1) Illegal Logging in Mexico
2) Status of the Population
3) Western Monarch Report
4) Monarchs Variation in Size
5) Scaleless Monarchs
6) Monarchs and Plumeria
7) Pesticides Used on Pets and Monarch Rearing
8) Please Return Your Datasheets
9) In Memory of Bob Small
10) About Our Update List
Unless otherwise noted, all content was authored by Chip Taylor, edited by Jim Lovett and Sarah Schmidt, and published by Jim Lovett.
1) Illegal Logging in Mexico
As you may know, there was an outbreak of illegal logging in 10-12 Mexican states at the end of the dry season last spring. In the Monarch Reserves, the illegal activities appeared to begin in March and continued for 2-3 months before they were brought to a halt. The Updates for May-July contain translations of articles from the Mexican press dealing with this situation and last month’s Update included a report by World Wildlife Fund Mexico on the extent of the deforestation that has occurred over the last three years within the Monarch Reserves. In the months since the illegal logging in the Reserves, we have been unable to obtain any first hand accounts of the extent of the deforestation. The following account by Lincoln Brower is not quantitative but indicates that the area of deforestation at Sierra Chincua was quite substantial. Presumably, a quantitative assessment of the damage, similar to those in the WWF Mexico report, will be forthcoming.
News from Arroyo Zapatero, Sierra Chincua, Michoacan Mexico
by Lincoln P. Brower, 7 November 2004
With the help of Jose Luis Alvarez, Ina Warren and Danielle Lee of the Michoacan Reforestation Fund and the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve staff, I was able to visit Sierra Chincua to check up on the status of this year's fall migrants’ arrival. On 2 November 2004, at about 2PM, we walked in from the top of the Llanos de los Villalobos along the south ridge of the Sierra Chincua for about 3 km to the Llanos de los Toros where my students and I camped and did research in the 1980s. It was partly cloudy and we saw moderate numbers of arriving monarchs flying silhouetted against the clouds along the top of the ridge. Whether their low numbers were because of the greatly diminished fall migration this year, or because we were early in the season, only time will tell.
Last January (2004) a severe wind-storm hit the south face of the Chincua and blew down many big Oyamel trees. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be decided to let these downed trees be harvested along the boundary cut that parallels the Arroyo Zapatero. A new logging road resulted, presumably coming up from the town of Sengio, and, as a result, extensive tree removal of downed (and otherwise) trees resulted along the ridge that has provided wind protection of the arroyo where monarchs have overwintered nearly every year dating back to the 1976-1977 season. I checked out the spot where the monarchs had wintered in 2001-2002, and found none, but we did find a group of about 9 Oyamels festooned with monarch clusters at the head of the arroyo. The trees were located just above the Llanos de los Toros, in the same area where a 2.25 ha colony had formed in the 1978-1979 overwintering season.
We left the colony and followed the old logging road out along the north side of the southwestern Chincua ridge. As reported in the late spring of 2004 (see Monarch Watch Updates for May-July 2004), an illegal logging operation was conducted here involving extensive numbers of loggers and trucks. This unconscionable behavior resulted in the removal of hundreds of mature Oyamels in numerous areas along the ridge. In addition to opening the canopy to an appalling extent, many of the logs were rolled down steep slopes to facilitate their loading on the trucks. I anticipate having photographs of this operation in the coming months. Suffice it to say that monstrous damage has been done inside the supposedly protected core zone of the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve at Sierra Chincua. What affect this will have on the overwintering monarchs is an open question.
2) Status of the Population
There is not much to report on the status of the population this month. The first of the migrants arrived in the vicinity of the overwintering sites at the usual time and are beginning to cluster at some of the typical colony sites. Small numbers of monarchs are still moving through Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas at this writing (13 Nov). As expected, given the early trends, record low numbers of monarchs were recorded at Cape May in September-October
Low numbers of monarchs have been reported from many locations throughout the migration this fall and it seems likely that the overwintering population will be less than 4 hectares when measured in December this winter. Denise Gibbs, who has been monitoring monarchs at Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge on Assateague Island, Virginia for 8 years, has assembled the data from her study and has posted it online at
Information on Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and Assateague Island (a nice place to study monarchs) can be found at
Like the study at Cape May, Denise’s data are based on censuses of the numbers of monarchs seen while driving a specified route for a defined interval. In these data, the lowest number of monarchs recorded per hour (25) occurred in 2002. This year the count was 33 per hour, the second lowest in the data set so far.
