Then the question occurred to me not that long ago: The "Common"
> > Ringlet has quite recently expanded its range into southern New England.
> (It
> > is not even mentioned by Klots as occurring at all in New England,
> although
> > I suspect that is oversight- it probably has occurred n the Canadian
> Zone in
> > New England all along) From where did it expand into say, eastern MA?
> From
> > the north or from the west? I have begun to arrange my series of this
> > butterfly to at least get a preliminary clue about this, if possible. I
> > suspect (without having examined enough specimens to date) that it MAY
> have
> > come from the west, from central New York.
> >
> > What seems interesting is that, while the species has recently
> > spread into southern New England, it has apparently not done so in the
> Upper
> > Midwest; for example, while occurring abundantly in the Canadian Zone of
> > northern Michigan and Ontario, I have never found it or heard of it from
> > southwestern Ontario, southern Michigan etc.
> >
> > By the way, an excellent compilation of photographs of the
> various
> > taxa of C. t. inornata, heinemanii, macissaci etc.(I trust I've
> spelled
> > the names correctly - I don't have the books here with me) from the
> > northeast (Quebec, northern New York, Maritime Provinces etc.) can be
> fouind
> > in Louis Handfield's book, "Le Guide des Papillons du Quebec" (Mark, I
> > recommend this book!).
> >
> > Also, my two specimens of Papilio polydamas, from St. Thomas,
> USVI,
> > would probably qualify as a "trophies" to many people. I will probably
> never
> > utilize them in any "research" (but who knows). But my purpose (or
> > motivation or interest) is to build as complete a reference (or
> > "scientific") collection as possible. And anyway, I chased the first one
> for
> > about 4 hours before I caught it, (once tripping badly, while running,
> on a
> > big rock that was hidden in the deep grass) so perhaps I have earned the
> > "trophy".
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> > >
> > > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk Wed Apr 10 17:23:57 2002
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:23:57 +0100
Subject: Spam and Leps-l
Message-ID: <02041022235706.02475@localhost.localdomain>
Firstly the Nigerian Scam we received. I laughed hard at Bob's response, but
do you know this is a billion dollar hoax! It started years ago with letters
and has now graduated onto email. Lots of people have fallen for it.
I guess with emails like this the guide is "beware of _geeks_ bearing gifts"
I got a second copy sent straight to me.The spammer has the Leps-l address
listed in all the millions of ordinary ones. Checking it out, it originates
with somebody with an account with an ISP in Lagos, Nigeria.
Being genuinely Nigerian is the only genuine thing about it.
There are two routes by which spam enters the list. One is through the
gateway to sci.bio.entomology.lepidoptera. This is now rather rare since
there are people on the net who have created spam canceling programs
for usenet. These make it difficult for spammers to operate there.
The other is the route the Nigerian Scam took which will be blocked by the
proposed changes.
Spam is rather like death and taxes, unavoidable.
There are a number of ways in which spammers find email addresses.
A few examples are.:-
Off mailto tags on web pages.
By "grepping a newsfeed". Scanning usenet for addresses.
The "Rumplestiltskin attack". By simply guessing email addresses!
Once on a spammers list getting off it it is rather like getting off Readers
Digest's mailing list. i.e. near impossible.
I have received spam today which I can trace back because of a filtering
system. They got hold of the address 6 years ago!
I would be very much against switching off the gateway to usenet.
Firstly it is very very useful in whole host of ways, archiving, retrieval
etc. Also there are a suprising number of people who use it. This includes me
on occasions.
A few other points. Jim Taylor's email wasn't actually transmitted via leps-l,
but it seems, and I can't be sure without seeing the message headers, that
the website advertised is with Jim's ISP. Being a customer surely puts
any complainant in a better position. If you can prove its him get his site
shut down! They will surely have an anti-spamming policy. It is even illegal
in some states in the USA.
Ron Gatrelle may be complaining a lot because he posts a lot leading to more
spam. Your experience may not be entirely typical Ron. An awful lot of it
isn't what a good preacher wants in his mailbox! That may be upsetting as
well.
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From MWalker at gensym.com Wed Apr 10 18:40:51 2002
From: MWalker at gensym.com (Mark Walker)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:40:51 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b
irders ?
Message-ID: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3AA@hqmail.gensym.com>
Neil wrote:
> I suspect this may provoke a reaction. Yes, I am being provocative.
You can bet this will get a response. You are deserving of a lot of
adjectives, but provocative isn't the one I would have picked.
> grin on my face writing this but I can justify _every_ point. I find
> Mark's
> assertion utterly illogical. Perhaps this will actually get some people
> thinking about what science really is! :-)
"utterly illogical". You constantly write as if you've got the inside on
logic. Wow - how perfectly wired your brain must be! Spock Jones I shall
call you. "Perhaps this will actually get some people thinking...". Yes,
and we'll all have YOU to thank for that. We'd be "utterly" lost without
you.
Science is knowledge through systematic study. Virtually every person on
the planet could be categorized as a scientist at some point in their lives.
Anyone who is studying the life cycles of insects in the field (which cannot
be successfully accomplished unsystematically), and then studying their
physical characteristics through careful preparation, mounting, and admiring
is certainly engaging in science - no matter how illogical they or their
activities may seem to the likes of you!
>
> _However_ the evidence from this list shows that there is often a
> lamentable
> lack of logical and scientific thinking amongst certain collectors.
The "evidence from this list" - please. The keeper of the list has spoken.
"a lamentable lack of logical and scientific thinking...". According to
whom? Is that judgment a scientific one, or a personal one? Honestly, I
don't know how you manage to climb up into that lofty saddle each day.
>
> Regular observers will know that certain people on this list claim to be
> scientific but advance or support the most illogical, irrational and
> unscientific ideas.
Even if this were true (i.e. it were coming from someone other than you), it
would in no way justify discounting everything else that might come from
such people.
> Seriously folks! It is all there in the archives!
And there's a lot more in the archives - including a bunch of stuff that
betrays your standing amongst polite and reasonable people.
> To be fair it isn't just collectors but I am constantly worried by people
> who
> fall for hoaxes. It wouldn't be fair to criticise Americans for not
> knowing
> rude British slang but other things that are said that are equally
> obviously
> hoaxes and people should know. Yet they still fall for it. BE scientific
> _check_ the data _first_.
Why don't you stop worrying about everyone else and start focusing on your
own social graces.
Don't worry - no apology necessary.
Mark Walker
One scientist prone to bursts of illogical behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From monarch at saber.net Wed Apr 10 19:38:06 2002
From: monarch at saber.net (Paul Cherubini)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:38:06 -0700
Subject: please help us...HERE I COME!
Message-ID: <3CB4CCDE.7D09@saber.net>
Jere Kahanp?? wrote:
> Come on, trucking butterflies around and releasing them
> has nothing in common with being 'pro-collecting' or
> 'anti-collecting'!
> Personally I am for careful sampling of populations for study
> and teaching, but would strongly oppose this kind of
> operationg *if it is only for the show*. But this case it
> isn't: tagging monarchs is (IIRC) a real scientific research
> project, isn't it?
You say you are strongly opposed to collecting and trucking
butterflies around for release if it is only for show. Do you also
oppose those who breed and release monarch butterflies for show?
