New prhrag
I may be the last on the planet to know there's a new phrag. This one comes
from Columbia and is in the same group as Phrag schlimii. http://www.orchidspecies.com/phragmanzurii.htm Pretty cool that its a pink pouch with green sepals and petals. K Barrett |
New prhrag
For as long as people have lived/explored in S. America -- Suddenly
there are new species that are THAT beautiful. Were we blind for years? On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:14:04 -0800, "K Barrett" wrote: I may be the last on the planet to know there's a new phrag. This one comes from Columbia and is in the same group as Phrag schlimii. http://www.orchidspecies.com/phragmanzurii.htm Pretty cool that its a pink pouch with green sepals and petals. K Barrett SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids |
New prhrag
On Feb 4, 1:07*pm, Sue Erickson wrote:
For as long as people have lived/explored in S. America -- Suddenly there are new species that are THAT beautiful. *Were we blind for years? In some respects, it is a matter of luck, and in others a question of how thorough a field scientist can be with limited money and time. There are many species that were thought to be extinct because no one had seen one in decades, only to be 'rediscovered' by accidental encounters with them in places no one had thought to look. When I lived in, and travelled through, south Asia, arguably among the most densely populated regions on the planet, I saw plenty of places that were poorly known and even completely unknown to science (as no one had found the money or time to examine them). There are many sites, even there, that have never been properly investigated by experienced field scientists. There are countless reefs in the coral sea that have never been visited by either fishermen or reef ecologists. There are new species being discovered all the time, particularly in rain forests of the world. I would not be at all surprised if there remain lots of species, even of orchids, that have yet to be enumerated. It takes lots of money and manpower to enumerate the species present in just a few square kilometers. And the numbers of new species to be expected increases as one considers just how difficult it is to find species that are rare. When it comes to biodiversity, with the amount of resources available for sampling, we're really just groping in the dark. I can almost guarantee that there are lots of beautiful orchid species remaining to be discovered. Cheers, Ted |
New prhrag
I agree. I was about to ask Patricia Harding whether she felt the
normalization of relations with teh rebels and drug cartels have allowed greater freedom of movement in the back woods of Colombia such that more of these may come to light. Patricia loves going to the shows and never misses a chance - which is why I was going to ask her, since she's been there recently. I recall D'Alessario once saying that you'd be an idiot to go down some of the roads and trails that led off the main roads. That you never knew when the side road would end or what/who was at the end of it. Years ago when I first got into the judging program teh AOS was very worried about judges going to Colombia to the shows. In case of kidnap. Luckily it all turned out to be OK. Once I was researching the range for an orchid and I cracked up to see that there were herbarium specimens collected all along its range in teh Andes, all except for Colombia. I guess nobody wanted to go out to the boonies, LOL! But that was then and this is now. I can't think of another two toned phrag, can you? K Barrett "Sue Erickson" wrote in message ... For as long as people have lived/explored in S. America -- Suddenly there are new species that are THAT beautiful. Were we blind for years? On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:14:04 -0800, "K Barrett" wrote: I may be the last on the planet to know there's a new phrag. This one comes from Columbia and is in the same group as Phrag schlimii. http://www.orchidspecies.com/phragmanzurii.htm Pretty cool that its a pink pouch with green sepals and petals. K Barrett SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids |
New prhrag
On Feb 5, 11:55*am, "K Barrett" wrote:
I agree. *I was about to ask Patricia Harding whether she felt the normalization of relations with teh rebels and drug cartels have allowed greater freedom of movement in the back woods of Colombia such that more of these may come to light. *Patricia loves going to the shows and never misses a chance - which is why I was going to ask her, since she's been there recently. *I recall D'Alessario once saying that you'd be an idiot to go down some of the roads and trails that led off the main roads. That you never knew when the side road would end or what/who was at the end of it. Years ago when I first got into the judging program teh AOS was very worried about judges going to Colombia to the shows. *In case of kidnap. *Luckily it all turned out to be OK. Once I was researching the range for an orchid and I cracked up to see that there were herbarium specimens collected all along its range in teh Andes, all except for