What Animals Eat The Peppered Moth Months That Have 31 Days
- Original Scientific Article
- Open Access
- Published:
Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth, Biston betularia: An Splendid Instruction Example of Darwinian Development in Action
Evolution: Education and Outreach volume 2,pages 63–74 (2009)Cite this article
Abstruse
The case of industrial melanism in the peppered moth has been used every bit a educational activity instance of Darwinian natural selection in activity for half a century. Still, over the last decade, this case has come under attack from those who oppose Darwinian evolution. Here, the main elements of the case are outlined and the reasons that the peppered moth case became the most cited example of Darwinian evolution in activity are described. Iv categories of criticism of the case are then evaluated. Criticisms of experimental work in the 1950s that centered on lack of knowledge of the beliefs and ecology of the moth, poor experimental procedure, or artificiality in experiments have been addressed in subsequent work. Some criticisms of the work are shown to be the result of lack of agreement of evolutionary genetics and ecological entomology on the part of the critics. Accusations of data fudging and scientific fraud in the example are found to be vacuous. The conclusion from this assay of criticisms of the case is that industrial melanism in the peppered moth is still ane of the clearest and nigh hands understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action and that information technology should be taught as such in biology classes.
Introduction
Nearly people have heard of the peppered moth story. This is, in brief, the story of a moth, Biston betularia, that turned black following the industrial revolution and subsequently is turning back to its original white and blackness speckled design. But there is much more to the story than that, and over the last decade, the peppered moth story has been vigorously attacked by antievolutionists and strongly dedicated by those who take Darwin'due south mechanism of natural pick as the driving forcefulness behind the adaptive characteristics of all organisms. At times, the exchanges take been acrimonious and have involved accusations of professional bullying, scientific fraud, data tampering, misquotation, misinterpretation born out of scientific ignorance, selective citation, and but plain lying. Some of the controversy has comprised highly personal attacks on scientists. Such attacks are of concern to the scientists and their families but need not detain us hither. Yet, the debate has undermined the peppered moth equally an illustrative example of Darwinian natural selection in action, and the tarnishing of this case has been used to attack Darwin's theory of evolution equally a whole.
In this paper, I shall consider three questions. Start, why did the peppered moth go the nigh quoted example of Darwinian evolution in action? Second, were the criticisms of the peppered moth story justified? Third, should the peppered moth story be taught in the classrooms and lecture rooms as an example that illustrates the central mechanism of Darwin's theory of evolution: natural pick?
Why Did the Peppered Moth Get the Nearly Quoted Case of Darwinian Development in Action?
The Brindled Moth Story: 1848–1960
Prior to 1848, peppered moths in Britain where white or fair, more or less speckled with blackness: the typica form (Fig. 1). In 1848, in Manchester, a black, or melanic, form of peppered moth, f. carbonaria (Fig. ii), was recorded (Edleston 1864). Past 1895, 98% of the Mancunian peppered moths were of this black form. A Victorian lepidopterist, J.W. Tutt, put forrad an explanation of the rapid rising of this grade in the 1890s (east.g., Tutt 1896). He recognized that post-obit the industrial revolution, the environment in and effectually many urban parts of United kingdom had become despoiled by two major pollutants, sulfur dioxide, which kills lichens growing on tree bark and elsewhere, and air-borne particulate soot, which blackens the surfaces information technology lands upon. Consequently, Tutt conjectured that on the inverse bark surfaces, the melanic moth was amend camouflaged than the pale grade and then fell victim to predation by birds less.
The typica form of the peppered moth
The melanic carbonaria form of the peppered moth
Tutt'south hypothesis was initially rejected because both ornithologists and entomologists doubted that birds were major predators of night flying moths that depended on crypsis for their defense during the twenty-four hour period when they were inactive. The hypothesis was not tested experimentally for over one-half a century. In the 1950s, Kettlewell, working in Oxford nether the guidance of E. B. Ford, conducted a series of experiments in two differing woodlands. One of these woodlands was in the Christopher Cadbury Bird Reserve in Birmingham, a heavily polluted mixed deciduous woodland, with the trees supporting virtually no lichens. The second was Deanend Forest in Dorset, a relatively unpolluted relict deciduous woodland supporting a diverse lichen flora. Kettlewell undertook experiments in Birmingham in 1953, and again in 1955, conducting similar parallel experiments in Dorset in the latter year. The two main experiments were predation experiments, including directly ascertainment of predation, and mark-release-recapture experiments.
In his first Birmingham predation experiments, Kettlewell released live moths of each form onto tree trunks in the early on morning time and checked tardily in the day which moths were still present at their release points. Peppered moths do not fly in daylight, so disappearances were, reasonably, assumed to have been the upshot of predation. A significantly greater proportion of the carbonaria form (62.57%; north = 366) were recovered compared to the typica form (45.79%; north = 107) (Kettlewell 1955). Consequently, Kettlewell argued that carbonaria was at a selective advantage over typica in this polluted wood. In the mark-release experiment in Birmingham in 1953, 137 marked typica and 447 marked carbonaria were released. Samples collected subsequently, with pheromone assembly moth traps and mercury-vapor light moth traps, were checked for marks. The recapture rate for carbonaria (27.5%) was double that of typica (13.i%), supporting the view that the carbonaria grade had greater fitness than typica in this polluted woodland (Kettlewell 1955).
When published, these results were received with the same skepticism that Tutt's hypothesis had received over half a century earlier. In add-on, some evolutionary biologists were suspicious of the magnitude of the differences in fettle of the two forms suggested by Kettlewell'due south results (Kettlewell 1973). In consequence, Kettlewell adamant to echo the experiments, extending them to an unpolluted woodland, and to attempt to film parts of the experiments, including birds taking peppered moths from tree trunks. He persuaded the Dutch Nobel prize-winning ethologist, Professor Niko Tinbergen, to help him with the filming. The experimental procedures used in the experiments in both woodlands in 1955 were similar to those used in 1953, except that a proper bird hide was used from which to film some of the released moths. Thus, for example, in ane part of the predation experiment in Birmingham, three moths of each form were released onto a trunk in articulate view of the hide. Once all iii of i form had been taken, a new set of vi was released. This was washed and filmed during ii mornings and an afternoon in a 3-twenty-four hour period period, with 58 moths being eaten by a pair of redstarts, almost three quarters (43) of those eaten being typica. Conversely, in Dorset, of 190 moths seen being eaten past birds, 86% (164) were carbonaria (Kettlewell 1956). In the reciprocal marker-release-recapture experiments in 1955, recapture rates were 12.5% for typica and 6.iii% for carbonaria in Dorset, confronting 25.0% for typica and 52.3% for carbonaria in Birmingham (Kettlewell 1956).
The reciprocal nature of Kettlewell'south results in polluted and unpolluted woodlands provided convincing evidence in back up of Tutt's differential bird predation hypothesis. This evidence was endorsed by survey work on the frequencies of the forms of the peppered moth throughout Britain. The first survey data showed a potent correlation betwixt carbonaria frequency and industrial regions (Kettlewell 1958a). Afterwards surveys showed more direct correlations betwixt carbonaria frequencies and both sulfur dioxide and to a lesser extent soot pollutants (Kettlewell 1973; Lees and Creed 1975; Steward 1977; Bishop et al. 1978a) and a negative correlation between carbonaria frequency and lichen (Bishop 1972). These surveys lone provided convincing prove that the peppered moth had evolved under the influence of natural choice, for no other known process could have led to such direct correlations between form frequencies and ecology factors.
The impact of Kettlewell's work on the peppered moth should not be underestimated. Its master import was to motility the mechanism of Darwinian evolution from hypothesis to fact. As MacArthur and Connell (1966) wrote: "It used to be argued that natural choice was only a conjecture, because information technology had not been actually witnessed". But Kettlewell, forth with Tinbergen, did witness it, and furthermore, they filmed it, and then that others could meet natural selection in action.
The prominence of the peppered moth equally an case of "development in action" is a result of a combination of the features of the case. The phenotypic changes involved take visual touch on and are due to a unmarried gene mutation that obeys Mendelian laws of inheritance. The main environmental gene (industrial pollution) that had led to selective differences between the former form and new form were easy to comprehend. Moreover, information technology was obvious that the influence of this selective factor varied spatially. The changes had occurred in the recent past and indeed are all the same occurring. The agent of option, differential bird predation, and the reason why the forms of brindled moth would exist subject to dissimilar levels of selection in unlike places—the precision of the moths' camouflage—were easy for students to sympathize. There are many other examples of Darwinian evolution in action, merely no other has this combination of rapid contempo alter, visual impact, and ease of agreement of the agent of selection.
