Northward creep of C. gemma and H. sosybius
John Shuey
jshuey at TNC.ORG
Tue Oct 7 10:34:47 EDT 2003
Over the last few years, several folks have noticed that 2 satyrs, Cyllopsis
gemma and Hermeuptychia sosybius, are showing up at more and more spots in
Indiana - seemingly creeping northward. For example - Shull's book, The
Butterflies of Indiana, doesn't even record H. sosybius and lists one
extreme south county for C. gemma. Today, you can't hardly go to wooded
site along the Ohio River now and not encounter either of these species.
And C. gemma is now known from well off the Ohio River - like 50 miles.
Of course there are lots of explanations - and I've only been kicking around
Indiana for 10 years - but I find it hard top believe that these two species
could have been so badly missed for all those years. Has anyone seen a
similar northward shift of range over the last decade for these species in
other parts of the country?
John
_________________
John Shuey
Director of Conservation Science
Indiana Office of The Nature Conservancy
-----Original Message-----
From: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2003 7:40 AM
To: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [leps-talk] Digest Number 736
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/CCYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
TILS Motto: "We can not protect that which we do not know" © 1999
Subscribe: TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
Post message: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TILS-leps-talk/messages
Unsubscribe: TILS-leps-talk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
For more information: http://www.tils-ttr.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 17 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. RE: Re: [SoWestLep] Battus philenor/hirsuta split
From: "Grkovich, Alex" <agrkovich at tmpeng.com>
2. collecting near San Jose, Ca.
From: Bill Rhodes <lepidop at yahoo.com>
3. monarch etc
From: Norbert Kondla <colias at shaw.ca>
4. Re: Monarch Migration Predicted to be Extinct within 16 years
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch at saber.net>
5. Cherubini's conspiracy theories
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk
6. RE: Cherubini's conspiracy theories
From: "Grkovich, Alex" <agrkovich at tmpeng.com>
7. Re: Cherubini's conspiracy theories
From: Chuck Vaughn <aa6g at aa6g.org>
8. Re: Monarch Migration Predicted to be Extinct within 16 years
From: "Jorge Bizarro" <jbizarro at uol.com.br>
9. Re: Cherubini's conspiracy theories
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
10. Re: CB is back!!
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
11. Polygonia or Polygonum?
From: "Harry Pavulaan" <harrypav at hotmail.com>
12. Re: Cherubini's conspiracy theories
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch at saber.net>
13. Re: Monarch Migration Predicted to be Extinct within 16 years
From: "Harry Pavulaan" <harrypav at hotmail.com>
14. ISMERIA
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
15. Re: Monarch Migration Predicted to be Extinct within 16 years
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch at saber.net>
16. BACK IN THE USSA
From: "Charles Bordelon" <legitintellexit at earthlink.net>
17. Re: ISMERIA
From: "John Calhoun" <John.Calhoun at SempermedUSA.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:31:20 -0400
From: "Grkovich, Alex" <agrkovich at tmpeng.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [SoWestLep] Battus philenor/hirsuta split
Well, the fact that they're also geographically isolated makes one wonder as
well...I have taken philenor (nominate) in Lake Havasu City (Aug. 88)...
Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken E Davenport [SMTP:flutterflies at juno.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 2:23 AM
> To: richard-hollywood at gay.com; SoWestLep at yahoogroups.com;
> TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [leps-talk] Re: [SoWestLep] Battus philenor/hirsuta split
>
> Richard and all:
> RE: the question of whether Battus philenor hirsuta is really a
> subspecies of the Pipevine Swallowtail or a separate species.
> Paul Opler in his post may have been referring to a recent article in
> the NEWS of the LEPIDOPTERIST'S SOCIETY (Volume 44 Number 2) which
> appeared in the summer of 2002.
> The article is titled "Is Battus philenor hursuta a subspecies?" and
> was written by Andrei Sourakov and Jared Daniels.
