Glassberg's books

[Ron Gatrelle]

The latest issue of the Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society arrived at
my mail box today.  Some very interesting articles.  Things continue to
move forward at Lep. Soc. and what they are doing with the Journal.  At the
end of each issue there is usually a Book Review section.  In this issue
both  the East and West Glassberg guides are meticulously reviewed -
assessed

Each review is by an esteemed lepidopterist.  Both reviewers are PhDs in
the field of entomology and life long professionals with noted
institutions - they know what they are talking about.   I here distill
their reviews.

Both of these reviewers and reviews are significant to me because two
different people end up with such parallel assessments.   The assessments
are "the same" about a man, his organization, his books, and ultimately his
philosophy.   Both really try to be nice to Glassberg, NABA and his books.
This is not unusual, as over the years I sometimes wonder why Lep. Soc.
even has these reviews because even the worst of books tends to end with
the same bottom line ....  Something like, "This is a must for your book
shelf".   But here the nice part is significant to me as in both cases it
appears "forced".

Both reviewers are objective and thus fair.   Both find value in the books
_but_ only if one is a novice.  Otherwise, in my own words, I would say
they think his two books are crap - they are detrimental to lepidoptery.
This is not what the watchers reading this post want to hear, I know.  Many
watchers I know only have Glassberg's books and think they are the cutting
edge of butterflying literature.  Every Glassbergite should read these
rational and objective reviews.

So what's the problem.  In the reviewers' words - Glassberg is an
anti-science agendist taking advantage of the underinformed.  "It is
interesting to observe that BTB's crusade against science and science-based
conservation..."   "...but his overall message is to alert naive readers to
what he characterizes as..."   Yes, I know these are lifted out of context.
The point is the word "naive" and the phrase "against science".   Don't
miss the trees for the forest.   These reviewers are saying that the only
reason people are buying into Glassberg's agenda (false propaganda) is
because they are "naive" - uninformed and being taken advantage of - used.
How else am I to read what they are saying?

Glassberg is quoted in the reviews but his statement are said to be
"inacurate and incomplete".  Another term for that kind of pharse is -
misleading.  OK, let me just quote straight up the last two paragraphs of
Dr. Goldstein's (Field Museum Chicago) review of the East book.

    "To many it is unfortunate that Dr. Glassberg chooses to treat complex
and controversial scientific issues that bear on the discovery and
understanding of nature by resorting to misinformation and spurious appeals
from the safety of his editorial fiefdom. But by allowing the propaganda to
spill into BTB, he corrupts a potentially useful book with an agenda-driven
crusade against science and scientific conservation.    As such, much of
BTB's utility is lost through the use of renegade nomenclature and
idiosyncratic presentation of important issues.
    "In summary, BTB is valuable as an introduction to observing and
photographing butterflies, but its failure to deal responsibly with serious
conservation-related and scientific issues can, in my opinion, only result
in further muddying of waters in dire need of clearer solutions."

Now to Dr. Dunford's (Univ. of Florida) review of the west book.  His
review is much more kind - but still ends with this.

    "As the majority of Glassberg's audience will be novices, he should not
misinform with ideas that we can understand all butterfly biology and
identification without research requiring sampling (yes, at times with a
net) a small fraction of an overall species pool (very few collectors have
used their nets to decimate the remaining populations of declining
butterflies).  In this regard, the book does not address the importance of
conservation with a complete insight into the study of Lepidoptera.  We
absolutely cannot, and throughout history we could not have, come to the
level of understanding (especially the accurate identification) of
butterflies by observing them through binoculars or photographs, and much
remains to be discovered, even in North America.  This book is fro novice
(perhaps naive?) lepidopterists beginning a hobby, but would be of marginal
use to the experienced lepidopterist."

There is a lot more I could quote from these reviews (standardized names
lists, birders), but this is enough for some to choke on already.   My
purpose and that of the reviewers -  and hundreds of others across this
land, including many who are NABA members - is not to "offend" but to give
a wake up call to what has become a closed watcher-society - a cult.

(Don't y'all at carolina leps see the subliminal revelation of your
prejudice in the post the other day about the official one of you saw from
Mecklenburg Co. with a "net" to voucher ONE specimen.)  I know that young
lady - she is as enviro and bug friendly as they get.  Must she now move to
the back of the bus now that she is one of "them" - she had a   n-e-t.   We
have to spell it, it is so wicked.)

Well, I'll quit or I will end up getting offensive.

Ron Gatrelle






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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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