Lep News Schappert Editorial

Stanley A. Gorodenski stan_gorodenski at asualumni.org
Wed Jul 13 14:03:29 EDT 2005


Carolyn King gave me permission to respond to her private email message 
in Leps-L . The site of the Schappert editorial is at:
http://users.commspeed.net/stanlep/Editorial.jpg
This address is case sensitive in the event you have to type it in your 
browser instead of just clicking on it.

As James Adams said, "... it isn't the horrid "attack on everybody" that 
some claim". Had it not been for Ron's message I would have read it, 
noted my disagreements, but never posted anything. This is probably what 
I should have done.
Stan

Carolyn King wrote:

> Stan,
>
> I don't think that it's inappropriate to discuss the LepSocNews 
> editorial on leps-l, but many of us don't receive it, and it doesn't 
> seem to be available on-line. So, to be fair, could you please post a 
> copy, so the rest of us will know what you and Ron are referring to?
>
> Carolyn King
> Toronto
>
>
> Stanley A. Gorodenski wrote:
>
>> Below (after my comments) is a copy of a message Ron posted in 
>> SoWestLeps. However, SoWestLeps is area specific and the issues Ron 
>> raises concerns all Lep Soc members. Although Leps-L is not a part of 
>> the Lepidopterist's Society, I believe some view it as being 
>> connected, and so it is appropriate to discuss these issues here. 
>> Unfortunately, full and open discussion cannot be done in SoWestLeps.
>> I am using Ron's post as a vehicle to give my own take on the 
>> editorial "The Birth of Butterflying" by Phil Schappert, page 58 of 
>> the recent Leps News. I have two main concerns in the editorial: 1. 
>> the condemnation of Recreational collecting, and 2. tension between 
>> NABA and Lep Soc members.
>>
>> First, the Recreational collecting issue. Dr. Schappert did not 
>> define this but instead leaves it to our own slant of what this 
>> means. My own opinion on this is that when someone's livelihood does 
>> not depend on lepidoptering it is _all_ recreational, no matter what 
>> it is. Some may like to think their specific activity (taxonomic, 
>> life history, biogeographic, etc.) is an exception because it is 
>> "Science", but in the final analysis, it is nothing more than a 
>> 'Recreation' to that individual. Granted, it can result in some 
>> important (as viewed by individuals in the field. Outside of the 
>> field a nuclear physicist, for example, might well think of it as 
>> trivia adding to the mountain of unimportant information science has 
>> accumulated) scientific papers and an elevated self esteem as being 
>> an expert on some narrow subject, but a person's livelihood does not 
>> depend on it and so it is all recreational. As a result, I think it 
>> becomes somewhat arbitrary to label one activity as "Recrea!
>> tional" and condemn it.
>>
>> Is Dr. Schappert condemning a child in puberty or an early teenager 
>> as being engaged in "Recreational" collecting that they should be 
>> "... ashamed of..."? I doubt it. Children, I would guess, engage in 
>> collecting activities because of the wonder in the natural world they 
>> discover from collecting.  Do these activities become something to be 
>> "... ashamed of ..." when we attain adulthood? If so, I reject the 
>> notion that having a wonder about the natural world is only a 
>> childhood exercise. Rather, it can, and should, extend to any age in 
>> life. A recent example of the latter is the excitement I could read 
>> into a post in Moth-Rah by John Masters regarding a large Hepialid (I 
>> think this was the family) he had collect in Nicaragua(?). If so 
>> called "Recreational" collecting adds to one's wonder of nature or 
>> stimulates interest in nature, then I see nothing to be "... ashamed 
>> of ...". Collecting to sell butterflies and moths is another matter 
>> and is something I am totally against.
>>
>> Now to the tension. Nearly everything I know about NABA and Glassberg 
>> has been through these discussion groups. Some of it may or may not 
>> be correct, and some of it may or may not be taken out of context. As 
>> a result, I do not want to attend the Lep Soc meeting with 
>> inappropriate animosity directed to NABA members. I had ignored the 
>> NABA aspect of the meeting because I am going because of my interest 
>> in lepidoptera and to _enjoy_ myself. NABA members, who are also 
>> human beings, are also interested in lepidoptera and so their 
>> affiliation with NABA is unimportant to me. However, Dr. Schappert, 
>> with the best of intentions, has made us very aware that there will 
>> be two distinct types of members attending: the dreaded (as may be 
>> viewed by some NABA members) Lep Soc members and the dreaded (as may 
>> be viewed by some Lep Soc members) NABA members. There is already 
>> some contention between the two groups (as I have been able to gather 
>> from the discussion groups), but rather than havin!
>> g the effect intended, the editorial may instead have the opposite 
>> effect because of the tension that already exists. Dr. Schappert 
>> finishes by saying "How many of you will I see there"? I can already 
>> tell you from what I know that there is already around 200 
>> registered. If I understand and read this this number correctly, this 
>> would make it one of the better meetings ever held.
>> Stan
>>
>>
>> Ron Gatrelle's Comments:
>> Well, I got the News today. The Lep. Soc. News that is.  The outgoing
>> editor, Schappert, is a certifiable moron.  He knows nothing and offends
>> everyone (page 58).  If I was a watcher I'd be especially upset by his
>> framing of me as a shallow twit.  How can the LEPIDOPTERISTS Soc now 
>> want
>> to campaign to get "watchers" to join when he has so clearly stated that
>> they are _not_ lepidopterists.  And why should the every day home boy
>> collector want to stay in Lep. Soc. when he flat out tells them they 
>> are no
>> longer valid and should be "ashamed of themselves".  If that does not
>> certify him as a know nothing and a moron for stating such things 
>> publicly
>> _IN OUR_ publication on his way out the company door, what does???
>>
>> As a former Lep. Soc. Executive Council member, I offer here my 
>> apologies
>> to all the many very dedicated and serious watchers I know, 
>> especially here
>> in the Carolinas, I know your depth and you have great worth to me.  You
>> often inspire me with your energy, dedication to detail, and deep 
>> love of
>> butterflies and moths.  I see you as lepidopterists through and 
>> through.  A
>> lepidopterists is _as the Lep. Soc. Constitution states_ ANYONE with ANY
>> interest in butterflies and moths.   To the recreational collectors 
>> (like
>> the new News editor Dale Clark), my sincere apologies from a member 
>> since
>> the late 1960s, as I know your collection has enormous purpose and 
>> value in
>> spite of the fact that Schappert stated that it had "no useful purpose".
>>
>> Schappert's only real complaint of Glassberg is where Glassberg 
>> stepped on
>> HIS OWN "professional" (= he is a god and we are all dirt) toes.  
>> Goodbye
>> Phil, good 'ridins.  With friends like you the Lep. Soc. (and 
>> watchers, and
>> collectors, and breeders, and the rest of the realm) needs no enemies.
>>
>> Ron Gatrelle
>>
>> PS.  One more thing.  Phil was correct that he has a reallllllly big 
>> ego.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>   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 
 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list