| Ents
gene |
Robert
Leverett |
| Sep
13, 2006 06:54 PDT |
ENTS,
I have come to the conclusion that we
Ents are wired differently
from most folks, including otherwise highly accomplished
forestry and
forest ecology professionals. I've been moving toward this
conclusion
for a long time, but I'll now state it forthrightly. We're a
different
breed - at least in so far as the treatment of numbers is
concerned.
Inaccuracies actually cause us physical pain. I believe that. I
know
where I feel the pain, but won't mention the location here.
Okay, so
what brought this on?
While scanning the two books on the geology of
Wyoming that I bought
while on Monica and I were on our western excursion, I read the
descriptions that the two authors of one book and the single
author of
the other wrote about the different mountain ranges of Wyoming
and
discovered a number of factual errors with respect to the
elevations of
prominent mountains. I even found conflicting information for
the same
peaks at different points in the books. I had come to expect
numbers
sloppiness from authors who must draw from other sources when
writing on
a topic because they are not, themselves, experts.
In the case of the three geologists, it became
increasingly obvious
that they all cherry picked their way though old material to
fill out
the formats of their books. But geologist authors shouldn't miss
the
current altitudes of the most prominent mountains that they are
writing
about. For example, the current listed altitude of Gannett Peak
in
Wyoming is 13,804 feet. An old survey altitude used for years is
13,785
feet. Sources using the latter number are now clearly dated.
I could give other examples from the two
books, but it is not my
purpose to pick on these three authors. So, let's choose another
book
and profession. The bible on stand dynamics "Forest Stand
Dynamics" by
Oliver and Larson quotes in a table as factual the
extraordinarily badly
mis-measured red maple in Michigan that American Forests carried
for
years - the purported 179-foot tall one. Okay, administrative
people,
which is what I judge the American Forests staff to be, putting
together
editions of their magazine, aren't likely to know what is
realistic and
what isn't in terms of the height of an eastern species, but
distinguished academic foresters should ..... you'd think. Well,
maybe
they trusted the source, regardless of how outlandish the number
appeared. Maybe they didn't check. They just grabbed a table and
published (with permission from American Forests).
The point I'm working toward is that
when it comes to the use of
numbers, Ents don't do that. Why, I'll bet that when Will and
Jess last
measured the tall tulip poplar in Cataloochee, not only was Will
working
to insure the height number he would later quote to us was as
humanly
accurate as possible, he could also tell us to within a
half-millimeter,
how long the hang-nail was that he was nursing. And he'll
remember both
numbers for decades.
Like Will, Lee Frelich is amazing
in the numbers that he recalls on
many subjects and the judgment he exercises on which magnitudes
make
sense and which don't. He picked up on that dubious 64-degree
average
annual temperature for Hot Springs, SD, I'm sure in the flicker
of an
eye. And he knew approximately what the number should be and how
to
derive the approximation. However, he holds a doctorate from the
University of Wisconsin, so such accuracy is to be expected. But
I
believe that his demonstrated skill with magnitudes only partly
does not
come from his academic achievement. I have a sneaky feeling that
it is
really the Ent genes in him that sensitizes him to numeric
accuracy
beyond that common to many other distinguished academics.
I also see an Ents gene in Ed
Frank who threads the needle on
numeric accuracy as well as procedural rigor. But then if I
mentioned
everyone in ENTS who demonstrates numbers sensitivity, the list
would
include all driven to measure trees to ever higher levels of
accuracy.
It is a manifestation of the Ent gene in us. This doesn't mean
that
there is only one kind of Ents gene. There are other types and
thank
goodness for it. There is the Ent gene of the sort that Pamela
Briggs
possesses. Her sensitivity to trees lies in other realms and we
could
discuss the benefits of the non-numeric genes, but in this
communication, I'm just speaking about the numeric sensitivity
gene.
Anyway, it is clear that we Ents
are a breed apart and we should
celebrate the difference, and celebrate we shall on the upcoming
ENTS
rendezvous. Perhaps our motto should be: "Decimal points
matter".
Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
|
|