|
|
Post by africaone on Dec 20, 2012 6:37:09 GMT -8
at the question : is it possible to do something worse than a d'Abrera's book ?
the answer is "Yes" : another d'Abrera's book !
In a general POV, D'abrera's book can be used at least to have an idea of what exist and to have some pictures of uncommon or poorly illustrated species !
Here, you buy something that is not only completely unuseful in lepidoptera question (at least the African part) but also something between personal vendetta and mystycism mixed with a " very personal perception " of systematic.
It sound also like a testament in which the author seems to want to be sure to let his mark and opinion !
it is a kind of accomplishment on what Abrera has never ceased to be: a contradiction between some principles of science and religion, especially creationism!
Add that it is full of errors, mispelling, completely outdated datas or opinion, poorly illustrated with many missing species, etc.
Don't buy it ! it is loss of money and you pay highprice for many pages that don't have their place in a such book (mystic consideration and vendetta).
Many lists online are extremely more usefull than this book !
Thierry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Dec 20, 2012 6:40:03 GMT -8
 D'abrera is really a strange guy ! Against who is the vendetta, this time ? |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Dec 20, 2012 6:43:08 GMT -8
USA (... and Smithsonian), some persons that criticises his works (bookreviewers, ....)
|
|
Fernando
Full Member
Learning...
Posts: 187
|
Post by Fernando on Dec 20, 2012 10:21:25 GMT -8
some persons that criticises his works (bookreviewers, ....) Watch out, you could be the next one ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2012 16:00:10 GMT -8
Yes, one of those online spots I use all the time for reference is that of Bill O. That is my 'go to' site for most IDs with Saturniids.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Dec 21, 2012 0:10:20 GMT -8
there is also www.saturniidae-web.de/German one, not so complete as those of Bill but free access. About D'abrera : the guy seems to be a good person (I met him one time) but he has nothing to do with catalogue of Lepidoptera. At the beginning he just published photos of the NHM collection (and / or Australian ones). Even not being complete and not updated, it has some uses ! He also tried to perfect his books (with G & E) trying to collaborate with specialits (such as ABRI for the African Rhopalocera) but becoming older, he mixed more and more mysticism an resentment in his books and believed to be able to replace specialist ! I never understand how a such creationist and predicator could fall in our speciality and the incredible fact that a such guy entered a world especially occupied by evolutionist as a "reference" (may be he occupied a big hole let by us) ! Note that for most fauna, his works rest the only place where to have an overview and to see some rare things. Fortunately, Internet took over and helped to fill the void and signed the end of a such strange collection of books. Also many books, more local or specialised, are more and more published today. D'Abrera seems popular in the media (espacially in England and Australia), probably because he is good public relation. for Fernando : I'm more or less preserved in this book (but not always)  |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Dec 21, 2012 5:18:51 GMT -8
did anyone else read this book ? (there is a big part of american and asian saturniidae)
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 21, 2012 8:09:08 GMT -8
Oh dear, has Bernard been pontificating again?? ;-(
He did the same with his 2nd edition of the Birdwings of the World and some of his reprinted books in the Butterflies of the World series.
When I was a student in the NHM (called BMNH in 1980) I used to have tea break with him every day, because no one else would join him. He was good to talk to, and I was aware of his whacky creationist views even then. I guess you just have to take him with a pinch of salt.
Unfortunately the powers that be decided that his butterfly books would be the "definitive" identification guides for CITES etc. That despite (or more likely in ignorance of) the fact that his classification was way out of date (based mainly on Seitz and the old lay-out of the NHM collection) and his deliberate ignoring of synonyms and homonyms perpetuating incorrect names for taxa that we are still fighting to educate everyone about. Luckily most serious collectors know about the errors in D'Abrera's books.
Having said the above, his books have given a glimpse at the diversity of Butterflies and 2 families of moths that most people have not had the possibility to see, at least until the advent of the internet.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by saturniidave on Oct 15, 2013 8:21:56 GMT -8
I had a look through this book at the recent London Insect Fair. To say I was disappointed is an understatement!
I have had part one and three for many years and looked forward with anticipation to part two. It is garbage. As Thierry says above there are so many mistakes! I would guess conservatively that he covers maybe 60% of the ramaining species of Saturniidae not covered in the other two volumes. The African moths are a joke, gaping holes everywhere, and the Asian Antheraeas, well, I reckon he missed 75% of those out.
I did notice the usual 'sermon' but did not read it, I was too busy laughing at all the mistakes and missing species.
Suffice to say that is £200 I will not be spending! If one day in the future I can get a cheap damaged copy I shall, purely to make up the set.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Oct 15, 2013 9:49:45 GMT -8
I must admit before the internet his books were especially useful and even after no web-sites can compare with his plates in the second edition of Birdwing Butterflies of the World. I enjoyed the first edition of his Birdwing Book in 1975 and for that Matter his Butterflies of the Australian Region. It must remembered that at that time there was very little literature available on this or other regions. The text in his second edition of his Birdwing book was sadly very disappointing. To say MR B. D' Abrera harbours a grudge to anyone who criticisms his works would be a gross understatement. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs however strange you may find them, however I admit to being completely mystified by his strange outbursts in his books, no one really wants to read them especially about those who cannot defend themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by themothman35 on Dec 8, 2016 2:18:38 GMT -8
While accepting the differences of opinion in the above thread, may I humbly suggest that perhaps the comments posted are a little unfair concerning D' Abrera's creationist views. All must remember that world-views are built upon preconceived ideas. Each person can trace where and when they adopted a particular view. For most people anti metaphysical rhetoric emerges from an atheist backdrop. Am I not correct? To be a credible scientist you have to believe in Darwinian evolution, genetic mutation etc. as an explanation of origins. Such has not always been the case. Unfortunately critical enquiry of this theory has been dumbed down and those like D' Abrera (of whom there are many) accused of being "wacky". Bizarrely in academia no alternative view is offered even though both evolution and creation require "faith" in a theory. It would be wise to weigh and analyse D' Abrera's thesis before shooting him down. Few I fear in this thread have been critical of their personal theories. For those daring to look at the other-side of the coin I would suggest research on the following sites: www.discovery.org/ www.intelligentdesign.org/ www.exploreevolution.com/ www.amazon.co.uk/Metamorphosis-DVD-Region-US-NTSC/dp/B0052P61WO - I speak as an entomologist and a theologian. |
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Dec 8, 2016 6:04:22 GMT -8
While accepting the differences of opinion in the above thread, may I humbly suggest that perhaps the comments posted are a little unfair concerning D' Abrera's creationist views. All must remember that world-views are built upon preconceived ideas. Each person can trace where and when they adopted a particular view. For most people anti metaphysical rhetoric emerges from an atheist backdrop. Am I not correct? To be a credible scientist you have to believe in Darwinian evolution, genetic mutation etc. as an explanation of origins. Such has not always been the case. Unfortunately critical enquiry of this theory has been dumbed down and those like D' Abrera (of whom there are many) accused of being "wacky". Bizarrely in academia no alternative view is offered even though both evolution and creation require "faith" in a theory. It would be wise to weigh and analyse D' Abrera's thesis before shooting him down. Few I fear in this thread have been critical of their personal theories. For those daring to look at the other-side of the coin I would suggest research on the following sites: www.discovery.org/ www.intelligentdesign.org/ www.exploreevolution.com/ www.amazon.co.uk/Metamorphosis-DVD-Region-US-NTSC/dp/B0052P61WO - I speak as an entomologist and a theologian. The entire point of science is that it does not require any faith. Theory generates hypotheses that are testable. Evolutionary theory is no different. You can lay out predictions, run experiments, and determine if your results support your predictions (or, of course, not - in which case you dump theory). That's what science is... the constant testing, refinement or rejection of ideas - sort of the antithesis of faith....Honest - that's the entire point of the scientific method - nothing is sacred. No ideas are safe... John Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Dec 8, 2016 19:54:24 GMT -8
It seems the more we learn about science the more it allies with religious teachings and stories. We now have "Eve" the mother of all modern humans. A single female- according to science.
They found a ###load of chariots and such in the Red Sea. One must ask- what are chariots doing in the sea?
Man was created in God's image. That's often taken literally, but if we take it fully literally (and in accord with common representations) then we'd all have silver beards. And penises. Are Africans God's image and so are Scandanavians? Are apes? That's a lot of leeway. If we stretch that reeeal far, "image" could mean sharing some partial genetic code.
The more I learn, the more I learn I don't know. Who knows if there was a greater hand in the manipulation of one planet.
I don't have a problem with creationism. I do have a problem with those that decry evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. Forget about Darwin, look at the Basques. That's evolution in a short (500 year) timeframe. That Europeans have gained a foot in hight over 300 years, is that not evolution? It's those that say there is no evolution that are total crackpots.
And John, your theory that science is sacred is that- theory. In practice there is all sorts of fiefdoms and protectionists against testing current scientific "fact." Global Warming. There ya go. Do we listen to Leif Ericsson or Al Gore?
I just wish that BDA would get his IDs and such straight.
Don't want to start a fight, but there's plenty of history of science proven wrong after a long (power and finance-driven) battle. I can't disprove creationism. In my day-to-day life it doesn't make a difference. Then again, neither does evolution! Bunch of pretty butterflies and some look kinda the same. I'm rather convince I came from some monkey-thing. A fish is a stretch, but OK. I might even be virtual reality, but frankly I don't care because when I'm on the warm sea watching the sunset all is good.
Hey, where do we go when we die?
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Dec 8, 2016 23:43:52 GMT -8
No you are not. The adoption of a religion relies most often (not always) on a religious background in religion XYZ (insert one of the many).
Nope, you just need to employ logic based on testable things like jshuey explained.
You misunderstood the concept. I didn't like when they came out with "Eve" to name the concept, because I knew religious people would be like "OMG, they called it the same way than our book called it, we are the chosen ones, AND everything else in the book must also be true"...uhm, really?...That's not at all how it works.
I would be interested to hear what you mean by this? Yes of course things get changed sometimes, because of new evidence, that's how science works.
I am also not here to start a fight, or to change anyone's world view. You have taken your whole life to come up with the stuff you are telling. I won't change your ideas or make a difference. But if anything is wrong based on preconceptions I want to step in. I'm basically interested in hearing about the "wrong science", and the big money battles.
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Dec 9, 2016 8:51:05 GMT -8
Some off the cuff responses during lunch...It seems the more we learn about science the more it allies with religious teachings and stories. We now have "Eve" the mother of all modern humans. A single female- according to science.Unfortunate metaphor at best. "Mitochondrial Eve" is in fact a theory that not everyone working in human evolution agrees upon. More of a statistical construct based on calculated mutation rates of mitochondrial diversgance than anything. Note that there is a similar statistical Y-Adam that doesn't get nearly as much press.
They found a ###load of chariots and such in the Red Sea. One must ask- what are chariots doing in the sea? I Think this is more of a history/ archeology thing.. no? Man was created in God's image. That's often taken literally, but if we take it fully literally (and in accord with common representations) then we'd all have silver beards. And penises. Are Africans God's image and so are Scandanavians? Are apes? That's a lot of leeway. If we stretch that reeeal far, "image" could mean sharing some partial genetic code.
The more I learn, the more I learn I don't know. Who knows if there was a greater hand in the manipulation of one planet. Me neither...I don't have a problem with creationism. I do have a problem with those that decry evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. Forget about Darwin, look at the Basques. That's evolution in a short (500 year) timeframe. That Europeans have gained a foot in hight over 300 years, is that not evolution? It's those that say there is no evolution that are total crackpots. Agreed - I have a hard time with people trying to push creation as science though. Science (by definition) has to generate testable hypotheses - creation myths like the Popo Vuhl or the Bible don't. And John, your theory that science is sacred is that- theory. In practice there is all sorts of fiefdoms and protectionists against testing current scientific "fact." Global Warming. There ya go. Do we listen to Leif Ericsson or Al Gore? Nothing about science is sacred - that's my entire point. Science has a deep philosophical underpinning that dates to Aristotle's era - but Karl Popper is really the guy who shaped the modem concept of science. He noted that everything that qualifies as science has to be testable - you have to be able to design an experiment that could conceivably prove your working hypothesis false. Be it evolution or gravity (both are theories see below...).
Newton found the "Law of Gravity". Einstein said - not so fast, drafted a "special theory of relativity that superseded Newton's Law. Einstein then quickly said that didn't work so well, and expanded it to the "general theory of relativity" which explains most of gravity (all of the gravity that we experience). Einstein spent most of his remaining career trying to solve the gravity thing for all cases - but he failed on the unified theory front. No-one has cracked it yet - but people are still trying. It could well be that something entirely different than relativity is the answer - nothing is sacred. I just wish that BDA would get his IDs and such straight. I personally don't believe there is any chance of that. Don't want to start a fight, but there's plenty of history of science proven wrong after a long (power and finance-driven) battle. I can't disprove creationism. In my day-to-day life it doesn't make a difference. Then again, neither does evolution! Bunch of pretty butterflies and some look kinda the same. I'm rather convince I came from some monkey-thing. A fish is a stretch, but OK. I might even be virtual reality, but frankly I don't care because when I'm on the warm sea watching the sunset all is good. No fight here either, but of course you can't disprove any of the many creation myths around the world - they create no hypotheses that are testable. And scientific findings are often proven to be incorrect - that's how science works! (and scientists often have hidden agenda's that bias their research and interpretations, cigarettes and CO2 come to mind).
As to the fish-thing, you can ponder some predictions based on the underpinnings of evolution and then go test them if you had the knowhow and the resources (That's the difference between faith and science). It's not a bad difference - and the two are not incompatible. I studied evolutionary biology at Ohio State in a lab that hosted bi-weekly bible study groups... Hey, where do we go when we die?The cemetery?
JohnChuck Attachments:
|
|