Colombia. *I guess nobody wanted to go out to the boonies, LOL! *But that was then and this is now. I can't think of another two toned phrag, can you? K Barrett "Sue Erickson" wrote in message ... For as long as people have lived/explored in S. America -- Suddenly there are new species that are THAT beautiful. *Were we blind for years? On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:14:04 -0800, "K Barrett" wrote: I may be the last on the planet to know there's a new phrag. *This one comes from Columbia and is in the same group as Phrag schlimii. http://www.orchidspecies.com/phragmanzurii.htm Pretty cool that its a pink pouch with green sepals and petals. K Barrett SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids It was interesting last night; there was a documentary on TVO (a station run by the government of Ontario) about a recent expedition to Guyana. The area they went to had so few indigenous people that the animals had virtually no fear of human beings. They had never been hunted. And these people, a moderately large and well equipped party, were the first scientists to visit the area. They said nothing about orchids, but they found new species almost every day. The area in question was enormous, and yet the area the team was able to sample was likely only of the order of a few hundred square meters. The last time I did field work in which we identified and measured every plant within quadrats 10 m square, it took a couple hours to do one quadrat that size, and the team could thoroughly examine every specimen in each quadrat could complete surveys of only 5 or 6 such quadrats. Mind you, as we did it, a part of the record was a detailed map of precisely where each specimen was located within the quadrat. This was in mixed decidious forest in southern Ontario, so the sites we examined were very easy to get to. I can imagine that trying to do similar sampling in Guyana, on the site covered by the documentary I saw last night, would require as much as a quarter of your time just getting to, and returning from, the site, hiking through trackless rainforest (there were no clearings where a helicopter could land, at least none shown in the documentary, and the river was effectively impassable. One of the individual adventures they showed last night involved one individual going into an area that had to be hundreds of square kilometers in extent (to get there, he had to descend a large cliff that separated their main camp site from the area he went to), and yet the individual appeared to be able to sample a transect a few hundred meters long. Mind you, think think he, and a couple other members of that team, were insane to be climbing up or down rock that seemed to crumble at the slightest touch. The point is that this documentary highlights just how difficult and expensive it is to properly survey the life in any given ecosystem, and why it is certain, even in the absence of the political conflict in places like Columbia, there are countless species that remain to be discovered. Predators, human and non-human, only make it much more dangerous to even attempt sampling interesting sites. I love going into the boonies, when my health allows it, but I ain't suicidal. Cheers, Ted |
New prhrag
"Ted Byers" wrote in message
... It was interesting last night; there was a documentary on TVO (a station run by the government of Ontario) about a recent expedition to Guyana. The area they went to had so few indigenous people that the animals had virtually no fear of human beings. They had never been hunted. And these people, a moderately large and well equipped party, were the first scientists to visit the area. They said nothing about orchids, but they found new species almost every day. The area in question was enormous, and yet the area the team was able to sample was likely only of the order of a few hundred square meters. The last time I did field work in which we identified and measured every plant within quadrats 10 m square, it took a couple hours to do one quadrat that size, and the team could thoroughly examine every specimen in each quadrat could complete surveys of only 5 or 6 such quadrats. Mind you, as we did it, a part of the record was a detailed map of precisely where each specimen was located within the quadrat. This was in mixed decidious forest in southern Ontario, so the sites we examined were very easy to get to. I can imagine that trying to do similar sampling in Guyana, on the site covered by the documentary I saw last night, would require as much as a quarter of your time just getting to, and returning from, the site, hiking through trackless rainforest (there were no clearings where a helicopter could land, at least none shown in the documentary, and the river was effectively impassable. One of the individual adventures they showed last night involved one individual going into an area that had to be hundreds of square kilometers in extent (to get there, he had to descend a large cliff that separated their main camp site from the area he went to), and yet the individual appeared to be able to sample a transect a few hundred