# dots on maps

[Ken Kinman]

    Having worked for several years on The Mammals of North America (E.R.
Hall, 2nd Edition), I am probably a little prejudiced.  However, it contains
a variety of different mapping situations, from few to many dots, and
mapping of one to several species on a single map.  Dots are generally only
plotted for records lying along the periphery of the known range, so for
widespread species this minimizes the number of needed voucher or literature
citations.
    Anyway, the maps in those volumes might give you some ideas.  You might
want to especially look at maps of species in Central America.
                    --------Ken Kinman

>From: Brian Brown <bbrown at NHM.ORG>
>Reply-To: Brian Brown <bbrown at NHM.ORG>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: # dots on maps
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:59:11 -0800
>
>Does anyone have an opinion about how many dots (=distribution records) a
>map needs to be useful? Many of my species are known from only one or two
>sites, so a map of their distribution would probably be a waste of space
>and
>time (but maybe other people think otherwise?). How many locality records
>does it take to interest biogeographers?
>
>Brian
>________________________________________
>
>Brian V. Brown
>Entomology Section
>Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
>900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, 90007, U.S.A.
>
>tel: (213) 763-3363   fax: (213) 746-2999
>email: bbrown at nhm.org
>http://www.lam.mus.ca.us/lacmnh/departments/research/entomology

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com