[leps-talk] Re: Erynnis maritalis in Florida - old news

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Nick Grishin
Subject: [leps-talk] Re: Erynnis maritalis in Florida - old news



> I was surprised when opening my Lep. Soc. News today to find an article by
> John Calhoun stating that he had finally "confirmed" Erynnis martialis in

People think it is useful to report findings and to show proof. That's
what John did. The bugs were always there, but most folks didn't know
about them. Now every Lep.Soc. member knows. And that's a good thing.
People write papers: some collaborate, some compete, some don't care.
Every paper offends someone. Although bad, it's inevitable, n
****************
I find the convolution of this situation quite amazng.  John does a sloppy
job and I get the blame, and get accused of being offended or as he said,
being insulted.   None of which is true.

John said:
As I discussed in my note, there are several literature reports of this
species, including those in Kimball (1965).  However, the potential to
confuse specimens with other species of Erynnis is very great. The old
specimens reported by Kimball could not be located. Over the years, I have
learned that E. martialis is one of the most misidentified species of
Erynnis in the east. Well-marked E. juvenalis and E. horatius are often
incorrectly determined as E. martialis.
****************
RG: This is quite misleading - "one of the most".  ALL Erynnis are often
misidentified.  In the east, the most common are horatius and juvenalis.  E.
martialis is no more or no less than others.  So are we to throw out all
records and start from scratch?

John:
"Published records simply can't trusted. My "rejection" of literature
reports is justified without valid specimens to support them. Kimball is
known to have misidentified other specimens and his word is simply not
enough in this instance. In fact, Kimball did not see all the specimens he
reported, but rather merely listed the records he received from others. Once
again, Ron should know better than to assume validity without confirmation.
***********
RG: So you are saying that Opler should have known better than to color in
Escambia County, FL for E. martialis as he did without personally seeing
specimens?  Or that he shouldn't have taken my word for its presence?  Which
is it.  I don't need to assume validity - I have the specimens.  In checking
my old stacks of communication I find a 1982 stack of Xerox maps with dots
by Opler.  These are what he sent to everyone to get their data on
specimens.  I see that on this early map there are no dots for E. martialis
in FL.   I sent Paul all my records.  I can't prove it,  as I didn't see any
specific notes in going through my log files for those years, but it is
highly likely that Paul's "confirmed" dot for Escambia Co. are my 1968 -
1970 records from there.  I sent him gobs of Skipper records.

John:
"Despite Ron's unwarranted personal jabs, "
RG:  Amazing.  Since when is something like a teacher giving a student an
incorrect on a question a personal jab.  I have pointed out a sloppy to
negligent error - non-news, and this is a personal jab.


John:
"I was not the only one who knew nothing of his purported specimens. Dave
Baggett had no record of them in his extensive Florida data maps. There are
no references to these specimens in the Lepid Soc. Season Summary nor any
other published source that I could find.  John Burns, who has studied this
genus for decades, had no knowledge of valid records from Florida. To my
knowledge, no other Florida Lepidopterist is aware of these specimens."
************
RG:  My understanding is that Burns looked into this prior to my moving to
Fl.  If Baggett didn't ask or misplaced my record or lost it how is that my
fault.  As far as the Season Summary goes you really shoot yourself in the
foot there.  I don't have the 1968 (in 1969 issue) report I SENT IN.   I do
have the 1969 (in 1970), and 1970 (in 1971) report.  I'd appreciate it if
some here who might have the 68 report would check it to see what I
reported.  Before I get to the 69 and 70 reports let me give some
background.   Back in the late 60's I was the main lepster in Fl.  Later
Steve Roman and Rick Gillmore moved there and became the deans of Fl
collectors.   By the time I had moved to SC a young guy by the name of Dave
Baggett ( a leps rookie) was introduced to me by Rick and Steve as we all
met at Coopers Creek in GA for some collecting.  Dave was mentored by Steve
and Rick and slightly by me.   He soon became an expert in his own right
upon their foundation.  A couple other young guys back then were Marc Minno
and John Calhoun.  By the time the later generation came along people like
Rick, Steve and I had been there done that.

In the 1969 Season Summary the main reporter for FL was me - 10 of the 16
text lines in that report were by me.  ( I suspect the 68 report was similar
in % of volume.)   In 1969, I mentioned select species that were up down or
same as in 68.   E. martialis was not mentioned.  It may or may not have
been mentioned in by 68 report which I don't have.   My 1970 report in the
Season Summary is quite interesting - it isn't there.  I am listed as
reporter for Zone 6 but the states of FL, NC, SC, and VA were omitted
(probably for space reasons).   My suspicion is that those reports would
have been mentioned in the next issue that year.   I only kept the Season
Summary issues from back then, so if someone has a full set please check to
find my MISSING 1970 REPORT.   I guess it's my fault it didn't get in.

Now here is John Calhoun investigating Floridian E. martialis and as he is
searching the Season Summaries he notes that Ron Gatrelle is not only the
primary reporter back then but in the very area where the most records of
this taxon are.   He surely noted that the 1970 Summary had ommitted the Fl
report - one with may name on it. Yet, he doesn't even bother to shoot me an
email to see if I might have reported this in my 1970 LOST report.  This is
my fault of course.

John:
"It is always hoped that publishing such records will result in the
discovery of additional valid specimens. I just wish Ron had chosen to
report his with more decorum and maturity."

RG:  Who says I didn't publish them.  John is the one offended and being
nasty ( you should see the personal post he sent) - but what he is really
doing is just making excuses for blowing it.  John tries to give the reader
the impression that I don't publish records - what a joke that is.  I have
published tons of records from FL and SC and scores were state records.
John knows this.  This is not the first time he could have had good data had
he just asked.   I may not have mentioned E. martialis in either my 1968 or
1970 report, but I would be surprised if I didn't.  Still, the logical thing
for someone to do was to simply ask.  This old Fl collector is still alive
and has email.  How much work does that take?

One last thing is response to Nick.  Sorry Nick, your statement of "The bugs
were always there, but most folks didn't know about them. Now every Lep.Soc.
member knows." is utterly false.  All anyone had to do was check the USGS
web site.  There is Opler's "confirmed" Fl record of Escambia Co. - and from
my files here, likely supplied by me.  John just chose to not accept Opler's
record as he did the other records.

Regards
Ron Gatrelle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20041014/5686f2c6/attachment.html