3) Western Monarch Report - by Mia Monroe
The 2004-5 season is off to an exciting start: monarchs are clustering now at most western sites. Early reports have small clusters as far north as Sonoma as well as at the East Bay sites, good numbers are reported at Natural Bridges and the Monarch Grove in Pacific Grove (Jessica Griffiths reports 7,487!) and even the Muir Beach site is occupied again. A more thorough report will be available after the annual Thanksgiving Count. This year, monitors have also signed up to check in on as many sites as possible after the New Year to determine "overwintering" status.
Report on the workshop held the 30th of October at Andrew Molera State Park.
A workshop designed to attract those interested in monitoring western monarch populations was held at Andrew Molera State Park (http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=582) on October 30. This event attracted 28 participants who spent much of the day discussing and laying out a set of objectives for the overwintering season, see Action Items below. In addition, the group, under the guidance of Mia Monroe, assembled a calendar of events for the winter season. This event was co-sponsored by the Ventana Wilderness Society and The Xerces Society's California Monarch Campaign.
- Promote The Xerces Society's California Monarch Campaign
- Update the Land Managers Guide
- Continue and expand monitoring and visit each site during the Thanksgiving and New Year Counts
- Methods: standardize methodology, update packet used by monitoring teams, post data sheets and instructions on the Xerces web site, enter data into the California Natural Diversity Database
- Publicize the Xerces CA Monarch Campaign web page (www.xerces.org) and Monarch Watch
- Provide information and news updates that can be posted to the Xerces and Monarch Watch web sites.
- Seek funding for pilot studies, site evaluations, research, CNDDB entry, development and printing of educational materials and support for docent/volunteer efforts
- Expand volunteer opportunities by hiring volunteer coordinators
and adapting manuals to aid in the training of volunteers.
- Develop educational materials for the public and schools.
- Host a reception or session at monarch biology conference next spring (Feb 27-March 2) in Pacific Grove.
- Hold these workshops yearly to bring together the site managers, researchers, monitoring teams and new recruits to the monarch monitoring efforts to discuss their common interests and goals for the season.
November 15 - December 5 THANKSGIVING COUNT
November 27 MONARCH MADNESS IN PACIFIC GROVE, Natural History Museum
December 11 "Asclepias assignation: Hunting California wild milkweeds" - Gene Thomas, 10:30 AM East Bay Regional Parks Botanic Garden, Tilden Park, Berkeley, www.nativeplants. org
December 15 The Campaign to Save Ellwood Mesa meets its fundraising goal! Contributions for the campaign can be sent to “The Campaign to Save Ellwood Mesa, P.O. Box 1244, Goleta, CA 93116”
Jan 1-14 NEW YEAR COUNT
Jan 15 Ventura Monarch Festival (email@example.com)
Jan 29 "Overwintering Monarch Butterflies of Monterey County" a lecture by Jessica Griffiths, Ventana Wilderness Society, at the Pacific Grove Natural History Museum, 2 PM
February 5 California Monarch Day a celebration at Ellwood Main, Goleta, California.
Feb 27-Mar 2 "Biology and Conservation of the Monarch Butterfly" symposium at Asilomar, sponsored by the Pacific Branch of the Entomological Society of America (firstname.lastname@example.org)
4) Monarchs Variation in Size
If you rear monarchs in your classroom, the following could be used as the basis for a classroom project. In addition to the usual facilities to rear monarchs, you will need a scale that measures to a hundredth of a gram, mm rulers, and emergence chambers for each pupa
Emergence Chamber Photo (one suggestion)
For instructions as to how to measure the length of the forewings, please see
To obtain a satisfactory outcome, you will need paper to record data, graph paper, and careful record keeping by the students.
Many of you have measured and recorded the size of the monarchs caught in the process of tagging and releasing monarchs during the fall migration. When the length of the forewing is measured from the edge of the white dot at the base of the wing to its apex, the measurements range from 43-56mm. Monarchs smaller than 43 mm are found in the wild from time to time but the frequency of such small butterflies is extremely low. More than 99% of the monarchs fit within the 43-56mm range. Just as small monarchs are rare, so are those at the opposite extreme and those measuring 55-56mm are seldom seen. Similarly, pupae have a range in size but one that is less well known. The average size for a pupa or chrysalis is 1.3-1.4 grams for wild reared monarchs. So, when we found an unusually large pupa last month, one that weighed between 1.6-1.7 grams, we wondered what the size of the adult would be. The questions raised were (1) what would be the wing-length and weight (mass) of the adult butterfly and (2) how would it compare to monarchs reared from normal and small pupae? Accordingly, we found two other pupae for this comparison, one weighing .9 grams and the other a normal 1.3 grams.
Here are the measurements:
As you can see, as the size of the pupa increases, the adult size, as measured by the length of the forewing and the mass of the adult, increases as well. Photos of the pupae and the adults that emerged from them are shown at
This is a positive relationship or correlation and, if we had more data, we could better predict the size of an adult from the size of the pupa. Though our data set is minimal, we can still plot pupal size against wing length and fit a line to the three points representing our butterflies:
If our butterflies are representative of the larger population, then the wing lengths of butterflies emerging from pupae of a variety of masses should fall close to the projected line. Yet, there may be some deviations from the line. There are only three data points here and two of those represent males. It is conceivable that the mass/wing-length relationship differs among the sexes. It is also possible that the relationship is not linear as suggested by this simple graph.
Note also that there may be a negative relationship here since in these data the adult/pupal ratio, adult mass divided by pupal mass, declines as pupal mass increases. This is curious and I don’t know whether it represents a real pattern; even if it does, I don’t know how such a relationship might be explained. In any case, the data generated in this exercise in classrooms could be used to determine if this relationship is valid. As I mentioned in the introduction, these measurements would make a nice class project as it adds another dimension to the rearing, tagging, and releasing of monarchs. This exercise is likely to yield new information as well and to raise new questions about these butterflies.
5) Scaleless Monarchs
The article last month on scaleless monarchs generated numerous emails and a few additional images. We also received a specimen of a scaleless monarch from Steve Estebo of the Minnesota Zoo. I spread this specimen and we have taken numerous pictures. These images and comparable shots of a normal monarch can be found at
Unfortunately, the spread specimen isn’t nearly as impressive as the pictures are of these butterflies when alive.
The specimen from the Minnesota Zoo is completely scaleless. There are no scales in all the usual places i.e., the wings, thorax, abdomen or antennae. Bristles are present on the palps (mouth parts), behind the head, and on a small area at the base of the underside of the wings. Hairs, or hair-like scales, thinly cover the thorax, the posterior edge of the upperside of the forewing, and the first two segments of the upperside (dorsum) of the abdomen. The presence of these bristles and hairs suggests that the development of these structures is on a different developmental pathway from that of the scales. The barest outline of the patterns of the black, white and orange pigmented areas can be seen on the thin membranes that constitute the wings. The presence of this pattern is of interest in itself as I always thought the pattern was only a property of the scales and not the underlying membrane.
The scaleless condition could be due to either a mutation or to the influence of an environmental factor at a critical stage of development that inhibits scale formation. If you read last month’s write up, you will see that I was leaning toward the genetic explanation. I’m now leaning toward the notion that the scaleless condition is due to an environmental factor, but the cause and effect relationship is still confusing. The monarchs found to be scaleless in three zoos this summer were all obtained from breeders. (In addition to the Minnesota Zoo and Zoo New England-Franklin Park, in Boston, as mentioned last month, we also learned from John Matuszek of the Brookfield Zoo, that similar specimens emerged from pupae in their facility.) Images sent by John Matuszek show completely scaleless forms but one shows partial scaling toward the base of the wing on the underside. Such scaling could represent “incomplete penetrance” (expression) for a genetic trait but is more likely to be an indication that the scaleless condition is due to environmental factors. Other photos we received are consistent with this interpretation. The following images show monarchs in which portions of the wings are scaleless
In these cases, all the monarchs had emerged from pupae that had been refrigerated for an excessive amount of time (more than 10 days). In addition, they showed a range of partial scaling again suggestive of an environmental effect. If there is a sensitive stage for scale development in the 2-3 day interval before emergence, the effect of the cold would depend on when the pupae were refrigerated relative to this time sensitive interval and how long they were refrigerated. Yet, the monarchs reared at the Minnesota Zoo in an aquarium in a hoop-house (see last month’s Update) were more likely to be exposed to excessive heat rather than cold. Does this mean that both heat and cold shock produce the similar types of scaleless forms? This issue won’t be resolved without experimentation that involves subjecting pupae of known physiological age to heat and cold shock at specific stages of their development. Such a study sounds to me like an honors project for an undergraduate or perhaps an enterprising high school student who has a knack for rearing monarchs. To get an idea of how to age monarchs as they develop, please revisit the text on the influence of temperature on development at
I would like to thank Steve Estebo (Minnesota Zoo), Teresa Root, Lisa Young, and John Matuszek (Brookfield Zoo, Chicago) for providing additional images of scaleless monarchs and Ellen Roberts for an exchange of emails on this topic.
6) Monarchs and Plumeria
From time to time we hear of unusual host plants for monarch larvae. For example, we receive 25-50 reports a year from people who claim, sometimes indignantly, that monarch caterpillars, contrary to the information on our website, are eating their dill, parsley or fennel. These caterpillars have invariably been subsequently identified as larvae of the black swallowtail butterfly, Paplio polyxenes. The confusion is understandable since there is a general resemblance of the larvae of both species. Even so, when normal host plants are scarce, people have forced monarchs to feed on a variety of milkweed related plants and even pumpkins
In addition, we have previously reported that monarchs have been seen to lay eggs on wax plants of the genus Hoya
and on Black Swallow-worts (Dog Strangle Vines) Vincetoxicum nigrum and V. rossicum
The article on the swallowwort raised the possibility that these invading species are “trap plants” for monarchs. Trap plants are generally closely related, and are evidently chemically similar, to normal host plants. Female monarchs are attracted to these plants and lay eggs on the leaves and flowers. Yet, because of the lack of compounds that stimulate feeding by larvae or perhaps the presence of compounds that inhibit feeding (or even the presence of toxins or compounds the larvae are unable to digest) these plants are unsuitable hosts and larvae die shortly after hatching from the eggs. The eggs are therefore wasted and conceivably the inability of the butterflies to discriminate between suitable and unsuitable hosts could have a negative effect on the population. The most famous case of a butterfly trap plant that has come to my attention involves the Richmond Birdwing (Troides richmondius) in Australia
This species feeds on native members of the Aristolochiaceae (pipevine family). Much of the native habitat for this birdwing butterfly has been destroyed by development. The few remaining butterflies are often attracted to lay eggs on an introduced pipevine (Aristolochia elegans) initially used as ornamentals in gardens these plants have become naturalized and invasive in disturbed areas with the unfortunate consequence that the larvae are unable to feed on the leaves.
Photos of Aristolochia elegans: http://www.MonarchWatch.org/update/2004/1123_elegans.html
The introduced plants are therefore seen as contributing to the decline of this species. To counteract this trend, attempts are being made to eradicate the introduced pipevine while propagating and introducing the native host plants into gardens so that school children and others can rear larvae to the adult stage for the purpose of releasing them to help maintain the population of this spectacular butterfly.
Although Black swallow-wort appeared to be a potentially important trap plant for monarchs, this anticipated outcome has been shown not to be the case in two recent publications (DiTommaso and Losey 2003, Mattila and Otis 2003).
Last month we received an interesting email from Dr. Scott R. Shaw about another possible trap plant for monarchs. In this case, the plant is in the genus Plumeria also known as Frangipanni
MONARCHS WILL LAY EGGS ON PLUMERIA: BUTTERFLY BIRTH CONTROL
by Dr. Scott R. Shaw
I'd like to report an observation about Monarch egg-laying: that Monarchs will lay large numbers of eggs on Plumeria. I noticed this several years ago while trying to raise monarchs in a glasshouse situation. I've not noticed anything about this in the literature, so it might be worth reporting in your newsletter.
Plumeria is a widely cultivated ornamental flower, also known as "frangipani." It originated in Central America, so monarchs should be exposed to it in nature. Plumeria is a member of the Apocynaceae, a plant family very closely related to the milkweeds. [Monarch Watch Note: The taxonomy has recently been revised such that all milkweeds are now classified as belonging to the Apocynaceae. The Asclepiadaceae is no longer considered to be a valid family name.] Monarchs (non-migratory) occur in Costa Rica and use several milkweeds as foodplants, but the Butterflies of Costa Rica does not report Plumeria as a host plant, although they are common plants in that country.
In a glasshouse situation female monarchs were observed to place hundreds of eggs onto Plumeria leaves. Although plenty of milkweeds were present in the room, the volume of eggs placed on Plumeria was comparable. Presumably the plants are closely-related enough to milkweeds that they smell similar to a monarch. But Plumeria is not suitable as a food-plant. It is a complete egg-dump. The eggs hatch successfully, but the young larvae die quickly after biting into the Plumeria leaves. Presumably it smells nice enough to an adult monarch, but is very toxic to the larva.
This might have some interesting implications about monarch migrations. It might partly explain the differential success of migratory monarchs. If non-migratory monarchs in Central America are dumping eggs unsuccessfully on apocynaceous plants, it could be contributing to the much lower populations in those areas where such plants occur. Migratory monarchs moving into temperate North America not only find lots of edible milkweeds, but escape the ranges of deadly plants like Plumeria.
Plumeria is a very common tropical ornamental plant, and has very pleasant and fragrant flowers. But butterfly enthusiasts would be well-advised to not keep it in the same room with monarchs, unless you are seeking to suppress the population.
Dr. Scott R. Shaw
Professor and Curator
U.W. Insect Museum
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyoming 82071-3354
Editorial Note: Key to the monarch-Plumeria relationship is whether monarchs will lay eggs on this species in the wild. As Scott suggested in another email, this relationship might make a nice project for a student. Plumeria is relatively easy to grow in a greenhouse but, being of tropical origin, it is not winter hardy. On the other hand, it is widely used as an ornamental in gardens and yards from Florida to South Texas and in southern California. Plumeria is not listed in the literature as an oviposition or a host plant for monarchs although it is known to serve as the host for other danaines such as the Common Crow or Oleander Butterfly, Euploea core
For more information about Plumeria, please see http://www.io.com/~jrm/plumeria.html
DiTommaso, A. and John E. Losey 2003. Oviposition preference and larval performance of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) on two invasive swallow-wort species. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 108:205-209.
Mattila, H. R. and G.W. Otis 2003. A comparison of the host preference of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) for milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) over dog-strangler vine (Vincetoxicum rossicum). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 107: 193-199.
7) Pesticides Used on Pets and Monarch Rearing
Last month I brought up the subject of imidacloprid insecticides that are used to treat pets for fleas, and ticks and raised the possibility that close contact with a treated pet without washing one’s hands before handling larvae or hostplants might lead to the deaths of monarch larvae. We don’t know that this scenario is a fact but it is something those of you rearing monarchs should be aware of and, as I suggested, an investigation of this possibility might be a suitable project for a student.
Another possible concern involves ivermectin/avermectin based products used to treat round worms, especially heart worms, in dogs and cats. Most of these medications are given to the pets as chewable “pills”. Ingestion of the product should not leave a residue on an animal’s coat and therefore the likelihood of our contact with this product through our pets seems minimal. However, “Revolution” (used on cats and puppies to control fleas, heartworms, roundworms, hookworms, and ear mites) is applied topically once a month. The basis of this application is a compound known as selamectin. I was unable to find a thorough examination of the safety of this product by independent investigators on the internet but the product contains the following warning “May be irritating to skin and eyes. Wash hands after use and wash off any product in contact with the skin immediately with soap and water. If contact with eyes occurs, then flush eyes copiously with water. In case of ingestion by a human, contact a physician immediately.” So, at the very least, when treating a pet with this product, one should wash hands, and any other substrate that has come in contact with the product, immediately. Since the product is likely to remain of the coat of the pet for some indeterminate time, it would also seem wise to wash one’s hands after handling a treated pet, particularly before tending to your monarch culture.
8) Please Return Your Datasheets
Each year we spend quite a bit of time and money trying to track down missing data sheets and even after multiple requests by phone, fax, email, or regular mail some data sheets are never returned. Recovered tags that can’t be associated with datasheets are essentially meaningless and the resources spent on tagging the monarchs, recovering the tags, and processing the data are wasted. Given our already limited resources, these missing datasheets are a big deal - currently 400 records from the 2003 tagging season are incomplete, which translates into over $4,000.00 in expenses that could have been better spent elsewhere.
So please, PLEASE return your datasheets and any unused tags once the migration has left your area or you have finished tagging for the season (Be sure to make a copy first, as things have been known to disappear in the mail occasionally). It's never too late to return your sheets -- even if you find them months - or years - later, make a copy and send them in to us at
University of Kansas
1200 Sunnyside Avenue
Lawrence, KS 66045
You may also fax them to us at 1-785-864-4852
9) In Memory of Bob Small
With the death of Bob Small on the 17th November, those of us concerned about the conservation of monarch butterflies lost a good friend as well as an ardent advocate for monarchs and the restoration/conservation of forests in Mexico. Bob served as the fund-raiser and coordinator of the Michoacan Reforestation Fund from his home in Alemeda, California. His friendship and partnership with Jose Luis Alvarez resulted in the planting of more than 1.4 million trees in the vicinity of the overwintering monarch colonies. One of the goals of this project has been to provide income for the residents and wood products for the local markets thus reducing the inclination to remove trees from the monarch reserve. There is no question but that this program represents the most successful privately funded conservation effort on behalf of monarchs. To learn more about this program, please visit
As suggested in the obituary to follow, planting milkweeds and/or making contributions to the fund in Bob's name would be appropriate ways to honor his contributions to monarch conservation.
Robert “Bob” L. Small (b.2/2/1931 d.11/17/2004)
Robert “Bob” Lunt Small, founder of the Michoacan Reforestation Fund, died on Wednesday, November 17, 2004, in Alameda, California. He was born in the small mountain town of Quincy, CA, on February 2, 1931, living there and in Sacramento, California throughout his childhood. Bob received a BA degree from Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, and a Masters degree in Public Administration from the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. Following his service as a Lieutenant in the US Navy, he returned to California, became Assistant Administrator for the County of San Diego, and later established a private consulting firm for land use management. In 1988 he traveled extensively throughout the world, living for a time in Thailand. In 1990 he settled on Mather Street in Oakland, moving to Pond Isle in Alameda in 1999.
On a trip to Mexico in 1996, Bob serendipitously met Jose Luis Alvarez, a tree nurseryman in a small town near Patzcuaro, Michoacan and shortly thereafter initiated a project to provide trees to the local indigenous people to reforest their previously clear-cut lands. This resulted in a non-profit corporation, the Michoacan Reforestation Fund, founded in 1997. Their concept promoted sustainable forestry and reduced tree cutting within the nearby protected Monarch butterfly overwintering sanctuaries. Through donations to MRF, trees are propagated and distributed to local landowners who then plant, maintain, prune, and sustainably harvest them. Other benefits of the reforestation include improvement of the local water supply, reduction of soil erosion, and the promotion of natural biological diversity. Since 1997 Bob successfully encouraged many folks and agencies to support the MRF vision: “Helping people and other creatures by conserving the forests they depend on.” Following Bob’s original contribution in memory of his son, Greg, MRF has grown each year and has now planted over 1.4 million trees. Following Bob’s wishes, the fund will continue and will be managed by the MRF Board of Directors with Danielle Lee as Acting Director.
One of Bob’s special gifts was his ability to see the beauty and wonder in the people he met and to easily develop meaningful and lasting friendships. Throughout his life he was dedicated to environmental conservation. Bob was a pioneer protector of the San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve in San Diego, and promoted the wise use of natural resources.
Bob is survived by his two sons Gary Small of Mammoth Lakes, California, and Robert Small of Juneau, Alaska, grandchildren Cameron and Khylie Small, brothers John and Will Small and sister Connie Foster, of Sacramento, California, and his partner of many years, Donna-Jean (DJ) Agnew. He was preceded in death by his son Greg and wife Gladys.
Memorial services will be held Friday, November 26, at _ pm at Christ Episcopal Church, Alameda, California. Services will also be held at a later date at All Souls’ Episcopal Church, Pt. Loma, California. His ashes will be placed in Michoacan, Mexico, and at All Souls’ Church. The family suggests that, in lieu of flowers, a contribution could be made to MRF (www.michoacanmonarchs.org (510) 337-1890), and, if possible, milkweed plants be planted to provide food for migrating Monarch butterflies.
10) About Our Update List
You are receiving this email because you have provided Monarch Watch with your email address at some point and expressed interest in receiving updates from us. If you do not wish to receive these periodic (probably monthly) email updates or feel that you were subscribed in error, please see the unsubscribe information at the end of this message.
Have you somehow missed (or misplaced ;-) an update? Now you can find all of the updates archived online at
If you know someone that you think might be interested in receiving these email updates from Monarch Watch with monarch news, special announcements, tips on raising monarchs in your classroom, monarch tagging information and a whole lot more, please send them on over to
to join our new Monarch-Watch-Update email list - it's easy!
Monarch Watch (http://www.MonarchWatch.org) is a not-for-profit educational outreach program based at the University of Kansas. We run a Monarch tagging program and offer Monarch Rearing Kits, Monarch Tagging Kits, and other educational/promotional materials that allow you to actively experience the monarch life cycle and its spectacular fall migration.
If you would like to be removed from this Monarch Watch Update mailing list, please send an email message to
and include in the body of the message (no other text):
If you have any questions about this, please feel free to contact us anytime.
Monarch Watch (888) TAGGING - or - (785) 864-4441