Glassberg's books

[Stanley A. Gorodenski]

I received my copy of the Journal yesterday and read the review of
Glassberg's BTB book. I am firmly in the pro-collecting camp (with the
exception of collecting for profit), but looking at the review
objectively I am not certain to what extent the reviewer is espousing
his own ideas pertaining to what he thinks such a book 'should' contain
(because of the danger he sees such a book poses when read in isolation
by a novice) as opposed to being a criticism of the BTB book per se. The
only way I could answer this for myself is to look at the book, but I do
not have a copy. Certainly, it seems to me, that given the book is
intended to be a 'field' guide for photography and binocular viewing,
one would not expect an author to specifically address the advantages
and disadvantage of collecting vs. looking. On the other hand, the
author should not go out of his way to mislead by indicating that
viewing and photographing are the only tools biologists and researchers
need. The reviewer makes statements indicating that this is what
Glassberg has done in his book, but because of the way his review is
worded there is enough doubt in my mind as to whether this is actually
what Glassberg has done. I would would have to look at the book myself. 

Even more interesting is the General Note on the collateral affects of
BT on butterfly diversity, species richness, and density. Of special
note was the possible affect of BT on D. plexippus. Two adults were seen
the year of the spray, but none in the following years of the study. The
author states it is possible the two just happened to be migrating
through the area, but it is also possible that BT wiped them out of the
treatment area. 

Stan






Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> 
> 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
>

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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