Monarchs and Monoculture in southern Michigan

Neil Jones neil at
Fri Aug 26 18:59:37 EDT 2005

On Friday 26 August 2005 20:45, Kenelm W Philip wrote:
> > The major and overwhelming factor in determining tag recovery
> > numbers in Mexico is the weather there.
> Can Neil explain to us how the weather at the overwintering
> sites affects the _ratio_ between recovered tagged Monarchs
> from the east and from the midwest? I fail to see the connection
> here...
> 		Ken Philip

I am very surprised that you are asking this question.
To me it is absolutely obvious. The data cannot be relied upon to provide the 
results you are looking for because there aren't enough of them.
Some of the figures we are looking at are in single figures. A 10 or 20% 
change could easily be masked by chance  alone.

It is also obvious for the reason that we don't know the starting figures 
because we don't know what the initial numbers of tagged monarchs were in 
each area.  From what I am seeing on the net there has been quite a change in 
the number of people involved.

Thirdly, as ever, Paul Cherubini, has failed to qualify his data properly. For 
example he knows quite well that the 2004 figures cannot be used to form a 
conclusion for the following reasons.
1. The 70 to 1 ratio is reliant on the fact that only a single record makes 
the 1 figure. chance could easily change it.
2. Not all the tags will have been handed in yet. Anyone who has read Dplex-l
and he still is obviously reading it despite being banned would know this. It 
takes several years to get all the tags handed in.

Of course as we know he will never let bad data get in the way of a good piece 
of fake science. 

Even if these figures were to be found to be representative and accurate and 
there is no effect on Monarchs. His major premise about GM crops being 
harmless (which he has been claiming for years) still falls on simple obvious 
ecology. Other species are bound to fe affected if their foodplants are 
killed off by weedkiller.

More industrialised agriculture =less habitat.
Less habitat = fewer animals.

You know Ken up there in Alaska you don't seem to understand what modern 
agriculture is doing to butterfly populations. Over here in the UK recent 
research, including the world's largest ever butterfly survey, shows that 
over 70% of our butterfly species have delined over the last 20 years and 
they were declining long before that. We have also lost around 98% of the 
flower rich meadows.

Again Ecology 101 less habitat = fewer animals.

Neil Jones- Neil at


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list