> The article shows photographs of Battus philenor hirsuta and larvae of
> both nominate "philenor" and "hirsuta" and discusses the differences.
> They also discuss problems hand pairing the two and lack of success in
> rearing offspring successfully. None of the larvae pupated successfully.
> The two may be reproductively isolated despite phenotypic similarities
> of the adults. The California "hirsuta" tends to be smaller than the
> nominotypical "philenor" and has a hairier body, and feeds on a different
> species of pipevine.
> Any further comments from others? Is more research being done or has
> been done?
>
>
> Best Wishes, Ken Davenport
> flutterflies at juno.com or kdavenport at tils-ttr.org
> For more information: http://www.tils-ttr.org
> TILS Motto: "We can not protect that which we do not know" © 1999
>
>
> TILS Motto: "We can not protect that which we do not know" © 1999
>
> Subscribe: TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
> Post message: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
> Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TILS-leps-talk/messages
> Unsubscribe: TILS-leps-talk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> For more information: http://www.tils-ttr.org
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
CAUTION PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is
intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended
recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that we do not intend to waive
any privilege that might ordinarily be attached to this communication. Any
dissemination, distribution or copying of the information contained in this
transmission is therefore prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of
any such error in transmission as soon as possible at the telephone
number/email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 07:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Rhodes <lepidop at yahoo.com>
Subject: collecting near San Jose, Ca.
Well, my collection (and all my other belongings and
cars) are on their way to our new home in San Jose,
Ca., as I write this - I hope!
Turns out the very first weekend I am there (the 18th
and 19th) my wife leaves for a business trip back east
- meaning I can do some exploring and collecting. Can
anyone point me in the direction of some collecting
areas within an hour's drive of San Jose?
Thanks,
Bill
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 08:07:10 -0700
From: Norbert Kondla <colias at shaw.ca>
Subject: monarch etc
Paul said: "Dr. Brower also told the audience that the monarch could be
saved from doom if the govenment would provide over $100,000,000 to
funding to monarch conservation organizations"
NK says: $100,000,000 to 'save' one of the most common and widespread
butterflies on the planet ?? This request for funding has an odd ring to
it. It strikes me as realistic as asking for $15,000,000 for the
recovery of a S. zerene subspecies as proposed in a publicly available
'plan'. I guess what is considered as 'reasonable' by one person is
viewed as a 'pipedream' by others :-) It is an interesting world we live
in ---
Norbert Kondla P.Biol., RPBio.
PO Box 244
Genelle, British Columbia, Canada V0G 1G0
colias at shaw.ca
Phone (250) 693-2344
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:51:54 +0000
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch at saber.net>
Subject: Re: Monarch Migration Predicted to be Extinct within 16 years
Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> The jury is the Monarchs. They are the proof in the pudding. Thus, there
> are three voices. The two opposing human camps (par for the course)....
> yadda, yadda. Same old factional rhetoric. And then there are the
> Monarchs themselves. They are the _only_ ones we can fully trust. So
> far, they seem to be doing just fine. Or, as well (or bad) as they have
> always done for the last 15,000 years.
Right now in Texas, monarch watchers are seeing the sky full of migrant
monarchs on their way to Mexico - see sample report below:
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 00:19:40 -0400
From: BROnzeBow1 at AOL.COM
Subject: a huge wave thru Ft Worth
To: TX-BUTTERFLY at LISTSERV.UH.EDU
After I didn't see anyone around the Ft Worth Botanic Garden trial
beds at the 2:00 pm time... I hung around for awhile watching
something I've never seen before: Monarchs headed west-southwest
thru the bot garden in the usual route... but all were at treetop height
to a few hundred feet up. I only saw one individual nectaring all
afternoon. In all the last few years when I have been
tagging, individuals were easy picking at the flowers. For the most
part there were two to five monarchs in sight somewhere in the sky
at all times... until about 25 after two.... suddenly there were some ,
then some more... then dozens... then hundreds.