Or would it be OK if the breeders also tagged the butterflies
for scientific research? Here is a picture of the new International
Butterfly Breeders Association (IBBA) tag that will be placed on
monarch butterflies released at weddings and funerals.
http://www.saber.net/~monarch/tags3.JPG
Bob Pyle, author and cofounder of the Xerces Society, has
already expressed how he feels about tagging wedding butterflies:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/04.20.00/butterfly-0016.html
"All these people who breed butterflies, their mission statements
are so full of biological crap. It's a smokescreen for profit,"
Pyle says.
Paul Cherubini
Placerville, Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From todd.redhead at sympatico.ca Wed Apr 10 19:42:37 2002
From: todd.redhead at sympatico.ca (Todd Redhead)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:42:37 -0400
Subject: museum 'poachers'
References: <3CB48B17.4ED661F9@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <3CB4CDED.12F34575@sympatico.ca>
"Grkovich, Alex" wrote: re: C. tullia inornata (Common Ringlet)
What seems interesting is that, while the species has recently
spread into southern New England, it has apparently not done so in the Upper
Midwest; for example, while occurring abundantly in the Canadian Zone of
northern Michigan and Ontario, I have never found it or heard of it from
southwestern Ontario, southern Michigan etc.
I got a couple in that I collected a mile or two west of London, Ontario. London,
I believe is usually considered the cutoff for southwestern Ontario. Now maybe
these were strays from a little further north but there were a lot more than just
two in the area. I only grabbed these ones when I could not spot the polyxenes
that I was looking for. Maybe this year I will keep an eye out when on my trips
further south towards Windsor, Ontario.
Todd
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From bfly4u at swbell.net Wed Apr 10 20:39:38 2002
From: bfly4u at swbell.net (Kathy Reinertsen)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:39:38 -0500
Subject: please help us...HERE I COME!
References: <3CB4CCDE.7D09@saber.net>
Message-ID: <3CB4DB49.DA578DAF@swbell.net>
Paul
Your picture of the IBBA tag is considerably larger than the actual tag.
Our tag is the same size as Monarch Watch current tag.
Ed Reinertsen
Paul Cherubini wrote:
> Jere Kahanp?? wrote:
>
> > Come on, trucking butterflies around and releasing them
> > has nothing in common with being 'pro-collecting' or
> > 'anti-collecting'!
>
> > Personally I am for careful sampling of populations for study
> > and teaching, but would strongly oppose this kind of
> > operationg *if it is only for the show*. But this case it
> > isn't: tagging monarchs is (IIRC) a real scientific research
> > project, isn't it?
>
> You say you are strongly opposed to collecting and trucking
> butterflies around for release if it is only for show. Do you also
> oppose those who breed and release monarch butterflies for show?
> Or would it be OK if the breeders also tagged the butterflies
> for scientific research? Here is a picture of the new International
> Butterfly Breeders Association (IBBA) tag that will be placed on
> monarch butterflies released at weddings and funerals.
> http://www.saber.net/~monarch/tags3.JPG
>
> Bob Pyle, author and cofounder of the Xerces Society, has
> already expressed how he feels about tagging wedding butterflies:
> http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/04.20.00/butterfly-0016.html
>
> "All these people who breed butterflies, their mission statements
> are so full of biological crap. It's a smokescreen for profit,"
> Pyle says.
>
> Paul Cherubini
> Placerville, Calif.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From monarch at saber.net Wed Apr 10 21:16:48 2002
From: monarch at saber.net (Paul Cherubini)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:16:48 -0700
Subject: please help us...HERE I COME!
References: <3CB4CCDE.7D09@saber.net> <3CB4DB49.DA578DAF@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <3CB4E400.462E@saber.net>
Ed Reinertsen wrote:
>
> Paul
> Your picture of the IBBA tag is considerably larger than the actual tag.
> Our tag is the same size as Monarch Watch current tag.
Ed, here is a Monarch Watch tag and an IBBA tag side by side.
http://www.saber.net/~monarch/tags4.JPG
Paul Cherubini
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From mariposa at iastate.edu Wed Apr 10 22:00:38 2002
From: mariposa at iastate.edu (Royce J Bitzer)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:00:38 -0500
Subject: Vanessa Butterfly Migration Project Update--First Red Admiral
of 2002
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020410205512.03640d28@mariposa.mail.iastate.edu>
Leps-L Members,
This is an update to the Vanessa Butterfly Migration Project announced on
March 29.
A map showing the first Red Admirals sighted in 2002 is now available
through the link at
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mariposa/maps2002.htm
I have also added a map showing the first Red Admirals sighted in 2001:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mariposa/frad2001.html
Thank you for your interest in this project!
Royce J. Bitzer
mariposa at iastate.edu
Dept. of Entomology
113A Insectary
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011
Phone: (515) 294-8663
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mariposa/homepage.html
The Red Admiral and Painted Lady Research Site
A web site to encourage and coordinate
field studies of territorial behavior
and migration of Vanessa butterflies
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From drdn at mail.utexas.edu Wed Apr 10 22:46:56 2002
From: drdn at mail.utexas.edu (Chris J. Durden)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:46:56 -0500
Subject: museum 'poachers' - Ringlet
In-Reply-To: <3CB48B17.4ED661F9@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
References:
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020410213059.0327a020@mail.utexas.edu>
*C. inornata* was in the Ottawa (Ontario) region in the fifties at least as
early as '53. It was not in the Montreal area in the late fifties and early
sixties, or in the northern Adirondacks or northern Vermont at that time.
It was polymorphic in the Ottawa region with dark and light forms and with
upland meadow and sedge bog ecotypes in late spring and early summer.
Munroe assured me he had found it in the Gatineau hills as late as August.
Shortly after this a new race/subspecies/species was described from the
Thousand Islands. The polymorphism was very noticeable and quite unlike the
monomorphic populations of Hudsonian muskeg around James Bay, which looked
almost Skandinavian in facies.
What change in land-use practices, or what genetic introduction
prompted this rapid spread of an Hudsonian-Canadian Zone species, southward
into the Transition Zone. Could this be in response to the effects of "acid
rain" and its effects on grassland habitat? We never found it in the early
sixties in Massachusetts, Connecticut or northern New Jersey. A canvassing
of collections might produce data for the construction of a range-change map.
.................Chris Durden
At 02:57 PM 4/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>I was intrigued that Alex suspected that the Ringlet had been in the
>Canadian Zone of New England for a long time. It certainly has invaded
>NJ only in the last few years. In fact it has spread rapidly down the
>Hudson Valley (perhaps leapfrogging enroute), so it seems entirely
>reasonable that it wasn't around 30 years ago. It was already
>widespread in Orange County (southern NY) by 1994 when the first NJ
>specimens were obtained.
>
>It is now common and widespread in the northwest. It is mainly a
>farm-field roadside butterfly here. MIKE GOCHFELD
>
>"Grkovich, Alex" wrote:
> >
> > Martin Bailey wrote:
> >
> > > So I pose this question to you: Why must you add to your collection
> > > specimens that you will never get enough examples of to make meaningful
> > > comparative analyses? Where the addition of that specimen to your
> > > collection
> > > will not advance our knowledge of the species in question.
> > >
> > > Martin Bailey,
> > >
> > > greetings from: Weyburn, SK., Canada.
> > > 49.39N 103.51W
> > >
> > [AG] Excellent question. Why collect either "trash bugs" (to quote
> > Norbert, I laughed and howled at this term of his), and what exactly
> defines
> > a "trophy"?