The Brindled Moth Story: 1960–1998: The Post-Kettlewell Period
Kettlewell'southward verification of Tutt's hypothesis led to an upturn in research into industrial melanism in moths, much of which focused on the brindled moth. Over the next xl years, a number of significant contributions were made. Information technology should be noted that Kettlewell himself connected to work on melanism in the peppered moth and many other species (see Kettlewell 1973) until his death in 1979 and was throughout this menstruum considered the leading authorization on melanism in the Lepidoptera.
In the 1960s, the genetic control of an boosted series of forms of the peppered moth, collectively known as the insularia complex, and all intermediate betwixt typica and carbonaria, was determined (Clarke and Sheppard 1964; Lees 1968). These forms are controlled by additional alleles of the cistron that controls carbonaria, and genetic dominance increases with increasing melanization. Several workers have sought data on the natural resting behavior of brindled moths through cage experiments and accept cast doubtfulness on whether brindled moths ordinarily spend the day on tree trunks (Mikkola 1979, 1984; Liebert and Brakefield 1987).
There were also many additional independent field tests of the relative survival of typica compared with carbonaria during this menses, all of which produced results that concurred with Tutt'south hypothesis (Cook 2000, 2003; Mallett 2004). Ane of these entailed a series of experiments at sites along a transect running from the industrial northwest of England into rural due north Wales. Here, assessment of the levels of predation of the 2 forms, at seven sites forth the transect, showed that the melanic form was less decumbent to predation in the industrial region and became progressively more heavily predated to the southwest as the habitat became more rural and less polluted (Bishop 1972). This study included the first computer simulations of the course of melanic development, with the results of the simulation being qualitatively in understanding with ascertainment.
During this period, the first effects of the Clean Air Acts enacted in the 1950s and subsequent antipollution legislation, began to have an impact on the peppered moth. Many studies have reported declines in carbonaria frequencies from the late 1960s (Lees and Creed 1975; Melt et al. 1970; Whittle et al. 1976; Bishop et al. 1978b; Howlett and Majerus 1987; Mani and Majerus 1993). The nigh consummate information set was collected on the Wirral, south of Liverpool (Clarke et al. 1985; Grant et al. 1996). Hither, the frequency of carbonaria declined from about ninety% in 1970 to less than 20% in 1995. Critically, like contained declines accept been reported in other countries where antipollution legislation has been introduced, such every bit Kingdom of the netherlands (Brakefield 1990; Brakefield and Liebert 2000) and the United states (Grant et al. 1995, 1996).
In the USA, the brindled moth is represented by the subspecies cognataria and has a melanic course, swettaria, which is phenotypically indistinguishable from carbonaria. Grant et al. (1995, 1996) stress the similarity in the pattern of refuse in the frequency of the respective forms on the Wirral in England and at the George Reserve, 30 miles west of Detroit. In both places, the turn down seen was from over 90% in 1959 to less than 20% in 1995. The similarities betwixt the declines in melanic frequencies in different countries are of import. In scientific discipline, when running laboratory experiments, the more than often the same results are obtained in independent replicate experiments, the more than confident ane becomes of the results. Here then, the declines in Britain, the United states of america, and The Netherlands are, in outcome, replicate natural experiments.
Perhaps the high betoken of the brindled moth's reputation as an example of Darwinian development in activeness was in November 1996, when the piece of work of Grant et al. (1995, 1996) was reported in the New York Times (Yoon 1996). The changes in the peppered moth were explicable by Tutt'south hypothesis, which had been tested and verified in a series of predation experiments. Predictions of what should happen to the peppered moth as the result of antipollution legislation had been fabricated and these predictions were existence fulfilled. Moreover, similar patterns had been seen in iii different countries (Majerus 1998). Most importantly, the case had prominence because the change in the phenotype of the moth was so obvious. While natural choice has been demonstrated in studies on numerous other organisms, no other has the visual simplicity and impact of the peppered moth. Nonetheless, but 2 years after this zenith, the instance of industrial melanism in the brindled moth came under assault.
The Peppered Moth Story Nether Attack: 1998–2003
In Nov 1998, a review of a book on melanism was published in Nature (Coyne 1998). The review, past Professor Jerry Coyne, was of Melanism: Evolution in Action (Majerus 1998). Coyne's review asserts that the book shows the case of the peppered moth, "to be in bad shape." He says that his own reaction to reading the two capacity specifically on the peppered moth resembled, "the dismay attention my discovery, at the age of vi, that information technology was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve." Coyne's principal decision was, "for the fourth dimension beingness we must discard Biston as a well-understood instance of natural selection in action."
