I need help.......

[Linda Rogers]

At 01:38 PM 5/3/2000 GMT, 

Neil Jones wrote:
In article <390985D4.23E96982 at epix.net> butrfly at epix.net "Rick Mikula" writes:

	"Dave (No Spam, Please)" wrote:  
	I read an article recently which suggests 
	that releasing butterflies at weddings isn't 
	such a great idea.  NABA has a copy on their site.
 
	If you would like to considered other views concerning
	this topic you may consider visiting  	http://Butterflybreeders.org 
	Then click on the menu item "What scientist 
	Are Saying" or "Why releases are okay."

	Perhaps you may want to view both sides before 
	drawing any conclusions.

	R. Mikula

***************************************
Neil Jones replied:

I have no wish to start a flame war. Those who know me know that I have
often spoken out against lawbreakers and dubious salesmen. 

	WHO ARE THE LAWBREAKERS?  WHAT DUBIOUS
	SALESMEN?  

Those who peddle untruths in an attempt to deceive the innocent. 

	ARE THEY UNTRUTHS BECAUSE THEY AREN'T YOUR 
	VIEWS/BELIEFS??  WHAT UNTRUTHS DO YOU
	REFER TO?

I am not doing this to pick a fight but because I know something that I
believe that someone else should know before they make a judgement. That is
to say that someone is trying to deceive people into believing something
which is  not truthful. I am a conservationist and I know there are a
number of anti-conservation activists about so I risk attracting flames.

	NO FLAMES, BUT DEFINITELY A RESPONSE.

The web site which Mr Mikula refers to is not truthful. 
The fact is that ALL insect conservation bodies oppose what this site is
peddling.

	BECAUSE SOMEONE'S OPINIONS ARE IN OPPOSITION
	TO YOURS, THIS MEANS THEY ARE UNTRUE?

My concerns are that while it could be argued that there are two sides to
an argument, this "breeders" website contains information which the
informed will know thoroughly discredits them. I consider that since I know
this I should say so. After all it is only good citizenship to point out to
your fellows when someone is trying to get them to buy a product or an idea
which is peddled by marketing that is not truthful.

	IT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT TO
	PEOPLE THAT THEY NEED TO READ ALL THEY
	CAN TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS, AND NOT JUST
	LISTEN TO ONE PERSON'S IDEAS.  DON'T YOU
	THINK PEOPLE ARE CAPABLE OF FORMING
	INTELLIGENT OPINIONS WITHOUT YOU TELLING
	THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK AND BELIEVE?
	THEY CAN READ YOUR IDEAS AND OPINIONS
	AND THOSE IDEAS AND OPINIONS ON THE 
	WWW.BUTTERFLYBREEDERS.ORG WEBSITE, AND
	FORM A PERSONAL OPINION ALL THEIR OWN
	WITHOUT YOU TELLING THEM IT IS ALL WRONG.

The website quotes a scientist as saying that the kind of releases that it
supports are OK when in fact he is saying the opposite. That releases
should only be performed as part of a scientifically controlled process,
NOT at the wedding of "Bimbo and Rambo" :-)

	IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE SOMETHING,
	AT LEAST DO IT ACCURATELY:

	From The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the 
	Butterfly World by Paul Smart--
	last page of the introduction,
	last sentence:

  "... A positive contribution may be made by aiding 
	conservation projects and by helping to
	breed and release healthy butterflies in
	suitable habitats, though this should always 
	be done as part of a documented and 
	properly organized project."

	NOT "SCIENTIFICALLY CONTROLLED PROCESS" AS
	YOU WROTE.  DON'T TWIST THINGS AROUND.

	BIMBO AND RAMBO??  WHAT A WITTY ONE YOU ARE.

Now there are two possible reasons why they say this :-

1. They are deliberately deceiving people.
2. They do not know the subject well enough to comment.

Either way they are discredited. By all means visit the site but remember
the information is wrong.  

	WE DO KNOW THE SUBJECT AND HAVE SCIENTISTS
	WITH ACCREDITATION EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING YOURS
	THAT DISAGREE WITH YOU.  SINCE WE BELIEVE
	WE "KNOW" THE SUBJECT, THEN WE ARE NOT
	DELIBERATELY DECEIVING PEOPLE.  WE SIMPLY
	HAVE OUR BELIEFS, AS YOU DO.