> >
> > First, in the late 80's and early 90's, I collected, for example, a
> > good series of "Common" Ringlets (Coenonympha tullia inornata) (correctly
> > referred to as Inornate Ringlets) from central NH and Maine. Some years
> > later, I finally got around to spreading most of them. Then I added a
> number
> > of specimens from Mass and a few from VT. As they were essentially, as I
> > said, "trash bugs", I could have just as easily just "given" them away or
> > just let them sit there endlessly in stamp envelopes.
> >
> > Then the question occurred to me not that long ago: The "Common"
> > Ringlet has quite recently expanded its range into southern New
> England. (It
> > is not even mentioned by Klots as occurring at all in New England, although
> > I suspect that is oversight- it probably has occurred n the Canadian
> Zone in
> > New England all along) From where did it expand into say, eastern MA? From
> > the north or from the west? I have begun to arrange my series of this
> > butterfly to at least get a preliminary clue about this, if possible. I
> > suspect (without having examined enough specimens to date) that it MAY have
> > come from the west, from central New York.
> >
> > What seems interesting is that, while the species has recently
> > spread into southern New England, it has apparently not done so in the
> Upper
> > Midwest; for example, while occurring abundantly in the Canadian Zone of
> > northern Michigan and Ontario, I have never found it or heard of it from
> > southwestern Ontario, southern Michigan etc.
> >
> > By the way, an excellent compilation of photographs of the various
> > taxa of C. t. inornata, heinemanii, macissaci etc.(I trust I've spelled
> > the names correctly - I don't have the books here with me) from the
> > northeast (Quebec, northern New York, Maritime Provinces etc.) can be
> fouind
> > in Louis Handfield's book, "Le Guide des Papillons du Quebec" (Mark, I
> > recommend this book!).
> >
> > Also, my two specimens of Papilio polydamas, from St. Thomas, USVI,
> > would probably qualify as a "trophies" to many people. I will probably
> never
> > utilize them in any "research" (but who knows). But my purpose (or
> > motivation or interest) is to build as complete a reference (or
> > "scientific") collection as possible. And anyway, I chased the first
> one for
> > about 4 hours before I caught it, (once tripping badly, while running, on a
> > big rock that was hidden in the deep grass) so perhaps I have earned the
> > "trophy".
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> > >
> > > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From bfly4u at swbell.net Wed Apr 10 23:11:02 2002
From: bfly4u at swbell.net (Kathy Reinertsen)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:11:02 -0500
Subject: [Fwd: please help us...HERE I COME!]
Message-ID: <3CB4FEC6.CA8B405C@swbell.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Kathy Reinertsen
Subject: Re: please help us...HERE I COME!
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:42:14 -0500
Size: 1271
Url: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020410/418eb5ab/attachment.mht
From monarch at saber.net Thu Apr 11 00:09:54 2002
From: monarch at saber.net (Paul Cherubini)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:09:54 -0700
Subject: please help us...HERE I COME!
References: <3CB4CCDE.7D09@saber.net> <3CB4DB49.DA578DAF@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <3CB50C92.7FE7@saber.net>
Ed Reinertsen wrote:
>
> Paul
> Your picture of the IBBA tag is considerably larger than the actual tag.
> Our tag is the same size as Monarch Watch current tag.
> What is the diameter of these tags?
Both the Monarch Watch tag and IBBA tag are 9 mm in diameter
(1/3rd inch) http://www.saber.net/~monarch/tags5.JPG
Paul Cherubini
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu Thu Apr 11 00:38:09 2002
From: gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu (Michael Gochfeld)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:38:09 -0400
Subject: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
References: <20020409.210511.-279325.3.mbpi@juno.com>
Message-ID: <3CB51331.6BC6CCC1@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
When I was in AMNH (1969-1977) there were a number of times when specimens
were de-accessioned. These included mainly unlabelled or poorly labelled
specimens which were given to schools and other groups for educational
exhibits as Mary Beth points out. Curators worked carefully to make sure
that no historically important specimens were given away. Some poorly
preserved specimens were re-made (relaxed, re-stuffed, etc).
However in the world of art and artifacts museums regularly consider (or
conduct) "de-accessioning" (also known as selling) specimens to raise money.
The AMNH made the unfortunate decision to de-accession its 96 acre
Kalbfleisch field station at Huntington, LI. It made a lot of money in the
short run, but this cost it big in terms of other donations which went to
less avaricious institutions. A much larger chunk of Florida landscape was
going to be donated to the AMNH, but when word of the Kalbfleish sale got
around, the donor family changed the will.
Mike Gochfeld
mbpi at juno.com wrote:
> As I recall...when I worked at AMNH, I was told that the museum receieved
> countless "donations" of specimens...many poorly preserved and/or
> inadequately documented. By the same token, the museum's imposed ethical
> creed forbade them to dispose, sell or barter these donations; so, they
> are inundated with scientifically "worthless" specimens that either "take
> up space," or are creatively utilized through "lending" and "educational"
> programs to schools, community groups, exhibits, and assorted other
> outreach programs. Let's give them SOME credit! It's like getting
> someone's cast-off wardrobe (which I've been subjected to on countless
> occasions), and not really wanting those cast-offs, while also not
> wanting to offend the "giver" in their philanthropic intent. It's a
> double-edged sword...
>
> As for all the "collecting" that resident museum curators supposedly
> do... from what I've observed, the age of "trophy collecting" has pretty
> much gone with the wind. The major "big collections" are received or
> acquired from private collectors, many with HUGE "price tags" that
> contradict the "cause for furthering scientific knowledge" of the
> collectors' supposed motives (!)
>
> And all those "cardboard boxes" stacked up in less than adequate
> storage...that's where I come in! Granted, there is no "monetary
> compensation" for someone like me who sees the need to weed through the
> stacks of specimens, transfer them to drawers and label them...that is
> left to the dedicated "volunteers" who spend countless hours performing
> the "mundane" tasks that nobody on the "payroll" wants (much less cares)
> to do. And there are many people who have spent YEARS doing just that...
> Unfortunately, I need to be on the "payroll" to continue such a venture,
> not being "independently wealthy" or retired.
>
> So, museums aren't QUITE the "happy collectors" that Ron envisions them
> to be...
>
> I hate to say it...but...some of you really NEED to expand your horizons
> beyond your glass towers (!)
>
> M.B. Prondzinski
>
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:17:28 -0400 Ron Gatrelle
> writes:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Taylor"
> > To: ;
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from
> > ...
> > birders ?
> >
> >
> > > I have donated (and donate) to the Florida State Collection of
> > Arthropods,
> > > and I intend my collection to go there when I croak. I think John
> > Heppner
> > is
> > > eager to get leps from different parts of the country.
> > >
> > > Jim Taylor
> >
> > This is very true. However, if they are moths they are apt to get a
> > lot
> > better curatorial care than butterflies there. I know space is
> > very used
> > up there - but the way valuable _butterfly_ collections donated
> > years ago
> > (Arbogast, Heitzman etc) are just stacked it the isles in cardboard
> > boxes
> > waiting to be crushed or knocked over is a disgrace. John is not a
> > butterfly person -- and it shows.
> >
> > HE IS ONE FINE FELLA - This is about curation and space - not John.
> >
> > Some museums are not keen on receiving specimens only because the
> > Museums
> > have cut way back on staff, budget and no more space in the morgue.
> > Otherwise they will never turn down specimens - these "scientific"
> > instructions are the greatest collectors of ALL TIME. Where else
> > can one
> > go and find 10 drawers of Cabbage Whites. Does one want to see
> > extinct
> > leps? They are in the Big museums by the hundreds. Scientific
> > collecting? Most people with a postage stamp-butterfly-collection
> > make
> > due with just one or two pair. I digress.
> >
> > OK, I'll say it. The most adamant and game hog collectors are with
> > museums. Hey, they are the ones still shooting the birds. They
> > love it --
> > that is why they are there. They are not some noble cut above the
> > "lay"
> > collector. Myth. Go to a museum and get to know the people - they
> > are up
> > o their necks in dead stuff.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 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/web/.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From fnkwp at aurora.alaska.edu Thu Apr 11 05:00:05 2002
From: fnkwp at aurora.alaska.edu (Kenelm Philip)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:00:05 -0800 (AKDT)
Subject: museum 'poachers'
Message-ID:
I am amused by the people who seem to have just realized that
museums (horrors!) actually take specimens--even birds (not to mention
mammals, fish, etc.).
However, while there have indeed been curators who collected
illegally, and thus really were poachers (even scientists can be crim-
inals--and museum curators who venture into crime are known for being
'self-documenting' criminals, since their collection labels provide
evidence), the vast majority of these people collect with due regard
for the increasing number of regulations that have zeroed in on collecting.
When you have to get a gov't permit to shoot birds for a collection, and
the permit specifies how many birds of each species you may shoot, one
can hardly accuse you of poaching!
Some numbers may be of interest. A 1996 article in 'The Condor'
states that scientists in the U.S. collect around 21,000 birds per year,
amounting to less than 0.01% of the human-caused bird mortality. This
is also 1/30,000th of the estimated number of birds killed per year by
domestic cats. There's nothing that makes one feel better than knowing
that 1/30,00th of the problem is well-regulated by ouir gov't!
As for the existence of drawers of _Pieris rapae_, what harm is
being done by taking large series of an introduced pest species? And
why not take good series of abundant native species? The Alaska Lepi-
doptera Survey has always attempted to get large enough samples so one
can get an idea of the variation within populations. Is this deleterious
to the populations of various species of butterflies? A year ago I
calculated the number of butterfly specimens (all species) the ALS has
taken per square mile (in the region of interest) per year over its
32-year life. The result: 1 specimen per 1000 square miles per year.
Not much of a problem for the butterfly populations--especially when
it is clear that a few Fairbanks vicinity areas that I check regularly
have not been affected by every-year sampling. The only case I know
of where a population of one species near Fairbanks was, as far as I
know, destroyed by human activity involved a bulldozer, not a collector.
Campare that to the recent paper in the J. Lep. Soc. estimating
over 20,000,000 butterflies killed along Illinois roads in only seven
days. 500,000 of these may have been Monarchs. People who object to seeing
a few drawers of a single species in a collection should consider giving
up driving during the summer. :-)
Ken Philip
P.S. And yes--collecting is indeed fun, despite mosquitoes, black flies,
close encounters with very large furry beasts, bogs, and scree slopes.
Not to mention the deplorable habit up here of having July snowstorms.
There was once an institute director here who was a real Puritan--he
thought that doing science shouldn't be fun, but just grueling work.
If you were having fun there was something wrong. I disagreed with
him at the time--and still do.
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 11 05:36:58 2002
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:36:58 +0100
Subject: Spam and Leps-l
In-Reply-To: <02041022235706.02475@localhost.localdomain>
References: <02041022235706.02475@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <02041110365800.01176@localhost.localdomain>
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 10:23 pm, Neil Jones wrote:
> A few other points. Jim Taylor's email wasn't actually transmitted via
> leps-l, but it seems, and I can't be sure without seeing the message
> headers, that the website advertised is with Jim's ISP. Being a customer
> surely puts any complainant in a better position. If you can prove its him
> get his site shut down! They will surely have an anti-spamming policy. It
> is even illegal in some states in the USA.
Just one point of clarification. By Jim Taylor's email I meant the piece of
spam that he circulated, quite properly, to ask Larry Gall if he could help
stop us getting all the junk. My purpose in mentioning it was to help Jim to
complain. I _hate_ spammers and scammers of all kinds. but I didn't mean to
suggest that Jim was trying to spam or sell anything.
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From agrkovich at tmpeng.com Thu Apr 11 07:51:52 2002
From: agrkovich at tmpeng.com (Grkovich, Alex)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:51:52 -0400
Subject: museum 'poachers' - Ringlet
Message-ID:
I found it near Sudbury, Ontario, during early June 1970.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris J. Durden [SMTP:drdn at mail.utexas.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:47 PM
> To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: museum 'poachers' - Ringlet
>
> *C. inornata* was in the Ottawa (Ontario) region in the fifties at least
> as
> early as '53. It was not in the Montreal area in the late fifties and
> early
> sixties, or in the northern Adirondacks or northern Vermont at that time.
> It was polymorphic in the Ottawa region with dark and light forms and with
>
> upland meadow and sedge bog ecotypes in late spring and early summer.
> Munroe assured me he had found it in the Gatineau hills as late as August.
>
> Shortly after this a new race/subspecies/species was described from the
> Thousand Islands. The polymorphism was very noticeable and quite unlike
> the
> monomorphic populations of Hudsonian muskeg around James Bay, which looked
>
> almost Skandinavian in facies.
> What change in land-use practices, or what genetic introduction
> prompted this rapid spread of an Hudsonian-Canadian Zone species,
> southward
> into the Transition Zone. Could this be in response to the effects of
> "acid
> rain" and its effects on grassland habitat? We never found it in the early
>
> sixties in Massachusetts, Connecticut or northern New Jersey. A canvassing
>
> of collections might produce data for the construction of a range-change
> map.
> .................Chris Durden
>
> At 02:57 PM 4/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >I was intrigued that Alex suspected that the Ringlet had been in the
> >Canadian Zone of New England for a long time. It certainly has invaded
> >NJ only in the last few years. In fact it has spread rapidly down the
> >Hudson Valley (perhaps leapfrogging enroute), so it seems entirely
> >reasonable that it wasn't around 30 years ago. It was already
> >widespread in Orange County (southern NY) by 1994 when the first NJ
> >specimens were obtained.
> >
> >It is now common and widespread in the northwest. It is mainly a
> >farm-field roadside butterfly here. MIKE GOCHFELD
> >
> >"Grkovich, Alex" wrote:
> > >
> > > Martin Bailey wrote:
> > >
> > > > So I pose this question to you: Why must you add to your collection
> > > > specimens that you will never get enough examples of to make
> meaningful
> > > > comparative analyses? Where the addition of that specimen to your
> > > > collection
> > > > will not advance our knowledge of the species in question.
> > > >
> > > > Martin Bailey,
> > > >
> > > > greetings from: Weyburn, SK., Canada.
> > > > 49.39N 103.51W
> > > >
> > > [AG] Excellent question. Why collect either "trash bugs" (to
> quote
> > > Norbert, I laughed and howled at this term of his), and what exactly
> > defines
> > > a "trophy"?
> > >
> > > First, in the late 80's and early 90's, I collected, for
> example, a
> > > good series of "Common" Ringlets (Coenonympha tullia inornata)
> (correctly
> > > referred to as Inornate Ringlets) from central NH and Maine. Some
> years
> > > later, I finally got around to spreading most of them. Then I added a
> > number
> > > of specimens from Mass and a few from VT. As they were essentially, as
> I
> > > said, "trash bugs", I could have just as easily just "given" them away
> or
> > > just let them sit there endlessly in stamp envelopes.
> > >
> > > Then the question occurred to me not that long ago: The
> "Common"
> > > Ringlet has quite recently expanded its range into southern New
> > England. (It
> > > is not even mentioned by Klots as occurring at all in New England,
> although
> > > I suspect that is oversight- it probably has occurred n the Canadian
> > Zone in
> > > New England all along) From where did it expand into say, eastern MA?
> From
> > > the north or from the west? I have begun to arrange my series of this
> > > butterfly to at least get a preliminary clue about this, if possible.
> I
> > > suspect (without having examined enough specimens to date) that it MAY
> have
> > > come from the west, from central New York.
> > >
> > > What seems interesting is that, while the species has recently
> > > spread into southern New England, it has apparently not done so in the
>
> > Upper
> > > Midwest; for example, while occurring abundantly in the Canadian Zone
> of
> > > northern Michigan and Ontario, I have never found it or heard of it
> from
> > > southwestern Ontario, southern Michigan etc.
> > >
> > > By the way, an excellent compilation of photographs of the
> various
> > > taxa of C. t. inornata, heinemanii, macissaci etc.(I trust I've
> spelled
> > > the names correctly - I don't have the books here with me) from the
> > > northeast (Quebec, northern New York, Maritime Provinces etc.) can be
> > fouind
> > > in Louis Handfield's book, "Le Guide des Papillons du Quebec" (Mark, I
> > > recommend this book!).
> > >
> > > Also, my two specimens of Papilio polydamas, from St. Thomas,
> USVI,
> > > would probably qualify as a "trophies" to many people. I will probably
>
> > never
> > > utilize them in any "research" (but who knows). But my purpose (or
> > > motivation or interest) is to build as complete a reference (or
> > > "scientific") collection as possible. And anyway, I chased the first
> > one for
> > > about 4 hours before I caught it, (once tripping badly, while running,
> on a
> > > big rock that was hidden in the deep grass) so perhaps I have earned
> the
> > > "trophy".
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> > >
> > > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu Thu Apr 11 08:16:52 2002
From: gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu (Michael Gochfeld)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:16:52 -0400
Subject: What list?
References: <5.0.2.1.2.20020411092054.00ba4f68@mail.it.su.se> <000c01c1e12f$70d67560$a01c3b44@gscrk1.sc.home.com>
Message-ID: <3CB57EB4.D97CD023@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
Ron,
I am not clear what is meant by Glassberg's species list. Are you referring
to the "Checklist & English Names of North American Butterflies" published by
NABA (2nd edition 2001). Note (as previously discussed) they refer to
"English names" rather than "common names", which allows there to be common
names in many other languages. Perhaps they should have said "American
English names" which might be considered a regional subspecies or "race" of
English names.
Anyway I refer to this as the NABA list rather than the Glassberg list, since
the names were voted on by a committee. Giving English names to subspecies
doesn't play havoc with anybody's list, but merely creates the need for
another list and perhaps its own havoc.
Ultimately, the names that prevail are those that are most useful in
communication, probably because they are used by the largest number of people
who bother to communicate. For those of us that keep our opinions to
ourselves, it doesn't matter what names we use.
Anyway, your enthusiasm for messing with other people's lists (or certain
other people's lists) shines through brightly.
and keep telling us about those fascinating coastal isolates that I'd like to
see some day. I have frequented NY and NJ barrier islands for years (mainly
banding birds), and the best we can produce is fantastic numbers of Salt Marsh
Skippers (Panoquina panoquin) and wonderful flights of Salt Marsh Dragon Fly
(Erythrodiplax berenice). [Pretty scary when I find it easier to look up a
scientific name on google, rather than getting off my duff and walking 10 feet
to a bookshelf----virtual research].
Regards-----Mike Gochfeld
Ron Gatrelle wrote:
If this flies, it will really mess Glassberg's species lists (and common names
all to heqq).
>
> Ron
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu Thu Apr 11 08:25:41 2002
From: gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu (Michael Gochfeld)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:25:41 -0400
Subject: scientists as poachers AND victims
References:
Message-ID: <3CB580C4.AD8022DB@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
When I was a graduate student, I had to visit the Peabody Museum at Yale to
check out some specimens.
The eminent Charles Sibley graciously spoke to me and asked about my work and
then went on to tell me at length about his-----at that point he was
classifying the world's birds by their egg white proteins (later on to serum
proteins and later still he used DNA hybridization).
He had collectors all over the world sending him egg specimens. I said I was
interested in the breeding biology of some of the species of uncertain family
affinities that he was studying and asked him if I could contact his collectors
for additional information.
He demurred, telling me that they wouldn't want to talk to me because much of
their collecting was illegal. [Illegal even in the pre-CITES days].
I was astounded that a senior ornithologist, one of the most respected (or
feared) would be so careless as to say this to a graduate student he had met
for the first time. .
Some years later he was caught, fined, and pilloried both in the press and at
the International Ornithological Congress----not so much for having violated
the laws of several countries, but for his arrogance.
Mike Gochfeld
PS: On the other hand, I think that wildlife agents find it easier to try to
arrest and fine scientific researchers who may have specimens for which they
didn't have the correct permits, rather than tackle the wildlife-trafficking
commercial establishment with no permits but lots of lawyers.
Kenelm Philip wrote:
> I am amused by the people who seem to have just realized that
> museums (horrors!) actually take specimens--even birds (not to mention
> mammals, fish, etc.).
>
> However, while there have indeed been curators who collected
> illegally, and thus really were poachers (even scientists can be crim-
> inals--and museum curators who venture into crime are known for being
> 'self-documenting' criminals, since their collection labels provide
> evidence), the vast majority of these people collect with due regard
> for the increasing number of regulations that have zeroed in on collecting.
> When you have to get a gov't permit to shoot birds for a collection, and
> the permit specifies how many birds of each species you may shoot, one
> can hardly accuse you of poaching!
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 11 09:02:25 2002
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:02:25 +0100
Subject: help - I need leaves!!!
In-Reply-To: <0JGs8.6366$Yk7.1277513746@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
References: <3CB31EAD.DEE9C324@comcast.net> <0JGs8.6366$Yk7.1277513746@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
Message-ID: <02041114022503.01176@localhost.localdomain>
On Tuesday 09 April 2002 07:49 pm, Sunsol wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C1DFBC.90CD3DA0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> What else do they eat? Persimmons? Birch? Walnut? Has anything else =
> leafed out? Sally
>
The book for silkmoths is "A Silkmoth Rearer's Handbook".
It has more than 250 pages of detailed species account ,genus by genus.
If someone has bred it you get the feeling it is in the book.
It is published by the Amateur Entomologists' Society in the UK.
http://www.theaes.org/ It is written from a British perspective of course and
what we mean by Walnut is Juglans regia not nigra and our Birches are
Betula pendula and B. pubescens.
