How Go the Revisions?

An article I read while revising the Before Adam section of my London chapter informed me:

The pitfall trap is an adaptation of of hunting techniques that dates back to primitive man.  It consist of a plastic cup with a funnel.

I don't buy it ... but I came this close to citing it in my final draft.  I may need sleep.

Comments

[Luther Blissett]

Scott, I no longer have any idea what you're talking about. But good luck with the revisions. In the voice of Lou Reed: "Stick a fork in its ass and turn it over. It's done."

[prefer not to]

[delurk] Keep up the good work Scott. I concur with Luther that I'm no longer sure what's going on at Acephalous, kind of like what happened after Berube went "fireball." [relurk]

[Adam Roberts]

Adam says: before Adam? Heresy.

Adam adds: I'd say I still get Acephalous. But perhaps I'm fooling myself.

[j.s.nelson]

I think the point here was that a trap consisting of a plastic cup may not date back to primitive man. Was the "consist" typo in the original?

[Luther Blissett]

Isn't it just a incorrectly conjugated verb? Isn't the author really trying to say, "The pitfall trap is an adaptation of of [sic] hunting techniques that DATE back to primitive man"?

So the restrictive clause is modifying "techniques" and not "adaptation." Isn't it just trying to say that the pitfall trap is a version of an age-old hunting strategy?

So can't you cite it and just put "sic" in after the verb in the restrictive clause?

[SEK]

Both of the typos were in the original article. (It appeared in an anthropological journal, FWIW.) But yes, my larger point was that plastic cups were thin on the ground when Man Roamed the Veldt ... and that I almost missed the absurdity of the statement and included this bit in a technical footnote.

Seriously, I know it may seem like I've given myself over to inscrutability, but I swear it's just because I'm saving all my sense for the diss.

[prefer not to]

Maybe the citation can be salvaged by pressing the meaning of plastic? Your problem with it is anachronism, which is due as long as plastic is read as "synthetic material." It's a long shot, but could the sentence accommodate plastic as "malleable," "adaptable," "creative," "relating to or exhibiting an adaptability to environmental changes." Could the phrase "plastic cup with a funnel" be a string of words signifying their 12th OED entries?

[JPool]

This is really very sad. Is this what happens when anthropology texts start plagarizing from some random site that they find after doing a google search? Unless these were entomological anthropologists, the answer is yes.

The larger points are: 1) primitive man had a voracious appetite for ground dwelling spiders(as well as other arthropods), and b) Jack London was all about cups and funnels. Seriously though, please stop trying to write these sort of foot notes. Only tears will come of them.

[SEK]

Is this what happens when anthropology texts start plagarizing from some random site that they find after doing a google search?

Holy. Shit.

(Sorry about the whole period. Thing. Which I know is all played out, but this actually warrants it. Um ... should I say something to someone?)

[SEK]

As for this:

Seriously though, please stop trying to write these sort of foot notes.

No choice there. I can't reasonably be able to expect the average English prof. to know the difference -- and significance -- of different sorts of primitive traps. The difference between a fairly simple pitfall trap and something like a four-figure deadfall trap is important when an author claims primitive man invented the latter the day after he failed to score a prize with the former. (The London chapter concerns the pace of evolution, after all.)

That said, before I check does anyone want to place bets as to whether the journal that published this article is peer-reviewed?

[JPool]

I can't reasonably be able to expect the average English prof. to know the difference -- and significance -- of different sorts of primitive traps.
Sure you can. Why not? My thought was not so much that nothing needed explaining, but more, don't get bogged down in the fiddly bits. Footnotes are a great place for distracting details, and you shouldn't allow them to lure you like some luckless spider in search of sweet, sweet antifreeze down their slippery funnel shaped walls, never to be heard from again (except through your contribution, in death, to a survey of spider species in Texas pecan orchards(metaphorically speaking)).

Given that the article you quote reproduced the typos from the webcopy, I'm putting down my money in favor of drunken peer-reviewing.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Why assume that the article copied the Web site and not the reverse? You certainly shouldn't assume that if you complain about it.

[SEK]

Could the phrase "plastic cup with a funnel" be a string of words signifying their 12th OED entries?

Missed this, and best that I did now that I've found the source and accompanying picture. I would've said "Yes, excellent plan, I'm on it" until 1:04 this afternoon. Now I couldn't stomach the dishonesty it would require. (Not that I can normally stomach dishonesty. Far from it. Like it says on my bumper, "Academic Dishonesty Is My Emetic of Choice.")

You certainly shouldn't assume that if you complain about it.

I decided against complaining for the moment, since I'm submitting four fully-revised chapters tomorrow. Too much of a hassle at a time when I'm already over-burdened with paperwork.

[JPool]

Why assume that the article copied the Web site and not the reverse?
This is, of course, correct, and I assumed that Scott would check things like relative copyright dates before mentioning this to anyone. I have no idea what the orginal article was about, and for all I know it may have even cited these folks. It is a bit suspicious, however, given that the survey described on the website actually involved plastic cups and funnels (with pictures of same).

[JPool]

Dammit. Must Use Preview.