IP: Re: Re: Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>From: "Larry Andrew" <LLAndrew@powersurge.net>
>To: <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>Subject: Re: Re:  Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?
>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:02:57 -0500
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
>
>Dave,
>I forwarded the "Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?" message to a few
>friends, one of whom responded with the following thoughts.
>Larry Andrew
>============================
>(snip)
>
>[the author] is on to something potentially vitally important both
>ecologically and economically.  Examples of well-meaning goofs that brought
>disaster are as follows:
>
>1.  In 1904, Chinese chestnut trees were imported into New York City.  A
>fungus living in the bark of the trees destroyed nearly to extinction the
>single most valuable tree species of North America - the much mourned
>American Chestnut.  They grew fast like pine, but the wood was strong,
>light,
>and rot resistant.  In mature forests, chestnuts were often 1/4 of the total
>tree count.  Now, only dead stumps and a few sprouts remain.  Old folks cry
>when they are reminded of the event.
>
>2.  English settlers brought their "beloved" pet birds over to the new world
>- English sparrows and starlings.  These two dirty, raucous species kicked
>the lovely and docile bluebird from 99% of its natural habitat.  Bluebirds
>now live almost exclusively in man made houses which must be guarded to keep
>the English sparrows away.
>
>3.  Goldfish were imported for obvious reasons -- hence the infamous carp
>invaded our waters.
>
>They ought to leave well enough alone, or at least be verrrrrry careful.
>
>(remainder snipped)
>=================
>Lawrence L. Andrew
>211 East 12th Street
>Sumner, IA  50674
>
>LLAndrew@powersurge.net
>==================================================
>----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>To: ip-sub-1@admin.listbox.com <ip-sub-1@admin.listbox.com>
>Date: Thursday, June 24, 1999 9:43 PM
>Subject: IP: Re: Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?
>
>
> >
> >>X-Sender: sb@popmail.gbn.org
> >>Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:20:44 -0800
> >>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu, ip-sub-1@admin.listbox.com
> >>From: Stewart Brand <sb@gbn.org>
> >>Subject: Re: IP: Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?
> >>
> >>Sigh.  Rifkin is, as usual, largely wrong and greatly overstated.
>Remember
> >>the Recombinant DNA panic of the 1970s?  Same issues, same alarm, same
> >>rumors.  No actual harm occurred apart from the panic.
> >>"Genetically-modified!" scares some people the same way "Internet!" scares
> >>other people.  (Lefties are knee-jerking at the corporate angle of
> >>genetically modified, while Righties knee-jerk at the out-of-control angle
> >>of the Internet.  Both developments are mainly great good news for
> >>civilization.)
> >>
> >>I was trained as a ecologist back when it was a science only.  I do
> >>encourage caution and controls and the like, but emphatically not
>freakouts
> >>and bans.  The biologists I know these days are rolling their eyes at the
> >>Rifkinesque alarm in Europe.  Check the current cover story in The
> >>Economist.
> >>
> >>By the way, Monarch butterflies are famously adaptive.  Their caterpillars
> >>are the only insect that can metabolize the ferocious natural insecticide
> >>in milkweed.  They keep that poison in their tissues to gag birds who try
> >>to eat them.  That's why Monarchs are bright orange and fly slow, to
> >>advertise how poisonous they are.
> >>
> >
> >