It says for Actias l "Foodplants. In Canada Whiite birch (Betula payrifera)
is prefered . In USA various Juglandaceae preferred especially pecan, also
Sweet Gum and persiommon, also has been found on, and bred on ironwood, oaks,
elms, willow, trembling aspen, maples, hickory, butternut, walnut, hazel
,alder, basswood, cherry and beech. In capitivity appears to thrive best on
walnut or birch."
I suspect that moving the larvae onto a different hostplant may not be a good
idea. It depends on the species but some don''t cope with a change well.
Bombyx mori the "true" silkworm for example is reputed to be able to survive
on wilted lettuce but once put on Mulberry it won't go back on Lettuce.
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 11 09:02:43 2002
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:02:43 +0100
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b irders ?
In-Reply-To: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3AA@hqmail.gensym.com>
References: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3AA@hqmail.gensym.com>
Message-ID: <02041114024304.01176@localhost.localdomain>
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 11:40 pm, Mark Walker wrote:
> Neil wrote:
> > I suspect this may provoke a reaction. Yes, I am being provocative.
>
> You can bet this will get a response. You are deserving of a lot of
> adjectives, but provocative isn't the one I would have picked.
Thanks Mark. I knew I'd get a response!. _And_I_knew_it_would_be_you.
It must have been the bit about the Taliban. .
You really should learn to keep cool you know Mark. Sometimes your
posts risk being full of sound and fury signifying nothing. ;-)
Its been so quiet for so long. Someone will accuse me of "taking the peace".
Being utterly serious just for a moment the manner of your response actually
illustrates my point beautifully. You have chosen to impugn my character by
implying I am arrogant. (I would say I am not, and if you had chosen to meet
me in person _when_I_offered a while ago ,I believe you would have a
different opinion.)
Actually a person's personality doesn't undermine their science. Unless of
course they have a serious flaw like they are inherently dishonest or
mentally disturbed.
By choosing an ad hominem attack as a response. You have proved my point.
You need to show that my argument is wrong by _factual_ analysis.
> > grin on my face writing this but I can justify _every_ point. I find
> > Mark's
> > assertion utterly illogical. Perhaps this will actually get some people
> > thinking about what science really is! :-)
>
> "utterly illogical". You constantly write as if you've got the inside on
> logic. Wow - how perfectly wired your brain must be! Spock Jones I shall
> call you.
Thanks for the compliment, after all Spock was the Enterprise's
_science_officer_ .
"Perhaps this will actually get some people thinking...". Yes,
> and we'll all have YOU to thank for that. We'd be "utterly" lost without
> you.
> Science is knowledge through systematic study. Virtually every person on
> the planet could be categorized as a scientist at some point in their
> lives. Anyone who is studying the life cycles of insects in the field
> (which cannot be successfully accomplished unsystematically), and then
> studying their physical characteristics through careful preparation,
> mounting, and admiring is certainly engaging in science - no matter how
> illogical they or their activities may seem to the likes of you!
Why then when I applied systematic study to the list itself did you accuse me
of bad behaviour? Snoopping on everybody and analysing things. It seems you
have never heard of GOOGLE!
>
> > _However_ the evidence from this list shows that there is often a
> > lamentable
> > lack of logical and scientific thinking amongst certain collectors.
>
> The "evidence from this list" - please. The keeper of the list has spoken.
> "a lamentable lack of logical and scientific thinking...". According to
> whom? Is that judgment a scientific one, or a personal one? Honestly, I
> don't know how you manage to climb up into that lofty saddle each day.
>
> > Regular observers will know that certain people on this list claim to be
> > scientific but advance or support the most illogical, irrational and
> > unscientific ideas.
>
> Even if this were true (i.e. it were coming from someone other than you),
RIGHT THEN MARK.! You say my accusations are not true PROVE IT! :-)
> it would in no way justify discounting everything else that might come from
> such people.
>
> > Seriously folks! It is all there in the archives!
> > To be fair it isn't just collectors but I am constantly worried by people
> > who
> > fall for hoaxes. It wouldn't be fair to criticise Americans for not
> > knowing
> > rude British slang but other things that are said that are equally
> > obviously
> > hoaxes and people should know. Yet they still fall for it. BE scientific
> > _check_ the data _first_.
>
> Why don't you stop worrying about everyone else and start focusing on your
> own social graces.
One important social grace is to be able to keep one's temper.
>
> Don't worry - no apology necessary.
>
> Mark Walker
> One scientist prone to bursts of illogical behavior.
No. One butterfly collector who would like to say he is scientific but who
has fallen for anti-science. In the same way as you fell for my deliberately
provocative post.
(This following stuff folks is why Mark fell out with me originally. Forgive
me for having a go at him but he had a go at me and my response is an attempt
to logically explain the true difference between us.)
You believe in an obvious, hoax; a phony scam that seeks to deprive the world
of proper scientific thinking. The so called "creation science". It has been
_proven_ beyond the slightest glimmer of doubt to to be utterly false.
Firstly many Christians do not believe it. So I am not attacking religion.
Just crooked scammers just as bad as the Nigerians we had recently.
The bible _cannot_ be litterally true as you assert. It is full of things
that are plainly incorrect. This doesn't invalidate its morality but it
_cannot_ be litterally true.
Insects do not have four legs nor, what is worse, do birds as Leviticus
states!
I also doubt that _even_ you_ believe that someone should be put to death
for working on the Sabbath or that we should all regard flying insects as
detestable yet those things are in there too. As is the sanction for a man to
sell his daughter into slavery.
They are simply a reflection of the social structure of those
who wrote the scriptures. This doesn't mean it is all rubbish, but
most_sensible_ people see it as guidance or allegory.
Mark. to be utterly frank. You may like to call yourself scientific but until
you drop your belief in this phony, crooked, tribal anti-science no proper
scientist will regard your beliefs as founded in science.
Having said all this I still think you're a nice guy, even if you do get all
worked up an excited and keep shouting at me.
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From kahanpaa at gstar.astro.helsinki.fi Thu Apr 11 08:42:09 2002
From: kahanpaa at gstar.astro.helsinki.fi (Jere Kahanpaa)
Date: 11 Apr 2002 12:42:09 GMT
Subject: please help us...HERE I COME!
References: <3CB4CCDE.7D09@saber.net>
Message-ID:
Hi.
Paul Cherubini wrote:
> You say you are strongly opposed to collecting and trucking
> butterflies around for release if it is only for show. Do you also
> oppose those who breed and release monarch butterflies for show?
Here in Finland this is - at least to this date - a non-issue as releasing
butterflies for show is almost unheard of (I dimly recall a single release
of less than <100 Inachis io and other Nymphalids a few years ago) and
thus I'm not overly familiar with the topic.
The situation depends strongly on the migratory habits of Monarchs.
Is there a slightest possibility that a release of 'misplaced' Monarchs
change the migration patterns of wild specimens?
I would not oppose breeding and releasing *per se* as long as it is
reasonable clear that the released specimens do not harm the local wild
population or the source population in any way.
> Or would it be OK if the breeders also tagged the butterflies
> for scientific research? Here is a picture of the new International
> Butterfly Breeders Association (IBBA) tag that will be placed on
> monarch butterflies released at weddings and funerals.
> http://www.saber.net/~monarch/tags3.JPG
> "All these people who breed butterflies, their mission statements
> are so full of biological crap. It's a smokescreen for profit,"
> Pyle says.