A guage I figured was to put index fingertips together, & thumb tips
together to form a circle to view through with hands held out at arm's
length. All parts of the visible sky (above the treetops in all directions)
held ten to fifteen monarchs in the area described by my finger guage
continuously for about twenty-five minutes !!!! Really major numbers...
Cheers!
Dp in Ft Worth
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:09:56 +0100
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk
Subject: Cherubini's conspiracy theories
Ron Gatrelle wrote:-
>Don,
> Your post was practical and fair. Sadly, what this long time debate >
comes down to is that some think the Brower et al and Monarch > situation is
mostly to fully plain old fraud. Thus, there is an > annual accusation that
there is an annual fire-in-the-theater cry. > The "fire" never comes to pass
and so the cry goes out the next year > and the next. The funds keep coming
in, the programs go on, and > personal fame swells. The Monarchs? They just
keep keeping on.
Ron,
You are grossly in error. I am sorry that we find ourselves at odds but
there is no question but that you are WRONG!
I regret that yet again I have to tell everyone about Paul Cherubini's
record and I grow weary of doing it. I have to say this but there is no
question about it. You are not examining the data properly but are going on
OPINIONS rather than established facts.
The only thing we know about what Professor Brower said is what Paul
Cherubini says. We differ in what we say about believing Paul. Your mental
pathways let you believe in things on faith and you believe him on faith.
Mine say question everything and I have found by checking what Paul
Cherubini says that Paul Cherubini is dishonest . (I question everything
INCLUDING what Professor Brower says.)
I have been investigating Paul Cherubini's claims for years. They have
repeatedly been found to be false. I have also noticed that you have
followed matters on faith without checking the data. You, for example,
previously accused Prof. Brower of fraud on the basis of a false Cherubini
misquote without looking at the written original. The written original
PROVES your concusion FALSE.
What really causes me to dislike Mr Cherubini is his dishonesty. Over the
years he has been repeatly caught misquoting and misrepresenting facts,
figures etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is shown conclusively to be wrong on
one list and he just goes to another one and repeats the same rubbish. He
has even used false identities to do this.
Two examples amongst dozens. He lied when someone asked for help in saving
the world's rarest butterfly. He falsely accused her of campaigning to raise
funds. I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is false, because I
helped her post the message and I designed the website and there is not ,
and never was, any appeal for funds. We just asked people to write letters.
He posted distorted satelite data to try to claim that there was no real
deforestation in Mexico. He didn't realise that the website he had
appropriated the data from would be located and it would be shown that he
had picked low resolution data because they suited his purpose when the high
reolution data showed a different story. This if it happened in a scientific
journal would probably ensure that he would never be published again. This
is the internet though and any nut can get on.
There is further evidence to back up his lack of credibility. That is his
medical history. I am not saying this to be nasty but the survival of the
monarch roosts in Mexico is an important issue and his credibility is being
discussed. According to Sue Halpern's book Four Wings and a Prayer he
apparently confessed that very similar theories about scientists were
classified - BY - HIS - PSYCHIATRIST- as PARANOID.
A look in the archives of various lists will show people saying that he was
an "Oddball" etc., long before the book was published.
On the Entomo-l List, which is dominated by professional scientists, he is
treated as a laughing stock. His lack of honesty in debate there has
frustrated many people. This first example shows a fellow entomologist
venting his frustration at blatent misrepresentation for political purposes.
The colourful language is his not mine but does accurately reflect many
people's feelings. NOTE Cherubini has been MISREPRESENTING the poster!
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:17:23 -0600 From: Richard Fagerlund
"It is normally hard to trip my trigger but Cherubini managed to do it. I
don't really give a rat's ass about his cockeyed opinions, but he took two
of my messages totally out of context. He appears to have a reading
disorder. I will try to control myself in the future as I dislike being
profane. "
Here another person has noticed clearly what Mr. Cherubini is up to.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:56:27 EDT From: John Mclaughlin
"Paul has made his case - you can accept or reject it, but you will get
nowhere arguing with him or trying to present evidence to refute his claims.
He is not in this to be pursuaded or to in any way deviate from the official
company line. I made earlier analogy to "scientists" and other of his ilk
who, for years, clouded the scientific issues surrounding the obviously
highly addictive and health-affecting habit of smoking tobacco. Paul is cut
from their cloth and is comfortable and skilled at their tactics."
I don't know if I'll convince you you are wrong Ron. The likelihood is that
you will continue to BELIEVE Paul Cherubini by FAITH and that I will
continue to KNOW he is not credible from the FACTS.
He will probably not be cured of his problems and will continue with his
odious postings.
My advice to others is don't believe a word he is saying and don't believe a
word of what I am saying. CHECK IT OUT and then you'll find that I am
correct.
The fact is that in real scientific terms Paul Cherubini's arguments do not
stand up. Let's put the issue simply. Deforestation is a problem in many
many many places. (Or is this just part of a conspiracy?) Monarchs live in
roosts in forests (Is this fact a part of a conspiracy?) If the trees are
cut down the monarchs will have no where to roost. ( or is what we know of
Monarchs part of the conspiracy?)
Now I don't know about the accuracy of Professor Brower's predictions but I
have read much his work and it is well researched and his conclusions follow
logically from what is known like any good science.
Paul Cherubini on the other hand is not credible at all except to what I
would politely call "the credulous".
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
Bog National Nature Reserve.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:22:48 -0400
From: "Grkovich, Alex" <agrkovich at tmpeng.com>
Subject: RE: Cherubini's conspiracy theories
Paul,
I'm on YOUR side on this...First, the Monarch CONTINUES to do well (the
Monarch is the proof, as Ron said)...
Second, the request for "$100,000,000" is rather like the recent "request"
for $87 billion to continue murder and occupation in Iraq...Why
$100,000,000? Why not $50,000,000? Won't THAT suffice?
Monarchs are all over the place here in New England...Last time I visited
Point Pelee National Park in Ontario (in Sept. 1997 or thereabouts) they
were all over the trees...
The $100,000,000 would go a long ways toward providing health care for
suffering American citizens...
Alex
PS Liar? Dishonest? Right now I would say not...the Monarch is sitting, so
to speak, on the witness stand, and speaking otherwise...and does not ask
for $100,000,000...
-----Original Message-----
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk
To: tils-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
Cc: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
Sent: 10/6/03 5:09 PM
Subject: [leps-talk] Cherubini's conspiracy theories
Ron Gatrelle wrote:-
>Don,
> Your post was practical and fair. Sadly, what this long time debate >
comes down to is that some think the Brower et al and Monarch >
situation is mostly to fully plain old fraud. Thus, there is an > annual
accusation that there is an annual fire-in-the-theater cry. > The "fire"
never comes to pass and so the cry goes out the next year > and the
next. The funds keep coming in, the programs go on, and > personal fame
swells. The Monarchs? They just keep keeping on.
Ron,
You are grossly in error. I am sorry that we find ourselves at odds but
there is no question but that you are WRONG!
I regret that yet again I have to tell everyone about Paul Cherubini's
record and I grow weary of doing it. I have to say this but there is no
question about it. You are not examining the data properly but are going
on OPINIONS rather than established facts.
The only thing we know about what Professor Brower said is what Paul
Cherubini says. We differ in what we say about believing Paul. Your
mental pathways let you believe in things on faith and you believe him
on faith. Mine say question everything and I have found by checking what
Paul Cherubini says that Paul Cherubini is dishonest . (I question
everything INCLUDING what Professor Brower says.)
I have been investigating Paul Cherubini's claims for years. They have
repeatedly been found to be false. I have also noticed that you have
followed matters on faith without checking the data. You, for example,
previously accused Prof. Brower of fraud on the basis of a false
Cherubini misquote without looking at the written original. The written
original PROVES your concusion FALSE.
What really causes me to dislike Mr Cherubini is his dishonesty. Over
the years he has been repeatly caught misquoting and misrepresenting
facts, figures etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is shown conclusively to
be wrong on one list and he just goes to another one and repeats the
same rubbish. He has even used false identities to do this.
Two examples amongst dozens. He lied when someone asked for help in
saving the world's rarest butterfly. He falsely accused her of
campaigning to raise funds. I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that
this is false, because I helped her post the message and I designed the
website and there is not , and never was, any appeal for funds. We just
asked people to write letters.
He posted distorted satelite data to try to claim that there was no real
deforestation in Mexico. He didn't realise that the website he had
appropriated the data from would be located and it would be shown that
he had picked low resolution data because they suited his purpose when
the high reolution data showed a different story. This if it happened in
a scientific journal would probably ensure that he would never be
published again. This is the internet though and any nut can get on.
There is further evidence to back up his lack of credibility. That is
his medical history. I am not saying this to be nasty but the survival
of the monarch roosts in Mexico is an important issue and his
credibility is being discussed. According to Sue Halpern's book Four
Wings and a Prayer he apparently confessed that very similar theories
about scientists were classified - BY - HIS - PSYCHIATRIST- as
PARANOID.
A look in the archives of various lists will show people saying that he
was an "Oddball" etc., long before the book was published.
On the Entomo-l List, which is dominated by professional scientists, he
is treated as a laughing stock. His lack of honesty in debate there has
frustrated many people. This first example shows a fellow entomologist
venting his frustration at blatent misrepresentation for political
purposes. The colourful language is his not mine but does accurately
reflect many people's feelings. NOTE Cherubini has been MISREPRESENTING
the poster!
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:17:23 -0600 From: Richard Fagerlund
"It is normally hard to trip my trigger but Cherubini managed to do it.
I don't really give a rat's ass about his cockeyed opinions, but he took
two of my messages totally out of context. He appears to have a reading
disorder. I will try to control myself in the future as I dislike being
profane. "
Here another person has noticed clearly what Mr. Cherubini is up to.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:56:27 EDT From: John Mclaughlin
"Paul has made his case - you can accept or reject it, but you will get
nowhere arguing with him or trying to present evidence to refute his
claims. He is not in this to be pursuaded or to in any way deviate from
the official company line. I made earlier analogy to "scientists" and
other of his ilk who, for years, clouded the scientific issues
surrounding the obviously highly addictive and health-affecting habit of
smoking tobacco. Paul is cut from their cloth and is comfortable and
skilled at their tactics."
I don't know if I'll convince you you are wrong Ron. The likelihood is
that you will continue to BELIEVE Paul Cherubini by FAITH and that I
will continue to KNOW he is not credible from the FACTS.
He will probably not be cured of his problems and will continue with his
odious postings.
My advice to others is don't believe a word he is saying and don't
believe a word of what I am saying. CHECK IT OUT and then you'll find
that I am correct.
The fact is that in real scientific terms Paul Cherubini's arguments do
not stand up. Let's put the issue simply. Deforestation is a problem in
many many many places. (Or is this just part of a conspiracy?) Monarchs
live in roosts in forests (Is this fact a part of a conspiracy?) If the
trees are cut down the monarchs will have no where to roost. ( or is
what we know of Monarchs part of the conspiracy?)
Now I don't know about the accuracy of Professor Brower's predictions
but I have read much his work and it is well researched and his
conclusions follow logically from what is known like any good science.
Paul Cherubini on the other hand is not credible at all except to what I
would politely call "the credulous".
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
Bog National Nature Reserve.
