[AZ-Observing] The Laufer Book
- From: Stan Gorodenski <stanlep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: AZ-Observing <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 20:57:45 -0700
I just finished reading a book, ”The Dangerous World of Butterflies” by
Peter Laufer, Ph.D. There is a tremendous amount of fluff to read
through to get to some of the main points he is trying to make, or maybe
I consider as fluff what others would find valuable reading. He covered
a number of different aspects of the dangers in the butterfly world. One
of them was about the ‘criminals’. The thing I found disturbing about
his reporting is that he talked to all kinds of Game and Fish people and
other professionals regarding the Kojima case (who was arrested in
California and spent some time in a detention center in LA), and the
Skalski-Kral-Grinnell case, but he never interviewed any of these
individuals, to my knowledge. I think it would have made a better book
had he done so. There was one alleged violator of collecting laws in
India that he had some email correspondence with, but that person was
from Denmark and was also a Ph.D. like himself.
Another thing that struck me, or got me upset, was a so called
psychoanalysis of why collectors collect. One individual he quotes states:
“… it can become a dangerous preoccupation; its sensations - the
breathless exhilaration of the quest, the thrill of capture, the
enjoyment of the novelty, the sense of satisfaction and pride in
possession - as addictive as any drug.” Is he talking about collecting
butterflies or the human dating game and sex? Breathless exhilaration of
the quest, the thrill of capture, the enjoyment of the novelty, pride in
possession? It is interesting that when it comes to butterflies these
take on an ominous meaning. He quotes another individual as saying
“Collecting is a search for immortality…” Come on. Isn’t human
childbearing also partly a search for immortality? Are we now to refrain
from activities that can cause the birth of children? It seems there are
a lot of contradictory ideas when butterflies are involved.
The book also mentioned that many people abhor those who kill
butterflies, yet these same people drive cars that kill thousands of
insects (some which are butterflies and moths), and occupy a home in a
subdivision for which large tracts of valuable habitat was probably
destroyed, as well as killing other wildlife, many more complex than
insects. They also buy meat in grocery stores for which millions of
vertebrates (much more complex than butterflies and other insects) were
killed-slaughtered to satisfy their appetite. A real contradiction here.
Finally, at the end of the book he devotes a chapter to the efforts to
save Lange’s Metalmark, Apodemia mormo lengei. Although it is a
worthwhile effort to preserve biodiversity, and subspecies are one
aspect of biodiversity, I wonder if some of the individuals involved
(from what I read in his book) in this effort understand what a
subspecies is, and that some entomological disciplines question the
validity of the subspecies concept. Unless Lange’s Metalmark is later
declared to be a definite species, beyond doubt so that it doesn’t
continually get kicked back and forth between lumpers and splitters, a
subspecies, a local differentiated form, not a species will have
perished if the Lange habitat disappears. Also, since subspecies are not
yet full species they are in a sense very ephemeral and have the
potential to naturally disappear if significant gene flow commences
between a subspecies and another subpopulation of the same species. It
is ironic that the human destruction of habitat surrounding the Lange
habitat is in a sense isolating this population from what could be a
natural reintegration into a larger population at some geologic time in
the future.
Stan
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