meters long. Mind you, think think he, and a couple other members of that team, were insane to be climbing up or down rock that seemed to crumble at the slightest touch. The point is that this documentary highlights just how difficult and expensive it is to properly survey the life in any given ecosystem, and why it is certain, even in the absence of the political conflict in places like Columbia, there are countless species that remain to be discovered. Predators, human and non-human, only make it much more dangerous to even attempt sampling interesting sites. I love going into the boonies, when my health allows it, but I ain't suicidal. Cheers, Ted _____________________ A safe way to get into the boonies is to read 'River of Doubt' by Candace Millard. Its the story of Theodore Roosevelt's journey down an uncharted river in the Amazon, but there's much much more in it than just a journey there and back again. Its part American history, part Brazillian history, part geography, plate techtonics, biology and anthropology. Then after you read it google Roosevelt's great grandson's voyage down the same river with 20th century equipment (I think I found it on Wikipedia) Makes a great yarn. K Barrett |
New prhrag
Sue Erickson wrote:
For as long as people have lived/explored in S. America -- Suddenly there are new species that are THAT beautiful. Were we blind for years? If you've seen pics of the habitats of besseae and some others, it's easy to see how. A three-day hike to a remote area not served by roads just to 'see' and photograph plants fgrowing on an almost sheer cliff there's no way to climb or access makes it pretty clear there could be many, many more in those thousands of valleys and river gorges, mountains and jungles. |
New prhrag
K Barrett wrote: "Ted Byers" wrote in message ... It was interesting last night; there was a documentary on TVO (a station run by the government of Ontario) about a recent expedition to Guyana. The area they went to had so few indigenous people that the animals had virtually no fear of human beings. They had never been hunted. And these people, a moderately large and well equipped party, were the first scientists to visit the area. They said nothing about orchids, but they found new species almost every day. The area in question was enormous, and yet the area the team was able to sample was likely only of the order of a few hundred square meters. The last time I did field work in which we identified and measured every plant within quadrats 10 m square, it took a couple hours to do one quadrat that size, and the team could thoroughly examine every specimen in each quadrat could complete surveys of only 5 or 6 such quadrats. Mind you, as we did it, a part of the record was a detailed map of precisely where each specimen was located within the quadrat. This was in mixed decidious forest in southern Ontario, so the sites we examined were very easy to get to. I can imagine that trying to do similar sampling in Guyana, on the site covered by the documentary I saw last night, would require as much as a quarter of your time just getting to, and returning from, the site, hiking through trackless rainforest (there were no clearings where a helicopter could land, at least none shown in the documentary, and the river was effectively impassable. One of the individual adventures they showed last night involved one individual going into an area that had to be hundreds of square kilometers in extent (to get there, he had to descend a large cliff that separated their main camp site from the area he went to), and yet the individual appeared to be able to sample a transect a few hundred meters long. Mind you, think think he, and a couple other members of that team, were insane to be climbing up or down rock that seemed to crumble at the slightest touch. The point is that this documentary highlights just how difficult and expensive it is to properly survey the life in any given ecosystem, and why it is certain, even in the absence of the political conflict in places like Columbia, there are countless species that remain to be discovered. Predators, human and non-human, only make it much more dangerous to even attempt sampling interesting sites. I love going into the boonies, when my health allows it, but I ain't suicidal. Cheers, Ted _____________________ A safe way to get into the boonies is to read 'River of Doubt' by Candace Millard. Its the story of Theodore Roosevelt's journey down an uncharted river in the Amazon, but there's much much more in it than just a journey there and back again. Its part American history, part Brazillian history, part geography, plate techtonics, biology and anthropology. Then after you read it google Roosevelt's great grandson's voyage down the same river with 20th century equipment (I think I found it on Wikipedia) Makes a great yarn. K Barrett I read 'River of Doubt' some time last year. Quite a story and it didn't make ME want to explore the back country of South America! I wish the author would have stayed closer to the story without so much time spent on her little excursions into plate tectonics, biology, etc. If I want to read about those things, I'll read something written by an expert in the field. I'm sure the whole trip would be quite different with modern equipment (but I'm still not doing it!) and I'll have to read that Wiki article. Steve |
New prhrag
On Feb 6, 3:44*pm, Steve wrote:
K Barrett wrote: "Ted Byers" wrote in message ... It was interesting last night; there was a documentary on TVO (a station run by the government of Ontario) about a recent expedition to Guyana. *The area they went to had so few indigenous people that the animals had virtually no fear of human beings. *They had never been hunted. *And these people, a moderately large and well equipped party, were the first scientists to visit the area. *They said nothing about orchids, but they found new species almost every day. *The area in question was enormous, and yet the area the team was able to sample was likely only of the order of a few hundred square meters. The last time I did field work in which we identified and measured every plant within quadrats 10 m square, it took a couple hours to do one quadrat that size, and the team could thoroughly examine every specimen in each quadrat could complete surveys of only 5 or 6 such quadrats. *Mind you, as we did it, a part of the record was a detailed map of precisely where each specimen was located within the quadrat. This was in mixed decidious forest in southern Ontario, so the sites we examined were very easy to get to. *I can imagine that trying to do similar sampling in Guyana, on the site covered by the documentary I saw last night, would require as much as a quarter of your time just getting to, and returning from, the site, hiking through trackless rainforest (there were no clearings where a helicopter could land, at least none shown in the documentary, and the river was effectively impassable. *One of the individual adventures they showed last night involved one individual going into an area that had to be hundreds of square kilometers in extent (to get there, he had to descend a large cliff that separated their main camp site from the area he went to), and yet the individual appeared to be able to sample a transect a few hundred meters long. *Mind you, think think he, and a couple other members of that team, were insane to be climbing up or down rock that seemed to crumble at the slightest touch. The point is that this documentary highlights just how difficult and expensive it is to properly survey the life in any given ecosystem, and why it is certain, even in the absence of the political conflict in places like Columbia, there are countless species that remain to be discovered. *Predators, human and non-human, only make it much more dangerous to even attempt sampling interesting sites. *I love going into the boonies, when my health allows it, but I ain't suicidal. Cheers, Ted _____________________ A safe way to get into the boonies is to read 'River of Doubt' by Candace Millard. *Its the story of Theodore Roosevelt's journey down an uncharted river in the Amazon, but there's much much more in it than just a journey there and back again. *Its part American history, part Brazillian history, part geography, plate techtonics, biology and anthropology. *Then after you read it google Roosevelt's great grandson's voyage down the same river with 20th century equipment (I think I found it on Wikipedia) *Makes a great yarn. K Barrett I read 'River of Doubt' some time last year. Quite a story and it didn't make ME want to explore the back country of South America! I wish the author would have stayed closer to the story without so much time spent on her little excursions into plate tectonics, biology, etc. If I want to read about those things, I'll read something written by an expert in the field. I'm sure the whole trip would be quite different with modern equipment (but I'm still not doing it!) and I'll have to read that Wiki article. Steve That goes to show there's no pleasing everyone all the time. I read as a scientist who studies history as a form or recreation; probably something that makes me a misfit. ;-) It is the excursions into context that add to understanding of a story. For example, one of the things I valued in reading Charles Dickens (e.g. Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist) are his descriptions of socioeconomic conditions in which his characters lived. For a Tale of Two Cities, it is the socioeconomic conditions of aristocrats and peasants in France just prior to and just following the French revolution. In Oliver Twist, it is the conditions experienced by the poor in England, and the attitudes of the wealthy toward them, that is relevant. In both cases, his novels add to an understanding of life in western Europe at the worst of the little ice age. From the sounds of things, the treatment of plate tectonics, biology, &c. the author placed in her book is as useful in understanding what Roosevelt experienced as was Dickens' treatment of socioeconomic context in understanding both the stories he told and more broadly the times in which they were set. Studying Dickens certainly doesn't replace a treatise on European history during the little ice age, but it IS a useful complement to it. Similarly, I would extend my library to include treatises on the ecology of central and south america, should I find some good ones, but at the same time, if Millard's treatment of that science is reasonable, and she has done a good job in documenting what Roosevelt experienced, her book would be a useful and interesting complement to such treatises. One of the things that makes biographies interesting is their ability to help understand what it is like to live in a certain context. I have two autobiographies, written by sisters who lived in one of the earliest British settlements in southern ontario, and I don't think it wold be even possible to begin to understand what their lives were like without knowing something of the ecology and climate of southern ontario at that time. Similarly, I have my doubts about the possibility of understanding Roosevelt's experience without understanding the ecology and topography of the region he explored. If "River of Doubt" is still in print, I will likely look into buying it later this spring (there are, after all, a number of science texts higher up on my reading list). Cheers, Ted |
New prhrag
"Ted Byers" wrote in message
... On Feb 6, 3:44 pm, Steve wrote: K Barrett wrote: "Ted Byers" wrote in message ... It was interesting last night; there was a documentary on TVO (a station run by the government of Ontario) about a recent expedition to Guyana. The area they went to had so few indigenous people that the animals had virtually no fear of human beings. They had never been hunted. And these people, a moderately large and well equipped party, were the first scientists to visit the area. They said nothing about orchids, but they found new species almost every day. The area in question was enormous, and yet the area the team was able to sample was likely only of the order of a few hundred square meters. The last time I did field work in which we identified and measured every plant within quadrats 10 m square, it took a couple hours to do one quadrat that size, and the team could thoroughly examine every specimen in each quadrat could complete surveys of only 5 or 6 such quadrats. Mind you, as we did it, a part of the record was a detailed map of precisely where each specimen was located within the quadrat. This was in mixed decidious forest in southern Ontario, so the sites we examined were very easy to get to. I can imagine that trying to do similar sampling in Guyana, on the site covered by the documentary I saw last night, would require as much as a quarter of your time just getting to, and returning from, the site, hiking through trackless rainforest (there were no clearings where a helicopter could land, at least none shown in the documentary, and the river was effectively impassable. One of the individual adventures they showed last night involved one individual going into an area that had to be hundreds of square kilometers in extent (to get there, he had to descend a large cliff that separated their main camp site from the area he went to), and yet the individual appeared to be able to sample a transect a few hundred meters long. Mind you, think think he, and a couple other members of that team, were insane to be climbing up or down rock that seemed to crumble at the slightest touch. The point is that this documentary highlights just how difficult and expensive it is to properly survey the life in any given ecosystem, and why it is certain, even in the absence of the political conflict in places like Columbia, there are countless species that remain to be discovered. Predators, human and non-human, only make it much more dangerous to even attempt sampling interesting sites. I love going into the boonies, when my health allows it, but I ain't suicidal. Cheers, Ted _____________________ A safe way to get into the boonies is to read 'River of Doubt' by Candace Millard. Its the story of Theodore Roosevelt's journey down an uncharted river in the Amazon, but there's much much more in it than just a journey there and back again. Its part American history, part Brazillian history, part geography, plate techtonics, biology and anthropology. Then after you read it google Roosevelt's great grandson's voyage down the same river with 20th century equipment (I think I found it on Wikipedia) Makes a great yarn. K Barrett I read 'River of Doubt' some time last year. Quite a story and it didn't make ME want to explore the back country of South America! I wish the author would have stayed closer to the story without so much time spent on her little excursions into plate tectonics, biology, etc. If I want to read about those things, I'll read something written by an expert in the field. I'm sure the whole trip would be quite different with modern equipment (but I'm still not doing it!) and I'll have to read that Wiki article. Steve That goes to show there's no pleasing everyone all the time. I read as a scientist who studies history as a form or recreation; probably something that makes me a misfit. ;-) It is the excursions into context that add to understanding of a story. For example, one of the things I valued in reading Charles Dickens (e.g. Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist) are his descriptions of socioeconomic conditions in which his characters lived. For a Tale of Two Cities, it is the socioeconomic conditions of aristocrats and peasants in France just prior to and just following the French revolution. In Oliver Twist, it is the conditions experienced by the poor in England, and the attitudes of the wealthy toward them, that is relevant. In both cases, his novels add to an understanding of life in western Europe at the worst of the little ice age. From the sounds of things, the treatment of plate tectonics, biology, &c. the author placed in her book is as useful in understanding what Roosevelt experienced as was Dickens' treatment of socioeconomic context in understanding both the stories he told and more broadly the times in which they were set. Studying Dickens certainly doesn't replace a treatise on European history during the little ice age, but it IS a useful complement to it. Similarly, I would extend my library to include treatises on the ecology of central and south america, should I find some good ones, but at the same time, if Millard's treatment of that science is reasonable, and she has done a good job in documenting what Roosevelt experienced, her book would be a useful and interesting complement to such treatises. One of the things that makes biographies interesting is their ability to help understand what it is like to live in a certain context. I have two autobiographies, written by sisters who lived in one of the earliest British settlements in southern ontario, and I don't think it wold be even possible to begin to understand what their lives were like without knowing something of the ecology and climate of southern ontario at that time. Similarly, I have my doubts about the possibility of understanding Roosevelt's experience without understanding the ecology and topography of the region he explored. If "River of Doubt" is still in print, I will likely look into buying it later this spring (there are, after all, a number of science texts higher up on my reading list). Cheers, Ted __________________________ As always YMMV, and when reading anything see if Amazon has the first chapter available for reading, but I really liked the digression into plate techtonics etc. As well as what happened to the adventurers after the trip. I learned something from reading the book. On a different subject today's NPR Science Friday radio program has a few features on evolution since its Charles Darwin's 200th birthday and (I think) the 150th anniversary of 'Origin of the Species'. I was only able to listen to the discussion on discovery of the fossilized 50 ft long snake (from a coal mine) and the beginning of the feature on a catepillar that mimics the scent of red ants so it can be taken back to the hive and fed like a queen. There were to be 2 more examples of interesting evolution. The show should be available tomorrow on the SciFri web page for listening or download and also from iTunes podcasts. http://www.sciencefriday.com/ As always, YMMV K Barrett |
New prhrag
On Feb 6, 1:42*pm, "K Barrett" wrote:
"Ted Byers" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 3:44 pm, Steve wrote: K Barrett wrote: "Ted Byers" wrote in message .... It was interesting last night; there was a documentary on TVO (a station run by the government of Ontario) about a recent expedition to Guyana. The area they went to had so few indigenous people that the animals had virtually no fear of human beings. They had never been hunted. And these people, a moderately large and well equipped party, were the first scientists to visit the area. They said nothing about orchids, but they found new species almost every day. The area in question was enormous, and yet the area the team was able to sample was likely only of the order of a few hundred square meters. The last time I did field work in which we identified and measured every plant within quadrats 10 m square, it took a couple hours to do one quadrat that size, and the team could thoroughly examine every specimen in each quadrat could complete surveys of only 5 or 6 such quadrats. Mind you, as we did it, a part of the record was a detailed map of precisely where each specimen was located within the quadrat. This was in mixed decidious forest in southern Ontario, so the sites we examined were very easy to get to. I can imagine that trying to do similar sampling in Guyana, on the site covered by the documentary I saw last night, would require as much as a quarter of your time just getting to, and returning from, the site, hiking through trackless rainforest (there were no clearings where a helicopter could land, at least none shown in the documentary, and the river was effectively impassable. One of the individual adventures they showed last night involved one individual going into an area that had to be hundreds of square kilometers in extent (to get there, he had to descend a large cliff that separated their main camp site