The Monarch Dethroned

I confess I have come to dislike the Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus, but it has nothing to do with the lovely insect itself. My objection is to the public obsession with the species to the exclusion of so many other butterfly species, let alone moths and other insects. It is also a manufactured obsession created by the many conservation groups that have capitalized on the Monarch’s existing popularity and used it to generate revenue for their organizations.

Let us explore some of the myths that have been purported as a result of the propaganda produced by the likes of Monarch Watch and the Xerces Society, whether accidental or intentional.

Monarch butterflies are important pollinators. The overwhelming majority of butterflies are poor pollinators. They belong in the category of “flower visitors” since their primary goal in alighting on blossoms is to obtain nectar, not pollen. Nectar is rich in carbohydrates that fuel the flight of many insects. Pollen, on the other hand, is rich in protein suitable for the growth of immature insects like bee larvae that have the chewing mouthparts to crack the pollen grains. Butterflies, with their siphoning mouthparts, cannot chew the grains, but the adult insects have little need for protein anyway. Bees, many moths, flies, certain wasps and beetles are far more important pollinators.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), especially crops, harm Monarchs. Monarch caterpillars feed only on milkweeds, so they are not coming into contact with genetically modified crops. There may be a grain of truth in suggesting that Roundup Ready crops immune to herbicides have led to a decline in milkweed plants in agricultural settings. Credit should go to Monarch Watch for promoting the cultivation of milkweeds in urban, suburban, and rural settings not subjected to herbicide use. There may be other reasons to dislike GMOs, but killing butterfly caterpillars is not one of them, at least in this case.

Monarch populations are crashing. Populations of many species of insects have boom and bust cycles, and I strongly suspect the Monarch is one of them. There is reason for concern regarding their wintering grounds in the mountains of Mexico, where illegal logging and irresponsible ecotourism definitely contribute to mortality of these insects. The adult butterflies are probably not very plastic in their ability to adapt to other potential wintering groves, if there are even any left standing. Once the butterflies nestle in for the winter, they are vulnerable to disturbances that startle them into flight and burn their fat reserves prematurely. Ecotour operators need to be evaluated to insure they are responsible in their visits to butterfly roosts.

Still, conservation organizations may be guilty of creating a perpetual crisis that does not exist in reality. Were Monarch numbers declared stable, there would be no perceived endangered status, and monetary donations would dry up. This “sky is falling” phenomenon is probably true of many environmental organizations, and one should be wary when deciding where to spend one’s disposable income.

All of this is not to say that the Xerces Society, Monarch Watch, and other non-profits are not doing valuable work, or are merely exploiting human sentiments for “poor butterflies.” Indeed, Xerces has branched out over recent years to address insect conservation beyond butterflies, such as protecting aquatic insects and native pollinators. Also, exaggerating an organism’s endangered status can be a way to draw attention to an otherwise overlooked or understated issue.

The biggest problem I personally face in promoting insect conservation is in getting the public to think “outside the chrysalis” if you will, and recognize that arthropods other than butterflies are valuable. It is incredibly important to change public attitudes toward wasps, spiders, and flies, for example.

We are making collective headway in creating popular movements that embrace dragonflies, damselflies, moths, and (to a lesser degree) tiger beetles, that do not involve collecting specimens. So, I remain cautiously optimistic that the trend will continue. Just don’t ask me about Monarchs.

About the BioQuip ad....

There is little that one gets for free these days, and indeed I could not continue to produce my blogs without help from various individual and corporate benefactors. While my readers probably like the fact there is minimal advertising on this website, financial realities demand that I seek additional advertisers. I have high standards, however, and will not endorse any product or service that I do not believe in, and/or have not personally worked with. That is why I am proud to have the BioQuip button on my page.

BioQuip is the leading provider of entomology equipment, books, educational materials in the U.S., if not also abroad. Recently, they expanded their offerings to include both living and preserved specimens of insects and arachnids.

BioQuip was founded in 1947 by Richard P. Fall and his wife Louise. Sadly, Richard passed away in October of 2000. Louise continues to run the company today, aided by their two sons, Chris and Ken. You can meet them and get a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the company in this two-minute YouTube video.

Their current headquarters in Rancho Dominguez, California include a retail store on the premises, as shown in the image above. I highly recommend BioQuip for quality scientific merchandise and specimens. Consider them as a one-stop shopping gift center for the entomologist on your holiday list. You will not be disappointed. Please visit the online catalogs at bioquip.com and bioquipbugs.com (formerly Combined Scientific), or simply click on the ad to the right in this blog.

BioQuip Bugs at the 2011 Los Angeles "Bug Fair"

Meanwhile, if your own enterprise promotes an appreciation of arthropods through photography, writing, graphic arts, or even organic insect pest control, please consider my blog as a potential avenue for advertising your business. Rates are negotiable. Thank you.