biodiversity Object web

[Brad McFall]

It should become part of CARTOGRAPHIC history (see
<http:www.geovista.psu.edu/icavis/draftAgenda.html>) that Croizat
was well ahead of expert cartographers collectively this, that whom-
ever from the 50(s) through the 80(s) ((the) period of active Croizat
publishing) relied only on one cell in the matrix (op.cit)-- "use of static
maps by individual 'average' map readers to retrieve specific information"
though the weighting of the cells displaying Croizat's map-use remains for
Croizat scholarship to determine.

Croizat's target for map use was not the individual but the student toward
deductive biogeography.  Computers have yet to play a critical role in the
communication of any geographic visualization derived from glancing time by
time at Croizat maps or their panbiog equivalent.  So it is not yet
possible to say  how Croizat's contribution will affect the expertise being
marshalled in cartography these days.  Stoddart was mistaken to think the
scale of the map had much to do with it. It is not even clear if visual
thinking is the proper term to describe what I call the common kinematics
that the space of Croizat map use used takes up.  The test of usefulness of
Croizat's work has not stabilized but could equilibrate for biology in
whether or not this kinematics specifiable once computers are involved is
able to build physical geometry that TAXACOMers (Item#s: {14454; 14455;
14460} hold fast did not exist ('common mechanism' as to how orthoselection
results grammetologically in orthogeny if) NOT the original outwork of
whether tracks are statistically validated (or not) (tracks are a part of
the method like any other concept Croizat operated with.

As to previous thread. See der needle. Da. BSM or enigma.