[tn-moths] Re: TN moth documentation map

  • From: Larry McDaniel <larrycmcd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: tn-moths <tn-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:47:46 -0500

Doug,

 

I think keeping the maps updated would be useful. I'm not sure there could be a 
"too often". Thanks for all you do. 

 

Larry
 


From: s137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: tn-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tn-moths] Re: TN moth documentation map
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:54:21 -0500




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.
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/

Other related posts: