D'Abrera,Bernard

[anna]

I will address this query to Peter (Nomad) primarily.
With "Butterflies of the Australian region reprints, I have the 1st edition that Bernard gave me in 71, am wanting to ask, is the 3rd edition vastly better in photo quality over the 2nd edition or is 2nd edition fine as an improvement over the 1st?
It has not been said on this forum about the improvement in photo quality of 2nd edition, only the 3rd that I can see.
Thanks in advance.
Anna
P.S.
We have corresponded before years ago in regard to a certain flavidior specimen😁

[nomihoudai]

nomad , with @ followed by the username you can ping people.

I think this was discussed years ago, and then the conversation drifted to various topics concerning D'Abrera. Maybe someone else remembers.

[anna]

Feb 12, 2020 1:29:45 GMT nomihoudai said:

nomad , with @ followed by the username you can ping people.

I think this was discussed years ago, and then the conversation drifted to various topics concerning D'Abrera. Maybe someone else remembers.

Conversations in past seem to get very messy around the late Mr D'Abrera.
I located a comparison of 1st and 3rd but not the 1977 2nd and 1st

[deliasfanatic]

The third edition would be the best overall, although none are perfect. Photo quality is a bit better, but more important IMO are taxa that weren't included in older editions. There are still various errors, unfortunately, and nowadays it's quite outdated. Good examples of the latter would be various Delias and others that were listed as known only from a handful of specimens at the time of writing, not to mention numerous taxa described since the books' publication.

[anna]

Feb 12, 2020 2:34:17 GMT deliasfanatic said:

The third edition would be the best overall, although none are perfect. Photo quality is a bit better, but more important IMO are taxa that weren't included in older editions. There are still various errors, unfortunately, and nowadays it's quite outdated. Good examples of the latter would be various Delias and others that were listed as known only from a handful of specimens at the time of writing, not to mention numerous taxa described since the books' publication.

Yes there are limitations, but,this has been discussed years ago in detail, I dont wish to re hash the discussion on Bernard, I am asking, is it worth buying the 2nd printing 1977,I have the 1st and photo quality is lacking .
If the 2nd isn't a better choice then will look at 3rd edition

[nomad]

I  still have both the second and third editions, and really do not see any/much difference in the photo quality, however the third edition was updated with new figures and revised details. I did have the first edition, but gave that away, I think the photo quality was not greatly different to the second edition, he  added a few new figures to his work. I always thought that his figures appeared too dark in some instances in this work, especially in the Ornithoptera. Even so there was nothing to compare with it in 1971 and it is still very useful today, as it covers the entire region. I think if you are buying this work, it would be better to go for the third edition, but then that is going to be quite a bit more expensive.

[leptraps]

I met the man many years ago. We discuss his plans to create a series of books on the Lepidoptera of the world. He said it was like eating an elephant, one bite at a time.

He autographed several of mine. I seldom use them or even just look at them. Then again, I only collect North American material.

D'Abrera liked good bourbon, having contacts in Kentucky, I got him several fifths of Pappy Van Winkle.

[anna]

Mar 13, 2020 13:25:04 GMT leptraps said:

I met the man many years ago. We discuss his plans to create a series of books on the Lepidoptera of the world. He said it was like eating an elephant, one bite at a time.

He autographed several of mine. I seldom use them or even just look at them. Then again, I only collect North American material.

D'Abrera liked good bourbon, having contacts in Kentucky, I got him several fifths of Pappy Van Winkle.

Yes,he was actually very charming ,I knew him well.
He was a man of strong beliefs, not altogether a bad thing in this world

[nomad]

Feb 12, 2020 0:59:15 GMT anna said:

We have corresponded before years ago in regard to a certain flavidior specimen

Ah I see, the name you chose anna confuses me. Have you decided whether to get the third edition or not?

[anna]

Mar 22, 2020 10:57:57 GMT nomad said:

Feb 12, 2020 0:59:15 GMT anna said:

We have corresponded before years ago in regard to a certain flavidior specimen

Ah I see, the name you chose anna confuses me. Have you decided whether to get the third edition or not?

Ahhhhhh,it has registered😁,I actually went for the 2nd edition, the 3rd was expensive and while I was one who found Bernard charming, I dont really need a sermon in a butterfly book.
I don't collect butterflies any longer, I am quite happy with books.

[Adam Cotton]

His rants in later editions of his books were an issue that many people, Lepidoperists and others, objected to.

Adam.

[nomad]

Especially as they were personal attacks on people who had by that time sadly passed away, and he knew could not defend themselves. Sometimes a person's true character comes out in writing. 

[anna]

Mar 23, 2020 9:30:54 GMT nomad said:

Especially as they were personal attacks on people who had by that time sadly passed away, and he knew could not defend themselves. Sometimes a person's true character comes out in writing. 

I was given a tour of Melbourne museum butterfly collection upon our 1st meeting, Bernard collected me in his car ,he was in a poor way, having influenza telling me that I was not to worry as he wouldn't allow it to be contagious.
Well, he was right.
I didn't get sick.
As I am older and wiser, I cannot understand how accepting I was of his assertion