This is an excellent state work, with detailed and accurate text, excellent photographs, precise maps, and up-to-date scientific nomenclature. Common names are those standardized nationwide since 1978, with the exception of the names used for snakes of the genus Tantilla. Purchasers of this book should go to page 307 and simply cross out the tongue-twisting "black-headed" and replace it with Blackhead (so much easier pronounced; it just rolls off the tongue -- truly a common name). Highly recommended. Certainly the best book on the subject, and a must for all herpetologists. Buy it quick before they run out of copies.

There are many, even myriad, good things about this book. However, there are a few things I did not like and which, if corrected in a future revision, could turn this book into a world beater in the field of herpetology. First the "bad" things: 1. This book needs a topo and political map or several. Places and physical features are constantly mentioned but, other than the tiny range maps associated with each species account, there is only one map at the front of the book which shows the counties and major cities, that is if you consider Animas and Hobbs to be major cities. 2. The glossary needs improvement. There are many terms which are used constantly which should be defined but are not. For instance, in one species account, a lizard is described as having scales which are "imbricate and mucronate." Just for kicks, I looked in the glossary. "Mucronate" is defined - "imbricate" is not. 3. Find another way to arrange the "List of scientific and common plant names used in the text." There is no arrangement whatsoever to the list. Plants are listed alphabetically by genus under the family. However, the family names are haphazard. Thus, if one does not know the family name, one has to peruse the list from top to bottom to find the plant named in the text. Woe be unto the reader who doesn't know that Helianthus is in the family "Compositae," the last named family. Pardon me for saying this but it appears as if the authors used their college botany texts to research the family names. After years of not complying with nomenclatural convention, the botanists finally joined the world and changed family names to agree with convention. Thus, Compositae became Asteraceae and Gramineae became Poaceae, for example. Also, ALL plants mentioned should be listed, even aquatic plants. Plants are keys to finding reptiles and even subtle differences in plant denizens of a habitat may make a great deal of difference in the animals found there. NOW FOR THE GOOD STUFF The standard items are all found at the beginning of the book, e.g., Foreword, Preface, Acknowledgments followed by a concise Physiographic Sketch of New Mexico (Words, not pictures) which in no way can take the place of a good physical map of the state. One of the best features is a "Brief History of Herpetology in New Mexico" in which the authors give insight into the historical aspects of herpetology in the state. This theme is repeated in the text of the species accounts with interesting snippets of history intermixed with the drier facts of science. A checklist of NM herps is provided and this is where disagreements are going to arise. The authors utilize what some would consider "old" or "controversial nomenclature." However, if one reads the species accounts, all disputed uses of nomenclature are explained. Even though I disagree with some of the generic nomenclature used, the authors gave good and valid reasons for using what they did. There are good keys to all the major groups of herps in NM and they appear detailed enough to lead a novice to the right creature, as long as the scales are not imbricate. The species accounts are very well written except for the occasional typo - "then instead of than", for instance -and give loads of information. Virtually everything one would want to know about an animal is in here. The species accounts follow a format similar to the SSAR Catalogue species accounts and that is not at all bad. It might be good if a majority of this type of book were to follow a similar format. A very fine section of glossy photos is found in the midst of the species accounts. It seems that this is the way publishers are going to make books now so, take it or leave it. The photos, by the way, are arranged in the same manner as the text for fairly easy location. Degenhardt, et al, have compiled a magnificent bibliography with everything you ever wanted to know about New Mexico Herps and where to find it. The authors have years of experience in New Mexico herpetology and have used every one of those years in producing an outstanding volume. It's a little large to carry out in the field but it is worth every penny and when in New Mexico, should be at least carried in the vehicle. This book would be a bargain at twice the price.

This is the most complete compilation of research on biodata avaliable and should be the starting point for anyone interested in biodata. Biodata is examined from a theoretical as well as an applied perspective. The validity of biodata is examined with consideration given to criterion, content, and even construct validity. Pratical concerns addressed include item generation and emperical keying.

This one of the best books I have ever read on why cycles exist and how cycles can be used to improve your investment strategies

This book was an utter delight to read -- I keep it on my bedside table, and give myself the treat of a chapter each night. You wouldn't think that a book on legislation could have that impact, but Eskridge makes the topic fun and riveting, at once.

I've read this book of poems from cover to cover. This writer has lots of passion, a true gift from GOD, I really enjoyed reading "Riding on a Dream" I sent copies of this book to my entire family as gifts, this holiday season.

Fascinating, though too long. I recommend starting with Taylor's _Liberty Men and Great Proprietors_, which seems to have been less of a "labor of love."

The tale of James Fenimore Cooper's father on the New York frontier in the 1790s is an Horatio Alger story run amuck. Born to a poor Quaker farm family, William Cooper learned the craft of making and repairing wheels before reinventing himself as a land speculator, founder of Cooperstown, judge, congressman, patrician farmer and Federalist party powerhouse.

Alan Taylor's WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC is an outstanding biography of an archetypical American character, an extraordinary social history of life and politics on the late eighteenth-century frontier and a brilliant exercise in literary analysis.

This is a wonderful read. Taylor's lively prose, compelling narrative and original, fresh story sustained my interest from cover to cover. I never would have imagined such a dull title could cover such a marvelous book. WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN certainly deserves the Pulitzer Prize it was awarded.

Taylor not only describes William Cooper's rise from rags to riches and even more meteoric fall but analyzes Cooper's political odyssey in America's frontier democratic workshop.

"As an ambitious man of great wealth but flawed gentility, Cooper became caught up in the great contest of postrevolutionary politics: whether power should belong to traditional gentlemen who styled themselves 'Fathers of the People' or to cruder democrats who acted out the new role of 'Friends of the People.'"

Taylor argues "Cooper faced a fundamental decision as he ventured into New York's contentious politics. Would he affiliate with the governor and the revolutionary politics of democratic assertion? Or would he endorse the traditional elitism championed by...Hamilton." "Brawny, ill educated, blunt spoken, and newly enriched," writes Taylor, "Cooper had more in common with George Clinton than with his aristocratic rivals." "For a rough-hewn, new man like Cooper, the democratic politics practiced by Clinton certainly offered an easier path to power. Yet, like Hamilton, Cooper wanted to escape his origins by winning acceptance into the genteel social circles where Clinton was anathema." Taylor concludes "Cooper's origins pulled him in one political direction, his longing in another."

James Fenimore Cooper's third novel, THE PIONEERS, is an ambivalent, fictionalized examination of his father's failure to measure up to the genteel stardards William Cooper set for himself and that his son James internalized. The father's longing became the son's demand.

Taylor analyzes the father-son relationship, strained by Williams decline before ever fully measuring up to the stardards he had set, and the son's fictionalized account of this relationship.

James Fenimore Cooper spent most of his adult life seeking the "natural aristocrat" his father wanted to be and compensating for his father's shortcomings. It is ironic that the person James Fenimore Cooper found to be the embodiment of the "natural aristocrat" his father had longed to be and that he had created in THE CRATER and his most famous character, Natty Bumppo, was the quintessential "Friend of the People"--Andrew Jackson.

I enjoyed this book immensely and give it my strongest recommendation!

This is the story of William Cooper, the founder of Cooperstown, New York, and of how his son, James Fenimore Cooper, used his father's life and experiences in his novels. Described in this way, this sounds like a narrow book, of interest mainly to specialists. But anyone interested in early America should read this book: it reveals truths not only about these two men but about the whole period. One of the key themes of the book is that the Revolution, which in a sense made William Cooper by pushing aside the old aristocracy of New York, also unmade him by creating an anti-aristocratic politics that ousted him and other Federalists in 1800. A fascinating minor detail: the city fathers, in their effort to maintain a proper tone in Cooperstown in the early 1800s, outlawed stick ball, the precursor of baseball.

This is a very objective and informative book on General Longstreet who, had he died at the battle of the Wilderness instead of surviving his very severe wounds, may have had a monument on Monument Ave. in Richmond in spite of not being a Virginian. Longstreet fought all the major campaigns of the Army of Northern Virginia from Manasas up to the Wilderness returning after a recovering from severe wounds to command the Richmond theater during the siege and the final stages of the war. Piston points out well that Longstreet was a steady hand for Lee as he called him my "Old War Horse". Enlightened in that he thought of the war in broad strategic fashion suggesting using the railroad and interior lines to reinforce the west with eastern soldiers and he even offered to go himself which he did in time for the battle of Chickamaugua. Longstreet's role in Gettysburg is well discussed particularly the Lost Cause syndrome led by Jubal Early who pins the entire war on Longstreet at Gettysburg. Ironically, Early's original memoirs make no mention of any criticisms of Longstreet until after Lee's death when Early finds a niche to match his abrasive leadership style. Often critics suggest that Longstreet failed in Suffolk, Knoxville and East Tennessee; however, Piston notes that in Suffolk and Knoxville he was laying siege to forces equal or larger than his own that stayed within their works. The attack at Fort Sanders was a severe failure and in the East Tennessee campaign Longstreet performs well but the low point was Longstreet's dealing with personnel in difficult circumstances. Piston demonstrates how Davis micromanaged when he writes of Davis' interference with Longstreet personnel issues. Impressive that after his wounding Longstreet returns for any command that Lee will give him. Piston quickly covers Longstreet's post war career as a businessman, a republican who enters Louisiana's controversial political scene, leads the Police on horseback against a mob only to be attacked himself, his Republican connections and maneuvering for political plum jobs and his final days as a hotel owner and vineyard grower in lovely Gainesville, Georgia. Longstreet's post war writings are covered which had Longstreet been more accurate in his views or memories, his legacy may have stood taller and less challenged.
His criticisms of some of Lee's decisions and turning Republican cost him dearly in the south but he steadfastly refused to change to suit others. The most endearing part of the book is Piston's telling of Longstreet and Dan Sickles after a joyous round of spirits, they walk each other repeatedly back to each others door refusing to end the night of the two most controversial generals who were at Gettysburg.

Piston's book is the first modern account of the first soldier of the Confederacy. Controversial both during and after the war, James Longstreet is one of the most fascinating and forgotten figures in American history. Second in command of the Army of Northern Virginia, Longstreet was the only senior officer who was with that army from the first battle at Manassas to the surrender at Appomattox. He was in command of the most famous attack in American history, Pickett's Charge. His most notable victories included Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness. After the war, he did several things considered unpardonable sins by most Southerners, some of whom still cannot forgive him to this day. First, he dared to criticize Robert E. Lee and his conduct of the battle of Gettysburg. Second, he reconciled with his conquerors, became a Republican, and accepted appointive federal offices from four out of the next six presidents of the United States, including President Grant, to whom he was related by marriage. Even worse, he became a Catholic in a staunchly Protestant South. Most important of all, he promoted a doctrine of racial reconciliation that is as relevant today as it was 135 years ago.

"Longstreet is the one Rebel general who's memory hasn't been romanticized." Yikes. That "who's" deserves grammatical capital punishment.

I particularly enjoyed this book because it came as a complete surprise to me that it existed and when I stumbled across it in the Christchurch library I couldn't put it down-as I read initially about the family members I knew and then more widely.later I found it also in teh Auckland Public library
I have spotted a few factual errors in book but nothing that outweighs the enormous effort the late Helena Jacobs put in . It is actually one of 3 books on the Jacobs-Norley family and all of them are huge!

If there was one single book that has infuenced my hobby of genealogy it has been teh work of Helena Jacobs who, though I never met her, showed me how family history could be done

It was my privilege to provide some detail for this book, after hearing of the auther from the late Geoffery Meynal Norley, of Myrtleford, Victoria, Australia. A copy is with the Soc. of Gen. in London U.K., but is a must for every Norley, particularly the Kent, branch (Devon, Cheshire, must fit in someplace?) I contributed photos of my Great grandfather and family etc. Having met many Norleys, the family likeness, whether, tall, thin, nordic or short dark stretches across generations sometimes (i.e. 1780 branch off-- Geoff and my father and Uncle, a distant relative in Melbourne via Offham, Kent are all 'from the same mold'. The American pictures show the same family likeness, staring back at you. Pity they cannot speak... then again! I would be interested to know of the authers condition. George Norley.

i found this book to be a struggle to read.It is painfully obvious that the authors have attempted to build a minor engagement into something just short of Bull Run and/orGettysburg. They try hard but in my opinion they do noy carry it off.

Piston and Hatcher have produced an excellently detailed overview of the events and participants in the battle and over the surrounding region during the summer of 1861. By beginning with unit histories of the various units engaged, the reader gains a sense of identity with the men who fought and died there. The method itself is excellent, but would be difficult to apply to later engagements in the war. The central arguement, that Civil War soldiers were motivated by strong allegiances to their home communities, is well substantiated, but may also be useful only for engagements at the outset of the war. Other authors have successfuly shown that this motivation waned, and that national ideology and identity with the adopted community, the unit, sustained men later in the war. The book's major fault is an unbalanced interpretation of events, especially when the leaders of both forces are concerned. Lyon is labeled a madman and Sigel is portrayed as grossly incompetent, while southern commanders are lionized and noticeably escape criticism. The author's assertion that the Missouri State Guard somehow represents a lawful military force evaporates when that same force, guaranteed under the Constitution, raises arms against federal authorities charged with protection of that same Constitution. Overall, the work is excellently researched, especially from local sources, and improved my comprehension of the tragic confrontation.

I love a book that can pull you into it. This ones certainly does. It's been several years since I toured the battlefield at Wilson's Creek, but Piston and Hatcher do an excellent job in bringing out map details and troop movements that it felt like I was on the battlefield again but this time feeling the intense battle struggle between the two sides. The details on each regiment that fought at Wilson's Creek, North and South, was excellent.

This play can be read as anti-semitic. In fact, it's pretty hard to defend it from such charges. Shylock is a pretty rotten character and the fact that he is jewish is difficult to overlook (particularly since the other characters mention it on pretty much EVERY page). However, I think it is important to mention that the "heroes" of this play do not necessarily have to be interpreted as heroes. They are by no means perfect and there are many subtle (and some not-so-subtle) instances within the text in which their biases against ANYONE unlike them is illustrated. If one reads the play this way, then Shylock becomes more of a tragic figure rather than an absolutely heartless villain. I don't know. My feelings about this are mixed. There are a few funny parts of this play and the language is, as always, beautiful. The theme of putting a price on human beings is one which has been explored numerous times since. Overall, it is enjoyable, but perhaps not so much so as some of the other comedies. Do not read this play without having read a few others by Shakespeare first. It is an excellent play, but not his best and not his most enjoyable either.

After reading most of the other reviews here, I am fully aware that most of the reviewers didn't read carefully enough (or watch carefully enough if they saw the play.) Now, I'm not saying its not open for different interpretations, but there is one thing I would really like to get straight.

I read MoV for a Bar Mitzvah project on Anti-Semitism. Naturally, my sympathies went to Shylock. However, even if i were Christian, i still would've favored Shylock. What many people believe is that Shylock is a cold hearted ruthless person and only wanted to get back at Antonio because Antonio was a Christian.

Not true. Shylock specifically says something along the lines off, "Why should I lend money to you? You spit on me, and call me a Jewish dog!" I'm not saying that Shylock was a good guy, but I am saying that he is not the villain.

In fact, the "Merchant of Venice," in this story is actually Shylock, not Antonio, contrary to popular belief. My thoughts on the story was that Shylock requested a pound of Antonio's flesh because he did not trust Antonio. Who would trust someone that spat on him? The fact is, Antonio doesn't pay him back in the end.

Now, there's always something else we have to put into consideration. Would the judge had given the "spill one ounce of Christian blood" verdict at the end if Shylock were not a Jew?

This is the mark of a great play. A play that really gets you thinking. But I encourage you, I beg of you, that when you read it or see it, please do not hold Shylock up to being a cold hearted villain. Hold Antonio up to that image. (joking, of course, Antonio's not a bad guy, he's just not a good guy.)

This is a wonderful play - and unless you have seen it or read it you don't know it at all. That's because everything the popular culture tells us about this play is false (for example; how many of you think this play is about a merchant named Shylock? ;-)

The Merchant of Venice is a lively and happy morality tale. Good triumphs over bad - charity over greed - love over hate.
There is fine comedy. Portia is one of Shakespeare's greatest women (and he ennobled women more than any playwright in history). There are moments of empathy and pain with all the major characters. There is great humanity and earthiness in this play. These things are what elevate Shakespeare over any other playwright in English history.

Plays should be seen - not read. I recommend you see this play (if you can find a theater with the courage and skill to do it). But if it is not playing in your area this season - buy the book and read it.