[tn-moths] Re: TN moth documentation map
- From: kjchilds <kjchilds@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: tn-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:14:01 -0800 (PST)
After a month of no new updates, the BAMONA blog is active again. Hopefully it
won't take them too long to catch up with what's already been submitted.
I'll start submitting again once the new system is in place. I've got about 50
records that haven't been submitted yet.
Ken Childs
Henderson, TN
Chester County
http://www.finishflagfarms.com
________________________________
From: Doug Bruce <s137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: tn-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 11:54:21 AM
Subject: [tn-moths] Re: TN moth documentation map
Jean, you're right. It really takes
two maps to show the whole moth picture: an "absolute" map (like
yesterday), and a "progress" map, scaled in such a way that individual
contributions can be seen. Here's the current moth information
displayed with much smaller increments and a greatly restricted
scale:
http://www.mapsgeek.com/map/kwmndqmg8bbt09u5
If there's interest, I could update these maps and
post a link whenever there is a major change in the BAMONA
data. I expect that this might be every month or two after BAMONA catches
up from last summer. Is that too often? I don't want to turn this
listserv into "tn-maps."
- Doug
----- Original Message -----
>From: Jean Obrist
>To: tn-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:29
> AM
>Subject: [tn-moths] Re: TN moth
> documentation map
>
>
>Thank you, Doug. Maybe we need to use smaller
> increments to start. We could see progress better that way.
>Jean Obrist
>Cocke Co, TN
>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Doug Bruce
>>To: TN Moths
>>Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:32
>> AM
>>Subject: [tn-moths] TN moth
>> documentation map
>>
>>
>>Per the suggestion of Steve Stedman and Larry
>> McDaniel, here is a map showing the status of BAMONA moth documentation
>> in
>> each of the counties of Tennessee. This first version isn't very
>> useful, though, because of my choice for category ranges.
>>http://www.mapsgeek.com/map/jq7mqysc3ez8fgxy
>>
>>Choosing the category ranges was a
>> dilemma. This first version of the moth map is scaled to be roughly
>> equivalent to the (revised) butterfly map. That is, it displays the
>> same number of categories and the same colors, with the scale
>> proportioned
>> so that the maximum* category represents the same idea as the butterfly
>> map:
>> meaning something like "virtually complete documentation except for
>> strays."
>>
>>Unfortunately, the resulting map is useful only
>> for establishing a baseline against which future iterations of the map
>> can
>> be compared, since the moth documentation effort in Tennessee is much
>> less
>> complete than the butterflying effort. Only the two bottom categories
>> are actually displayed; subjectively, they mean "no documentation" and
>> "very
>> incomplete documentation."
>>
>>This situation will change soon. When BAMONA
>> catches up with Larry's efforts, at least one county will be pushing up
>> close to the 400-species category. I expect that others will follow
>> shortly.
>>
>>Doug Bruce
>>Oak Ridge, TN
>>Anderson
>> Co.
>>
>>* Charles V. Covell, Jr. (1999) lists 2388 taxa
>> in The Butterflies and Moths (Lepidoptera) of Kentucky, and states
>> that there might be another 300-400 species beyond that. I'm assuming
>> that Tennessee and Kentucky will have similar statewide totals: ~2600
>> species.
>>
Other related posts: