Still no news

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dr. James Adams
Subject: Re: [leps-talk] the real J. V. Calhoun



JUST STOP!!!  Ron, I don't *care* what John wrote to you
*personally*.  That's why he wrote it *personally*.  The *thing* that I see
that instigated this whole thing is your original *impudent*, yes I said
*impudent*, message about John's article that claimed he ignored your
records.
*************

You are mistaken.  I now wonder if you even read my two posts   I made no
point whatsoever that the issue was that John "ignored" my record.   My
record may have never even been published - I don't have the season
summaries back past 1969 and the ENTIRE (as in everyone's) 1970 report for
Florida was omitted from the Summary, though it likely was published in the
next issue or so, which I also don't have.   My point was and remains that
he single handedly created a false situation (his 1997 asterisk) and then
resolved the situation.  My point is that his "FIRST confirmed record..."
(per his title) for E. martialis is only first to him.  I suggest all
closely read his note in the Lep. Soc. News.  He cites abundant references
to this taxon in Fl and even TWO extant specimens.   He simply declares
these void, including the Heppner 2003 listing, the USGS listing, and
Baggett 1985.

What the specimens I collected in the Fl panhandle in 1968 and 1969 do (and
WHY I mentioned them) is that they demonstrate that all those other records
are VALID. (My mentioning that it is odd he neglected to contact me (the
main FL collector back then in that region) was only a secondary point.)
This skipper was not uncommon in the panhandle in the late 60's early 70's.
I had taken this other places and may well have not even reported it to the
Summary as I didn't think it "unusual".   I don't have a copy of what I sent
to the Summary back then.   I would still appreciate someone who might have
the 68 FL Summary (published in 1969) letting me know what that report
states - regardless if martialis is mentioned or not.

I hate to think of how many notes can be written if modern lepsters suddenly
started rejecting hundreds of _old_ state and county records across the US
just because no specimens are currently known.  I emphasized "old" because
1968 is not old to ME.  For those born then (like my kids) 68 is ancient
history.   Old to me is pre 1940's.  But, for those who were in their prime
in 1940, that was now for them.  Their records and writing were current and
cutting edge.  I don't think every generation has to reinvent the wheel
(records) to validate (=confirm) X taxon as a historical fact.

IF the note said "rediscovery of.." or "new records of..." that would have
been another matter entirely.

Ron Gatrelle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20041018/e35554e3/attachment.html