I need help.......

Paul Cherubini cherubini at mindspring.com
Wed May 3 22:49:27 EDT 2000

Geneticist Patrick Foley wrote:

> 2) Bruce seems to assume that the burden of proof
> should lie with on the anti-releasers. This is point of view would not be held by
> anyone working in biological control.

90% of all the butterflies raised and released in the USA (48 contiguous states) by 
commercial and educational breeders involve just two species: The Monarch and Painted
Lady. The Monarch and Painted Lady naturally range and breed in all 48 states. 
In the case of the Monarch, about 100,000 are annually raised and released by
breeders into a nationwide population of about 200,000,000.
Now lets assume the burden of proof of no harm should lie with the pro-releasers.
Pat, can you list specific scientific studies that the pro-releasers should 
sponsor or conduct that would satisfy this "burden of proof" in regard to these 
two species?

> 3) There are some dangers (discussed by me
> and others in posts last year) that Bruce is not mentioning, such as disease,
> transposons, runaway sexual selection etc. that could cause major problems from an
> apparently minor release.

Can you be more specific about what sorts of "major problems" might
develope from annual releases of 100,000 Monarchs and 200,000 Painted Ladies 
within the 48 states?

> Releases would bollox up many kinds of future
> scientific studies on phylogeography (the geography of micro- and meso-
> evolution)

Can you be specific about what you mean by "bollox"?  Can you present us
with a math based model that describes the assumptions that would 
have to be made for this type of harm to realized? For example, how many
Monarchs or Painted Ladies would have to be released annually over what 
amount of land area? 

Paul Cherubini, Placerville, California

More information about the Leps-l mailing list