Well, I'm tempted to believe in this statement, but it is probably an
over-generalization: some of the releasers might be 'good gyus', even
though I cannot see much scientific return of such a release program.
Using pseudoscience as a cover motivation for profiting is in itself
something that should be punishable by instant vaporization ;-)
Jere
--
It's hard to think outside the box when you ARE the box.
- unknown, alt.religion.kibology
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From nigelventers at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 11 10:06:44 2002
From: nigelventers at ntlworld.com (Nigel Venters)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:06:44 +0100
Subject: help - I need leaves!!!
References: <3CB31EAD.DEE9C324@comcast.net> <0JGs8.6366$Yk7.1277513746@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> <02041114022503.01176@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <006301c1e162$20f27610$46700050@mrventer>
Neil wrote:
>I suspect that moving the larvae onto a different hostplant may not be a
good
>idea. It depends on the species but some don''t cope with a change well.
>Bombyx mori the "true" silkworm for example is reputed to be able to
survive
>on wilted lettuce but once put on Mulberry it won't go back on Lettuce.
As someone who spends all his time breeding different species of butterflies
and moths from all around the World...I have found that it is the exception
to the rule that species don't transfer well from one foodplant to
another...and in the majority of cases they will do so (And back again)
without problem. Of course a few species don't cope well...I found when
breeding Charaxes aubyni australis from Africa...(for example) that the
although the larvae accepted the foodplant change the imagos were around
half the usual size....however they paired and the offspring when fed on the
correct foodplant produced normal adults that were viable and continued to
produce normal further generations. I also bred Bombyx mori as a child on
Lettuce....I had no Mulberry leaves...but the larvae thrived and produced
normal sized adults....Neil...have you tried this experiment....and found
that the larvae will definitely not accept Lettuce after eating Mulberry
leaves? Or is it just hearsay and speculation on your behalf? How about some
examples of species from your own breeding when the foodplant change was not
accepted?
Nigel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Jones"
To: "Sunsol" ;
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: help - I need leaves!!!
> On Tuesday 09 April 2002 07:49 pm, Sunsol wrote:
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C1DFBC.90CD3DA0
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > What else do they eat? Persimmons? Birch? Walnut? Has anything else =
> > leafed out? Sally
> >
> The book for silkmoths is "A Silkmoth Rearer's Handbook".
> It has more than 250 pages of detailed species account ,genus by genus.
> If someone has bred it you get the feeling it is in the book.
> It is published by the Amateur Entomologists' Society in the UK.
> http://www.theaes.org/ It is written from a British perspective of course
and
> what we mean by Walnut is Juglans regia not nigra and our Birches are
> Betula pendula and B. pubescens.
>
> It says for Actias l "Foodplants. In Canada Whiite birch (Betula
payrifera)
> is prefered . In USA various Juglandaceae preferred especially pecan, also
> Sweet Gum and persiommon, also has been found on, and bred on ironwood,
oaks,
> elms, willow, trembling aspen, maples, hickory, butternut, walnut, hazel
> ,alder, basswood, cherry and beech. In capitivity appears to thrive best
on
> walnut or birch."
>
> I suspect that moving the larvae onto a different hostplant may not be a
good
> idea. It depends on the species but some don''t cope with a change well.
>
> Bombyx mori the "true" silkworm for example is reputed to be able to
survive
> on wilted lettuce but once put on Mulberry it won't go back on Lettuce.
> --
> Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
> NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
> "At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
> butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
> National Nature Reserve
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From jadams at em.daltonstate.edu Thu Apr 11 10:27:32 2002
From: jadams at em.daltonstate.edu (Dr. James Adams)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:27:32 -0400
Subject: C tullia
In-Reply-To: <3CB4CDED.12F34575@sympatico.ca>
References:
<3CB48B17.4ED661F9@eohsi.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020411102406.009f3a00@em.daltonstate.edu>
>Listers,
My two cents worth. IN 1973, I collected some Coenonympha in
Vermont and northern New York. I was pretty young then, however, and may
have some problems finding the specimens in my collection, if they even
still exist. I would have put them in Riker mounts at that
time. Actually, I think I may know where they are. If anyone is
interested in specifics of their phenotype, let me know.
I really just wanted to let it be known that they were in northern
New England three decades ago.
James
James K. Adams
Phone: (706)272-4427
FAX: (706)272-2235
Visit the Georgia Lepidoptera Website:
www.daltonstate.edu/galeps/
Also check out the Southern Lepidopterists' Society new Website:
www.southernlepsoc.org/
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From rboutin at sympatico.ca Thu Apr 11 10:34:33 2002
From: rboutin at sympatico.ca (RENE BOUTIN)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:34:33 -0400
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b irders
?
References: <6AA1CFDDE237D51190160000F805064D27A3AA@hqmail.gensym.com> <02041114024304.01176@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <3CB59EF8.DFA5B99C@sympatico.ca>
Please Neil,TRY to find a friend and write to him instead
Ren? from Canada.
Neil Jones wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 April 2002 11:40 pm, Mark Walker wrote:
> > Neil wrote:
> > > I suspect this may provoke a reaction. Yes, I am being provocative.
> >
> > You can bet this will get a response. You are deserving of a lot of
> > adjectives, but provocative isn't the one I would have picked.
>
> Thanks Mark. I knew I'd get a response!. _And_I_knew_it_would_be_you.
> It must have been the bit about the Taliban. .
> You really should learn to keep cool you know Mark. Sometimes your
> posts risk being full of sound and fury signifying nothing. ;-)
> Its been so quiet for so long. Someone will accuse me of "taking the peace".
>
>
> Being utterly serious just for a moment the manner of your response actually
> illustrates my point beautifully. You have chosen to impugn my character by
> implying I am arrogant. (I would say I am not, and if you had chosen to meet
> me in person _when_I_offered a while ago ,I believe you would have a
> different opinion.)
>
> Actually a person's personality doesn't undermine their science. Unless of
> course they have a serious flaw like they are inherently dishonest or
> mentally disturbed.
>
> By choosing an ad hominem attack as a response. You have proved my point.
> You need to show that my argument is wrong by _factual_ analysis.
>
> > > grin on my face writing this but I can justify _every_ point. I find
> > > Mark's
> > > assertion utterly illogical. Perhaps this will actually get some people
> > > thinking about what science really is! :-)
> >
> > "utterly illogical". You constantly write as if you've got the inside on
> > logic. Wow - how perfectly wired your brain must be! Spock Jones I shall
> > call you.
>
> Thanks for the compliment, after all Spock was the Enterprise's
> _science_officer_ .
>
> "Perhaps this will actually get some people thinking...". Yes,
> > and we'll all have YOU to thank for that. We'd be "utterly" lost without
> > you.
>
> > Science is knowledge through systematic study. Virtually every person on
> > the planet could be categorized as a scientist at some point in their
> > lives. Anyone who is studying the life cycles of insects in the field
> > (which cannot be successfully accomplished unsystematically), and then
> > studying their physical characteristics through careful preparation,
> > mounting, and admiring is certainly engaging in science - no matter how
> > illogical they or their activities may seem to the likes of you!
>
> Why then when I applied systematic study to the list itself did you accuse me
> of bad behaviour? Snoopping on everybody and analysing things. It seems you
> have never heard of GOOGLE!
>
> >
> > > _However_ the evidence from this list shows that there is often a
> > > lamentable
> > > lack of logical and scientific thinking amongst certain collectors.
> >
> > The "evidence from this list" - please. The keeper of the list has spoken.
> > "a lamentable lack of logical and scientific thinking...". According to
> > whom? Is that judgment a scientific one, or a personal one? Honestly, I
> > don't know how you manage to climb up into that lofty saddle each day.
> >
> > > Regular observers will know that certain people on this list claim to be
> > > scientific but advance or support the most illogical, irrational and
> > > unscientific ideas.
> >
> > Even if this were true (i.e. it were coming from someone other than you),
>
> RIGHT THEN MARK.! You say my accusations are not true PROVE IT! :-)
>
> > it would in no way justify discounting everything else that might come from
> > such people.
> >
> > > Seriously folks! It is all there in the archives!
> > > To be fair it isn't just collectors but I am constantly worried by people
> > > who
> > > fall for hoaxes. It wouldn't be fair to criticise Americans for not
> > > knowing
> > > rude British slang but other things that are said that are equally
> > > obviously
> > > hoaxes and people should know. Yet they still fall for it. BE scientific
> > > _check_ the data _first_.
> >
> > Why don't you stop worrying about everyone else and start focusing on your
> > own social graces.
>
> One important social grace is to be able to keep one's temper.
>
> >
> > Don't worry - no apology necessary.
> >
> > Mark Walker
> > One scientist prone to bursts of illogical behavior.
>
> No. One butterfly collector who would like to say he is scientific but who
> has fallen for anti-science. In the same way as you fell for my deliberately
> provocative post.
>
> (This following stuff folks is why Mark fell out with me originally. Forgive
> me for having a go at him but he had a go at me and my response is an attempt
> to logically explain the true difference between us.)
>
> You believe in an obvious, hoax; a phony scam that seeks to deprive the world
> of proper scientific thinking. The so called "creation science". It has been
> _proven_ beyond the slightest glimmer of doubt to to be utterly false.
>
> Firstly many Christians do not believe it. So I am not attacking religion.
> Just crooked scammers just as bad as the Nigerians we had recently.
>
> The bible _cannot_ be litterally true as you assert. It is full of things
> that are plainly incorrect. This doesn't invalidate its morality but it
> _cannot_ be litterally true.
>
> Insects do not have four legs nor, what is worse, do birds as Leviticus
> states!
>
> I also doubt that _even_ you_ believe that someone should be put to death
> for working on the Sabbath or that we should all regard flying insects as
> detestable yet those things are in there too. As is the sanction for a man to
> sell his daughter into slavery.
>
> They are simply a reflection of the social structure of those
> who wrote the scriptures. This doesn't mean it is all rubbish, but
> most_sensible_ people see it as guidance or allegory.
>
> Mark. to be utterly frank. You may like to call yourself scientific but until
> you drop your belief in this phony, crooked, tribal anti-science no proper
> scientist will regard your beliefs as founded in science.
>
> Having said all this I still think you're a nice guy, even if you do get all
> worked up an excited and keep shouting at me.
>
> Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
> NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
> "At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
> butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
> National Nature Reserve
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rboutin.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: Card for RENE BOUTIN
Url : http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020411/5cc084bf/attachment.vcf
From hybrid9 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 11 10:23:49 2002
From: hybrid9 at yahoo.com (P.s)
Date: 11 Apr 2002 07:23:49 -0700
Subject: Butterfly-performance
Message-ID: <1deff010.0204110623.20967c94@posting.google.com>
Dear all,
A strange request...In june I will be doing a performance, and it
involves the use of ca. 500 butterflies. In short, I will be sitting
still, naked and covered in a sugarsolution, attracting hopefully
newly emerged butterflies brought for the purpose, to come and land on
me since I am covered in sugarsolution. This will happen either inside
or outside, not decided yet, however, it will only last about half an
hour or so.
Now, I dont know how to go about it, in order not to inflict damage
either do the butterflies or the local habitat. I believe local
specimens is imperative, without knowing for sure (Estonia).
How can I do this in the best way?
Any help would be greatly appreciated,
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From rjparcelles at yahoo.com Thu Apr 11 11:31:18 2002
From: rjparcelles at yahoo.com (Bob Parcelles,Jr.)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b irders ?
In-Reply-To: <3CB59EF8.DFA5B99C@sympatico.ca>
Message-ID: <20020411153118.27401.qmail@web12207.mail.yahoo.com>
--- RENE BOUTIN wrote:
> Please Neil,TRY to find a friend and write to him instead
> Ren?
> from Canada.
Madame,
Stay out of it!
Bob... Mark's and Neil's friend
=====
Bob Parcelles, Jr
Pinellas Park, FL
RJP Associates, C2M-BWPTi
rjparcelles at yahoo.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturepotpourri
"Change your thoughts and you change your world."
- Norman Vincent Peale
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From rjparcelles at yahoo.com Thu Apr 11 11:53:25 2002
From: rjparcelles at yahoo.com (Bob Parcelles,Jr.)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Butterfly-performance
In-Reply-To: <1deff010.0204110623.20967c94@posting.google.com>
Message-ID: <20020411155325.92062.qmail@web12208.mail.yahoo.com>
=================================================>
--- "P.s" wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> A strange request...In june I will be doing a performance, and it
> involves the use of ca. 500 butterflies. In short, I will be
> sitting
> still, naked and covered in a sugarsolution, attracting hopefully
> newly emerged butterflies brought for the purpose, to come and land
> on
> me since I am covered in sugarsolution. This will happen either
> inside
> or outside, not decided yet, however, it will only last about half
> an
> hour or so.
> Now, I dont know how to go about it, in order not to inflict damage
> either do the butterflies or the local habitat. I believe local
> specimens is imperative, without knowing for sure (Estonia).
> How can I do this in the best way?
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated,
======================
Hmmmmmmm! Quite a performance! May I ask is this a public or a
semi-private, more *discreet* performance. The reason I ask there are
several variables.
1) How much of you do you wish to cover? I for instance would need
LARGE butterflies.
2) How LARGE are you? Are you male or female? Oh, I see from your e
mail address, you are a "hybrid".
3) Do you have a permit for this?
4) Do you intend to wear this "buttefly shirt" for a while, since
some species are more active than others? Are you going to be moving
around? Why can you only last a half hour or so?
5) Is this exibition, excuse me ...performance, inside or outside? I
ask this because outside can be risky. Does Estonia have large,
painful ants?
6) I know of breeders who can doe this but it takes time and money.
Do you have much time? do you have any money? You know butterfies are
not for free. I ask this because I have a fear that you may not be
gainfully employed. I fear, quite frankly, that you may not have much
time before the men in white suits with the nets might "collect" you
and return you to your mental hospital.
I have I last question...Are you Rene Boutin? :)
rjp
=====
Bob Parcelles, Jr
Pinellas Park, FL
RJP Associates, C2M-BWPTi
rjparcelles at yahoo.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturepotpourri
"Change your thoughts and you change your world."
- Norman Vincent Peale
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
From agrkovich at tmpeng.com Thu Apr 11 11:52:11 2002
From: agrkovich at tmpeng.com (Grkovich, Alex)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:52:11 -0400
Subject: Butterfly-performance
Message-ID: