Some early butterflies of northern Italy

[Michael Gochfeld]

I had a two day meeting at Ispra in northern Italy, about 50 km north of Milan
on the shores of Lake Maggiore at about 250 m asl.   I was told that the spring
flowers were about three weeks behind.  On March 9th the temperature reached
24C by mid afternoon.   In the morning the earliest butterflies on the wing in
were Brimstones (Gonepteryx rhamni).  These pale green-yellow butterflies were
seen from about 9am onward, always singly and mostly flying.
A small white butterfly (not definitely THE Small White, Pieris rapae) was seen
twice.

The following three species were found on a dirt road:

3 individuals of the Large Tortoiseshell  (Nymphalis polychloros_)
1 individual of the Small Tortoiseshell
and 3 individuals of the Eurasian Comma  (Polygonia c-album). When flushed
these butterflies either landed on the trunk of large trees (Quercus) or
nectared at the flower clusters of a tree with about 3o mm long yellowish
catkins. I believe this species which was really the only nectar source out was
the Goat Willow (Salix caprea).  This tree had abundant flowers and the tree
was fairly common.

M. Gochfeld

Ron Gatrelle wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Gochfeld" <gochfeld at EOHSI.RUTGERS.EDU>
> Subject: Perfection is the enemy of the good
>
> > "Perfection is the enemy of the good"  Somebody else said that.  If we
> had
> > waited for perfection our BUTTERFLIES OF NJ would still be in the word
> processor (where I suppose some critics think it belongs).
>
> Your NJ book is one of my favorites (even though I am a picture buff).  It
> offers a fresh approach with much indepth info.  (Thanks for citing me in
> the Lit. Cite section.  My early work on Enodia is still known by some.)
>
> > What makes my blood boil (2nd to not being cited) is being cited as
> > supporting the opposite of  the point I made in the paper.  It's obvious
> that the cit-er didn't read the paper.
>
> This reminds me of another point.  Sometimes a reviewer does not fully
> agree with the authors position BUT still encourages the author to publish,
> and thus sets their seal to the _publication_ not necessarly the
> _conclusions_.   I have had this occur with myself.  I submitted one of my
> TTR papers to a reviewer who responded to varous areas of the paper as well
> as the conclusion. In areas where I had incorrect elements or stats this
> review enabled me to correct them.  The reviewer stated they were
> unconvinced of my bottom line - but urged me to publish if I was comvinced
> myself.  I  thought that was a very helpful, fair, and unbiased review.
>
> A big problem is where some folks now have such a big reputation that
> anything they publish, or just express, is taken as infallible by those who
> read/hear them.  And in saying "hear them" I am including _review them_ .
> Do we honestly think that _anyone_ is going to reject a Bob Robins
> hairstreak paper in review?!  Has that ever happened to him?  This is NOT
> the fault of the "prominent".  It is the fault of those who fail to do
> their job in review by treating everyone the same.  Leaders need others
> around them to keep them thinking straight. Yes men, rubber stamp
> committees, and intimidated reviewers are not a help -  they do just the
> opposite.
>
> Ron Gatrelle


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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