Size of the overwintering monarch populations - published data.

Stanley A. Gorodenski stan_gorodenski at
Sun Oct 12 21:40:59 EDT 2003

I think my last sentence was not very clear and so let me do it again.

Chip Taylor wrote:

> Watch Season Summary. Measurement of some of the monarch colonies 
> began in the late 70's but there was no attempt to travel to and 
> measure all of the colonies until the winter of 1995/96. Some of these 
> data were published previously in the

This is interesting. In a previous message I said regarding Paul's time 
"For example, if the large migratory population in the middle of Paul's 
time series is the result of researchers having learned how to best 
measure migration size during the beginning of the time period, then the 
more recent drop in numbers (although comparable to the magnitude level 
at the beginning of the series) would be something to be even more 
concerned about. "

What I was getting at is that if the counts at the beginning of the 
series were the results of undercounts (and it seems so from what you 
said), then the drop as shown in recent numbers may be something to be 
even more concerned about because the claim can be less easily made that 
it is a natural fluctuation - the first part of the series reflect 
undercounts and so one cannot claim it is a natural drop. In light of  
this, is ths drop in the recent part of the series something to be more 
concerned about?


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list