NOTE: If you do not want your serenity disturbed DO NOT READ
Paul Cherubini
monarch at saber.net
Tue Jan 25 20:30:38 EST 2005
Stan, Chris Kline of the Boyce Thompson Arboretum, Superior, Arizona
explained the following in a post to SoWestLep at yahoogroups.com
today:
"the only role that Mr. Cherubini has played with our Southwest
Monarch Study was that he was the lucky pup that was made
aware of this blue tag. The prior posting [Bob Pyle's posting below]
made our Arizona project sound like some "waste of time,
misconcieved bunch of chimps" that Mr. Cherubini had
coerced to do this lame exercise. For the record, Mr. Cherubini
has no involvment with us other than being supportive enough
to look for our tags. THX chris"
==============================================
Chris Kline was responding to what Bob Pyle
<tlpyle at willapabay.org> had written yesturday:
All,
The recovery of a Californian monarch transferred to Arizona for
release, in Michoacan, is interesting and not unexpected. But it is
worthless as regards any knowledge of what monarchs originating in
Arizona might or might not actually do. In Chasing Monarchs, and in
my recent paper with Lincoln Brower in the U of Az Press book on
Migratory Pollinators and Their Corridors (ed. Gary Nabhan), I
showed data for monarchs originating in Arizona crossing into
Mexico, and predicted that Arizona monarchs will be
found in Mexico, at Michoacan or elsewhere. However,
Cherubini--and we have had this discussion many times before,
because he just doesn't get it--does NOT illuminate natural
movements of monarchs by practicing releases based on transfers.
Understand: a monarch moved from site A to site B and recovered
at site C says absolutely nothing about what monarchs originating
at site B do in nature. There is a profound error of logic in
Cherubini's assumptions.
In fact, it was transfer exercises he took part in decades ago
(these are not experiments--there are no controls), moving Cal.
monarchs to BC and elsewhere and mapping recoveries, that led
to the erroneous maps and models which appeared in books and
articles for more than a generation. I dismissed these in Chasing
Monarchs and explained why we need maps based on
unmanipulated distributions.
If these transfer hijinks of Cherubini's--which are illegal on at least
one level, unethical on others--are mixed in with recoveries of
naturally occurring monarchs, as his recent map does, a whole
new series of erroneous conclusions will be promulgated.
Monarch conservation needs clear information on the whereabouts
and movements of monarchs in the absence of human
interference. Map dots based on transfers are scientifically
bankrupt and nothing more than a curiosity.Arizona monarchs
do go to Mexico--as I published in 2000--but this find of a monarch
monkeyed with by Cherubini does not prove a thing
about real Arizona monarchs. All it says is that a California
monarch placed in Arizona can arrive in Michoacan. Of some i
nterest, but no great discovery after all, and of no enduring
value except as an artificial curiosity.
R. M. Pyle
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
More information about the Leps-l
mailing list