TILS Motto: "We can not protect that which we do not know" © 1999
Subscribe: TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
Post message: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TILS-leps-talk/messages
Unsubscribe: TILS-leps-talk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
For more information: http://www.tils-ttr.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
CAUTION PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is
intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended
recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that we do not intend to waive
any privilege that might ordinarily be attached to this communication. Any
dissemination, distribution or copying of the information contained in this
transmission is therefore prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of
any such error in transmission as soon as possible at the telephone
number/email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:09:02 -0700
From: Chuck Vaughn <aa6g at aa6g.org>
Subject: Re: Cherubini's conspiracy theories
I'd like to ask a simple question which probably doesn't have a simple
answer.
How do we *know* that if the preferred trees in Mexico were cut down
that the eastern Monarch migration would cease?
Monarchs seem to be one of the more hardy species and have a way to
survive in a variety of habitats. Why is it unreasonable to think that
they couldn't find other trees with similar conditions in the mountains
of southern Mexico? Yes, I've heard all the theories about temperature
vs. energy drain being a critical balance. Monarchs in California
survive a variety of conditions. The Monarchs that stay around SF Bay
experience colder temperatures than the ones on the coast. Why would
that not be so in Mexico if there was a fire next summer and their
favored group of trees were gone? That must have happened naturally
sometime in the history of the Monarch migration.
Chuck Vaughn <aa6g at aa6g.org>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 19:44:41 -0300
From: "Jorge Bizarro" <jbizarro at uol.com.br>
Subject: Re: Monarch Migration Predicted to be Extinct within 16 years
Hi folks
I just would like to remind you that these kinds of previsions historically
usually happen to be dismissed later or sooner. Does anyone remembers
Malthus (very influencial on Darwin) and his "scientific" prediction that
mankind would starve by the midle of the XX century... or not to go so far;
Paul Erlich's famine from his "exploding"demography [he's a fine
lepidopterist but not so a demographer]... Sincerely how can people figure
out they will certainly forecast climate, population growth, control of
weather and climate change, famine, exctintions... the world and nature are
so complicate, how can simply one mind grasp it all?? - VERY DANGEROUS...
the illusion that we can ultimately forecast and/or control everything [just
look at Iraq] ... "You'll be like God!!"
I can but be sure that I'll be alive tomorrow!!! - I somehow really miss the
times when science was a bit more descriptive of our fabulous Universe ...
By the way, where did I put my copy of Wallace's Malay Archipalego??
Jorge
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:33:27 -0400
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
Subject: Re: Cherubini's conspiracy theories
I haven't gotten to the remaining posts in this thread, but Paul and Neil
will do their jobs which is supply the rest of us with information upon
which we can chew. Don, as a new comer to this debate (I assume) I just
went ahead and popped the top on the can of worms. Might as well get em
all out now.
These are not mean posts - but are impassioned ones by folks who really
consider (or believe) their positions are right.
----- Original Message -----
From: <neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk>
Subject: [leps-talk] Cherubini's conspiracy theories
>
> Ron Gatrelle wrote:-
>
> >Don,
>
> > Your post was practical and fair. Sadly, what this long time debate >
comes down to is that some think the Brower et al and Monarch > situation
is mostly to fully plain old fraud. Thus, there is an > annual accusation
that there is an annual fire-in-the-theater cry. > The "fire" never comes
to pass and so the cry goes out the next year > and the next. The funds
keep coming in, the programs go on, and > personal fame swells. The
Monarchs? They just keep keeping on.
>
>
> Ron,
>
> You are grossly in error. I am sorry that we find ourselves at odds but
there is no question but that you are WRONG!
I find myself in a dysfunctional position in liking both Paul and Neil more
and more as time goes on. Neil, I'd be disappointed in you if you thought
I was wrong and didn't say so as that would be a denial of your own
personhood. I think one can consider someone even an ass h---- at times
and still be friends with and respect them. I appreciate the
graciousness. ....Now back to the war.
Which reminds me, I know those who have dealt with any topic for a long
time get tired of it, but there are always new people who have never heard
of X controversy before. For them, we need to rehash stuff over and over.
If part of the purpose of a list serve is "education and information", then
the "teachers" have to be willing to go over the same material semester
after semester, year after year.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:40:00 -0400
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
Subject: Re: CB is back!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Bordelon" <legitintellexit at earthlink.net>
To: <neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk>; <tils-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Cherubini's conspiracy theories
> Is it OK to yell, "MOVIE" in a crowded firehouse??? I have to agree with
> Neil 100%. I haven't heard one credible thing from PC. Hello, everyone.
> I'm Baaaaackkkk... cb
Oooooooo, YAH!!! How was the tropics??? Bring back anything for me
:-)))))))
Ron
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:46:43 +0000
From: "Harry Pavulaan" <harrypav at hotmail.com>
Subject: Polygonia or Polygonum?
All:
In "Butterflies of Europe" (Princeton Field Guides) by Tom Tolman
(illustrations by Richard Lewington), I note that the author uses the
generic name "Polygonum" for the Anglewing butterflies that we call
"Polygonia". Anybody know what is behind this use of Polygonum?
Harry Pavulaan
_________________________________________________________________
Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
http://msnmessenger-download.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:52:29 +0000
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch at saber.net>
Subject: Re: Cherubini's conspiracy theories
Chuck Vaughn wrote:
> Monarchs seem to be one of the more hardy species and have a way to
> survive in a variety of habitats. Why is it unreasonable to think that
> they couldn't find other trees with similar conditions in the mountains
> of southern Mexico?
It is not unreasonable. On one mountain in Mexico (Chivati-Huacal)
for example, about 5 years ago a forest fire destroyed some traditional
monarch clusters trees. The monarchs merely relocated their clusters
a short distance away to some other unburned trees on the same
mountain http://www.saber.net/~monarch/chivati3.JPG
Now in his public lectures, Dr. Brower shows pictures of this same
burned area, but fails to mention to the audience that a monarch
colony still exists on the mountain or that it is the same
size (about 1/2 hectare = 1.25 acres) as it used to be. Therefore the
public
assumes - in horror - that the fire permanently destroyed the
monarch colony. Dr. Chip Taylor has also made comments
about this mountain could also easily lead the public to believe
the fire permanently destroyed the monarch colony. Here is a picture
from Dr. Taylor's annual newsletter of the
Chivati-Huacal mountain after the fire:
http://www.saber.net/~monarch/chivati.JPG
I believe any reasonable person would assume (wrongly) that a major
monarch colony no longer exists on this mountain based on what Dr.
Taylor wrote.
> Yes, I've heard all the theories about temperature
> vs. energy drain being a critical balance. Monarchs in California
> survive a variety of conditions. The Monarchs that stay around SF Bay
> experience colder temperatures than the ones on the coast. Why would
> that not be so in Mexico if there was a fire next summer and their
> favored group of trees were gone? That must have happened naturally
> sometime in the history of the Monarch migration.
Good point. Example: The climate
in Santa Barbara, CA is substantially warmer and drier in winter than in the
San Francisco Bay Area yet the monarchs overwinter successfully
in both regions in large numbers.
Paul Cherubini
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:59:23 +0000
From: "Harry Pavulaan" <harrypav at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Monarch Migration Predicted to be Extinct within 16 years
Good points, Ron. I'd like to add that most of us probably recall that last
winter there was a dreadful die-off of Monarchs in Mexico and there were
dire predictions of low Monarch numbers this year. I've seen more Monarchs
here in northern Virginia than many of the past years. They are actually
quite common in my garden now and I see them in "good" numbers everywhere,
since around Labor Day. There appears to be a definite rebound over last
year.
I have serious doubts that the Monarch migration will become extinct.
Should the sanctuaries be destroyed, they will likely find other places to
go. The migration may not be in the large numbers we see now, but they will
go on and perhaps someday new sanctuaries will be established and new routes
followed. Monarchs are tough creatures. They have colonized much of the
globe and won't be going extinct anytime soon.
I have two questions to ponder over:
-Could it be that people breeding and releasing Monarchs might have
contributed to a "rebound" this year?
-Could it be that eastern North American Monarchs are going somewhere other
than central Mexico?
Harry Pavulaan
_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer--
sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:04:29 -0400
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
Subject: ISMERIA
Congratulations to John Calhoun on a fabulous job of researching and
tracking down the original Abbot painting of M. ismeria. He found it at
the U. of South Carolina no less- about 90 miles from my home!!!! How
ironic is that :-)
I was relieved to see that the original of ismeria is virtually the same as
the B&L reproduction. As wonderful a job as the finding of the painting
was, my position on ismeria not only remains the same but I am more
convinced than ever. His find has no effect on my bottom line. This is
why I largely ignored the historical debate - everyone has their opinon and
it still proves nothing. I emphasized other factors and facts - elements
that are as strong as ever.
More later, John ;-)
Ron
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:15:17 -0700
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch at saber.net>
Subject: Re: Monarch Migration Predicted to be Extinct within 16 years
In several publications from 1988-1991 Dr, Brower predicted
the likely extinction of the monarch migration by the year 2000.
Here is just one example of what Dr. Brower wrote in the journal
American Zoologist in 1991
http://www.saber.net/~monarch/extinction2.jpg
Brower, L. P., Malcolm, S. B. 1991. Animal migrations: Endangered
phenomena. American Zoologist 31:265-276
Paul Cherubini
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:33:15 -0500
From: "Charles Bordelon" <legitintellexit at earthlink.net>
Subject: BACK IN THE USSA
"Flew in from Miami Beach BOAC, didn't get to bed last night..." Thank you
for the warm welcome, Ronnie G...! Dudes, I don't know where to begin.
I'm still just overwhelmed from the experience! I am still trying to
compose something meaningful after my return from Nymphalid City!!! Tonight
would be futile, I'm afraid. I'm so wired! Not so much I'm incoherent, as
just trying get myself in some kinda order. "Give me some time to unpack my
case, honey, disconnect the phone..." (Hit it, George) We brought back
over 3000 specimens of insects to determine for the U. of Quito. About 300
species of Arctiids alone. Lordy... Anyways, I got something for you,
Ronnie G. I don't know what yet. There's a lot to sort. A LOT. Rode home
in a stretch, and basically crashed... Mounting some nice Copiopteryx this
evening, all with tails intact and A-1. A few BIG beetles, to boot. I have
to go to the hardware store tomorrow to find some SPECIAL NAILS.
QUARTER-POUNDERS WITH CHEESE... I WILL TRY TO COLLECT MY THOUGHTS THIS
EVENING, and send a hopefully good report tomorrow, if anyone is interested.
Otherwise, I think I'll just watch the ball game tonight, and just try to
unwind... My thanks for your prayers, and the undying generosity and mercy
of the One Great Higher Power. (No, not me.) The other one. You know him,
Ronnie... Paz, y man~ana, amigos... cb
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:01:07 -0000
From: "John Calhoun" <John.Calhoun at SempermedUSA.com>
Subject: Re: ISMERIA
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your kind words, but I'm sorry to see that you do not
accept my conclusions. I did my best to state my position and support
my arguments. I personally feel that ignoring the historical aspects
of science prevents one from seeing the entire picture.
I urge all those interested to decide for yourselves. Don't take my
word for it, nor that of Ron. I have carefully and clearly stated my
case. I could defend my position in posting after posting in this
talk group, but my paper must stand on its own. I've already said
what I believe needed to be said.
It is now up to readers, other authors, and the ICZN to decide the
final fate and future treatment of ismeria.
John
Ron Gatrelle wrote:
"His find has no effect on my bottom line. This is why I largely
ignored the historical debate - everyone has their opinon and it
still proves nothing."
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
More information about the Leps-l
mailing list