from the area he went to), and yet the individual appeared to be able to sample a transect a few hundred meters long. Mind you, think think he, and a couple other members of that team, were insane to be climbing up or down rock that seemed to crumble at the slightest touch. The point is that this documentary highlights just how difficult and expensive it is to properly survey the life in any given ecosystem, and why it is certain, even in the absence of the political conflict in places like Columbia, there are countless species that remain to be discovered. Predators, human and non-human, only make it much more dangerous to even attempt sampling interesting sites. I love going into the boonies, when my health allows it, but I ain't suicidal. Cheers, Ted _____________________ A safe way to get into the boonies is to read 'River of Doubt' by Candace Millard. Its the story of Theodore Roosevelt's journey down an uncharted river in the Amazon, but there's much much more in it than just a journey there and back again. Its part American history, part Brazillian history, part geography, plate techtonics, biology and anthropology. Then after you read it google Roosevelt's great grandson's voyage down the same river with 20th century equipment (I think I found it on Wikipedia) Makes a great yarn. K Barrett I read 'River of Doubt' some time last year. Quite a story and it didn't make ME want to explore the back country of South America! I wish the author would have stayed closer to the story without so much time spent on her little excursions into plate tectonics, biology, etc. If I want to read about those things, I'll read something written by an expert in the field. I'm sure the whole trip would be quite different with modern equipment (but I'm still not doing it!) and I'll have to read that Wiki article. Steve That goes to show there's no pleasing everyone all the time. I read as a scientist who studies history as a form or recreation; probably something that makes me a misfit. *;-) It is the excursions into context that add to understanding of a story. *For example, one of the things I valued in reading Charles Dickens (e.g. Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist) are his descriptions of socioeconomic conditions in which his characters lived. *For a Tale of Two Cities, it is the socioeconomic conditions of aristocrats and peasants in France just prior to and just following the French revolution. *In Oliver Twist, it is the conditions experienced by the poor in England, and the attitudes of the wealthy toward them, that is relevant. *In both cases, his novels add to an understanding of life in western Europe at the worst of the little ice age. From the sounds of things, the treatment of plate tectonics, biology, &c. the author placed in her book is as useful in understanding what Roosevelt experienced as was Dickens' treatment of socioeconomic context in understanding both the stories he told and more broadly the times in which they were set. *Studying Dickens certainly doesn't replace a treatise on European history during the little ice age, but it IS a useful complement to it. *Similarly, I would extend my library to include treatises on the ecology of central and south america, should I find some good ones, but at the same time, if Millard's treatment of that science is reasonable, and she has done a good job in documenting what Roosevelt experienced, her book would be a useful and interesting complement to such treatises. *One of the things that makes biographies interesting is their ability to help understand what it is like to live in a certain context. *I have two autobiographies, written by sisters who lived in one of the earliest British settlements in southern ontario, and I don't think it wold be even possible to begin to understand what their lives were like without knowing something of the ecology and climate of southern ontario at that time. *Similarly, I have my doubts about the possibility of understanding Roosevelt's experience without understanding the ecology and topography of the region he explored. If "River of Doubt" is still in print, I will likely look into buying it later this spring (there are, after all, a number of science texts higher up on my reading list). Cheers, Ted __________________________ As always YMMV, and when reading anything see if Amazon has the first chapter available for reading, but I really liked the digression into plate techtonics etc. *As well as what happened to the adventurers after the trip. I learned something from reading the book. On a different subject today's NPR Science Friday radio program has a few features on evolution since its Charles Darwin's 200th birthday and (I think) the 150th anniversary of 'Origin of the Species'. *I was only able to listen to the discussion on discovery of the fossilized 50 ft long snake (from a coal mine) and the beginning of the feature on a catepillar that mimics the scent of red ants so it can be taken back to the hive and fed like a queen. *There were to be 2 more examples of interesting evolution. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter