Reply to Oberhauser et al.: The experimental evidence clearly shows that monarch butterflies are almost certainly not true navigators

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 110, Issue 39, 2013, Pages

  Mouritsen, Henrik ^a   Derbyshire, Rachael ^b   Stalleicken, Julia ^a   Mouritsen, Ole O ^c   Frost, Barrie J ^d   Norris, D Ryan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^c AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^d QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFACT; BUTTERFLY; HYPOTHESIS; INSECT; LETTER; LIGHT DARK CYCLE; MIGRATION; NONHUMAN; ORIENTATION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; WIND;

ANIMAL MIGRATION; ANIMALS; BUTTERFLIES; ORIENTATION;

EID: 84884649389     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1309282110     Document Type: Letter

References (6)

1. Oberhauser KS, et al. (2013) Are monarch butterflies true navigators? The jury is still out. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:E3680.
2. Mouritsen H, et al. (2013) An experimental displacement and over 50 years of tag-recoveries show that monarch butterflies are not true navigators. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(18): 7348-7353.
3. Perdeck AC (1958) Two types of orientation in migrating starlings, Sturnus vulgaris L., and chaffinches, Fringilla coelebs L., as revealed by displacement experiments. Ardea 46(1):1-37.
4. Mouritsen H, Mouritsen O (2000) A mathematical expectation model for bird navigation based on the clock-and-compass strategy. J Theor Biol 207(2):283-291.
5. Mouritsen H, Frost BJ (2002) Virtual migration in tethered flying monarch butterflies reveals their orientation mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(15):10162-10166.
6. Chapman JW, et al. (2008) Wind selection and drift compensation optimize migratory pathways in a high-flying moth. Curr Biol 18(7): 514-518.