	BELOW IS A SUMMARY OF ONE SUCH SCIENTIFIC 
	PERSON'S OPINIONS ON THIS SUBJECT,
	FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ IT.
	MR. JONES CHOSE NOT TO MENTION IT.
	THIS SUMMARY ANSWERS MOST OF THE CONCERNS
	RAISED ABOUT BUTTERFLY RELEASES.

***************************

Dr. J. Bruce Walsh, Associate Professor
University of Arizona
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

In addition to being an Associate Professor of Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Walsh is a geneticist, lepidopterist and
co-author of the acclaimed "Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits."

Dr. Walsh is a Member of the Center for Insect Science; a
Faculty Member of the Graduate Interdisciplinary Genetics
Program; and is a Member of the Applied Mathematics Program
at the University of Arizona.

For more information about Dr. Walsh, please refer to his
website at:
www.nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/

Below is a summary of the question and answer exchanges
which have taken place to date on the monarch transfer issue as
it relates to genetic disruption concerns.


CONCERN #1: 
Releases of western Monarchs in the East poses a serious
problem, due to the influx of western genes that will mess up the
gene pool for migratory Eastern populations.

DR. WALSH RESPONSE:
Suppose "western" genes reduced fitness by 50% when
appearing in Eastern populations. In order for the frequency of
such deleterious alleles to be even 1%, the number of monarchs
transposed across the continental divide EACH GENERATION
during the summer breeding period must amount to 0.5% of the
entire eastern monarch population.

If the eastern monarch population is composed of, say
200,000,000 butterflies, this amounts to transposing 1,000,000
monarchs EACH SUMMER BREEDING GENERATION just to
get a one percent frequency of these deleterious alleles. If
introductions are stopped at any point, this frequency quickly
decays to zero.

So introduction of deleterious alleles (if indeed these
are there, this has not yet been demonstrated) from
transfers do not poses a threat.

One can always be worried about possible risks, however risks
need to be demonstrated as being real or potential.

If potential, there needs to be data to support this case, such as
east-west hybrids having reduced fitness coupled with transfer
rates being such that the majority of the population is due to
transfers.


CONCERN #2:
The amount of gene flow between E-W is probably very low. If it
is substantially less than 1% per generation it is certainly
possible that the E and W monarch populations are genetically
distinct. Low rates of migration could keep the populations
homogenized at neutral loci which could be why the few genetic
studies that have compared eastern and western monarch
populations haven't found differences. But if eastern and western
monarchs are differentiated at non-neutral loci, transfers will very
likely mask any degree of natural differentiation at neutral genetic
loci presently occurring in natural populations.

DR. WALSH RESPONSE: 
If a loci (neutral or non-nuetral) has any significant negative
effects on fitness (as seems to be the concern here), it is rapidly
removed by natural selection. This is especially true if it starts
out at a low frequency to begin with.


CONCERN #3: 
Mildly deleterious alleles could be carried for many generations
as long as the adaptiveness of the whole organism remained
high.

DR. WALSH RESPONSE: 
Natural selection removes deleterious alleles so that the
population mean fitness has no significant moderate or
long-term decline.

Further, the frequency of any such (hypothetical) deleterious
alleles introduced during a transfer would be low --- if the
deleterious allele were fixed in the western populations, then its
frequency would be no greater than the fraction of the entire
population due to transplants.


CONCERN #4
We do not have a yardstick to judge at what level of genetic
divergence is it okay to introduce two allopatric populations.

DR. WALSH RESPONSE:
It is common for natural selection to produced sibling species
that similar at 99% of their genetic loci, but have distinct
differences at a few genetic loci. Similarly, we don't know
whether there are small, but evolutionary significant differences
in the western and eastern population.

I am unconvinced that the definitive genetic study has
been conducted on Monarch butterflies.

If there has been even a trivial amount of gene flow
historically (say through the continental divide) then
these issues are largely moot.


CONCERN #5:
There may have been enough isolation that the two populations
may have some parapatric genetic variation going on that could
reduce the resistance to disease, predation or some other
environmental factor.

DR. WALSH RESPONSE: 
In other words, deleterious alleles would be introduced.

Natural selection removes these alleles.


CONCERN #6:
When a large number of loci underlie a trait (for example, fitness
is a trait influenced by a large number of loci) natural selection
may retain deleterious alleles because of so much selection
occurring on other loci.

DR. WALSH RESPONSE: 
Selection is extremely efficient. If a loci has any significant
negative effects on fitness it is rapidly removed by natural
selection. This is especially true if it starts out at a low frequency
to begin with.

The thread of this concern seems to be pleiotropy --- where a
gene effects several characters. For example, a particular allele
might have some local benefit but then become deleterious (say
larvae grow faster, but are poorer migrators). In such cases, the
overall selection is still deleterious, and the alleles are removed
as before, requiring strong amounts of migration (via
transplantation) to keep the allele frequencies above trivial levels.


CONCERN #7:
You are assuming that the deleterious gene gets introduced into
a large randomly breeding population; suppose that it gets
introduced into a very small localized breeding group?

DR. WALSH RESPONSE:
With such a metapopulation structure, a deleterious allele that
gets fixed by drift in a local deme must spread to other demes.
Monty Slatkin has looked at fixation probabilities under such
schemes. The net result is that fixation probability of a
deleterious allele is not significantly increased by such a
population structure.


CONCERN #8:
Releases would undermine future attempts to look at the
historical migration patterns. In other words, it would be
impossible to sort out historical migration patterns if recent
transfers have occurred.

DR. WALSH RESPONSE:

If the concern is that transfers may confound attempts
to use population-level variation to sort out the
historical levels of migration, no need to worry.

A variety of standard approaches (such as the levels of local
linkage disequilibrium for closely-linked molecular markers) can
be used to distinguish between a historical low background level
of gene flow versus a recent (perhaps man-induced) pulse. If
historically there has been a low-level of migration (perhaps a
few strays across the divide each generation), then the pattern
of genetic variation is structured differently from the pattern
produced by recent migration. In particular, rare alleles (common
western alleles rare in eastern populations) will be more evenly
spread across haplotypes different combinations of alleles at
other loci), while under recent migration, rare western-specific
alleles will tend to be much more clustered.

DR. WALSH RESPONSE IN MORE DETAIL:

Upon reading some of the recent (and past) posts on transfers, I
was struck that a major (perhaps the driving) undercurrent is not
really biological concern for the population, but rather that such
releases would undermine future attempts to look at the
historical migration patterns.

As I briefly commented on recently, this need not be
the case if some of the more recent molecular marker
methods are used.

With our ability to quickly look at the DNA sequence of just about
any gene from just about any organism, we can directly score
variation at the DNA level. Two types of variation in the sequence
of DNA bases have been used as molecular markers --- Single
nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, often pronounced "snips")
and Simple tandem arrays (STRs, often pronounced "strips").
SNPs are differences in single base pairs between some
individuals in the population at a particular location in the DNA,
while STRs are changes in the size of DNA regions showing
repeats. For example, GGATATATATCG is a region of DNA with
three "AT" repeats, while GGATATATCG has only three repeats.
Such simple short repeats tend to mutate at high rates (and
hence give different array sizes), while SNPs have far lower
mutation rates. Because of these differences in mutation rates,
one can use a linked pair of SNP-STR sites to actually gauge the
age of this DNA region relative to a standard from which it was
drawn. For example, if (say) at a particular SNP, western
populations tend to have an "A" allele, while eastern populations
have another base (say "C"), when we can estimate the age of
the "A" allele in our sample (from its western origin) by looking at
the frequencies of linked SNPs.

This allows us to distinguish between very recent migration
events (such as might occur via transfers) from historical
migration events (those which have occurred at lower
frequencies, but at a relatively constant rate over long periods of
time). This approach has been widely used by human population
geneticists (such as the Kidds at Yale) to date both recent and
historical human migrations.

DR. WALSH GENERAL COMMENTS:
The concern about transfers have never been stated in terms of
explicit models with
parameters and assumptions that we can examine/debate.
Clearly, I'm sure some of my numbers may be too high or too
low, but we can examine the consequences of those changes to
see if they have a real impact. In other works, we can do
hypothesis testing.

Are there examples where introduction of individuals from one
closely-related population (at low levels) of the same species
into another have had significant consequences?

This is the working assumption against transfers, but in order
to claim it as a problem, there must either be
reasonable models as to why it would pose a threat or
at least previous examples demonstrating this indeed
has happened.












"The sun shines not on us, but in us.
The rivers flow not past,
but through us."
                  -- John Muir