Donald Frack, an American scientist who has many times locked horns with advocates of Special Creation and Intelligent Design, dismisses Coyne's review, writing; "In that location is essentially no resemblance between Majerus' book and Coyne's review of it. If y'all pick through the book, you might be able to contend for Coyne's accuracy—only only at the expense of completely ignoring the majority of the text and all of Majerus' intent. If I hadn't known differently, I would accept idea the review was of some other book" (Frack 1999). However, Coyne's review was followed past a series of articles in the popular press, in book chapters, and published on web-sites, but notably not in peer-reviewed scientific journals, with titles such as: Scientists pick holes in Darwin moth theory (Matthews 1999), Second thoughts nigh brindled moths (Wells 2001), Darwinism in a flutter (Smith 2002), The moth that failed (Raeburn 2002), Staple of evolutionary teaching may not exist a textbook instance (Wade 2002), Moth-eaten statistics (Wells 2002), and The Piltdown Moth (Rudd 2001). These articles speak of a conspiracy of silence over bug with the peppered moth story, of a series of scientific blunders, and of experiments designed to come upwardly with the "right" reply. So, in 2002, writer and journalist Judith Hooper published a book, Of Moths and Men: Intrique, Tragedy and the Peppered Moth (Hooper 2002). Here, for the first time, were thinly veiled accusations of data fudging and fraud aimed at Kettlewell.
Were the Attacks on the Peppered Moth Story Justified?
Earlier reviewing the criticisms aimed at the brindled moth case and their validity, two points should be made. Kickoff, almost all of the criticisms of the case equally an example of evolution in action are aimed at Kettlewell'south work and the role of his mentor Professor East. B. Ford. There is little reference to the independent work on the brindled moth over the last four decades of the twentieth century (Cook 2003; Majerus 1998; Lees 1981; Brakefield 1987 for reviews). Such work is only mentioned when carefully selected passages, oft taken out of context, are used to support criticisms of the example. Second, at that place is no mention of the many other species of moth (over 100 species in Britain alone) that exhibit industrial melanism (Kettlewell 1973; Majerus 1998 for reviews; Fig. 3).
Nonmelanic (left) and industrial melanic (right) forms of some British moths. From elevation to bottom: peppered moth—Biston betularia, lobster moth—Stauropus fagi, figure of fourscore—Tethea octogesima, scalloped hazel—Gonodontis bidentata, peppered beauty—Lycia hirtaria, pale brindled beauty—Apocheima pilosaria, green brindled crescent—Allophyes oxyacanthae, dark arches—Apamea monoglypha
The criticisms of the peppered moth case can be broadly split into four categories:
- 1.
Issues of ignorance of the ecology and beliefs of the moth
- 2.
Issues of artificiality or poor procedure in experimental protocols
- 3.
Pseudoscientific criticisms
- 4.
Data manipulation and/or scientific fraud
Issues of Ignorance of the Ecology and Behavior of the Moth
Most of the criticisms in this category have come from scientists working with the brindled moth, including Kettlewell himself. Peradventure preeminent among the problems in this category take been difficulties in understanding the dispersal dynamics of the moth, lack of knowledge of the longevity of the moth, and a paucity of observations of peppered moths at rest in the wild during the day.
The primary elements of the dispersal characteristics of the brindled moth are now accepted to comprise the flying of adult male moths, the more limited flight of adult female moths, and wind-assisted movement of newly hatched larvae on silken threads (Liebert and Brakefield 1987; Brakefield and Liebert 1990). These dispersal patterns and particularly the move of first instar larvae are important in explaining the frequency drift of the melanic allele into rural regions to the northeast of industrial centers: Larvae are blown past southwesterly prevailing winds in the "aerial plankton." Adult longevity in the brindled moth and the temporal dynamics of reproduction through adult life in this species were assessed by Bishop (1972).
The paucity of observations of peppered moths in their natural resting sites has often been highlighted (due east.k., Clarke et al. 1985; Wells 2001; Hooper 2002). For example, Clarke et al. wrote, "all nosotros have observed is where the moths do not spend the day. In 25 years we have only establish ii betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps and none elsewhere" (Clarke et al. 1985). This is important, because many have assumed that, as Kettlewell released moths onto tree trunks, this is where brindled moths spend the day. In fact, Kettlewell (1958b) suspected that peppered moths did not usually rest past solar day in exposed positions on tree trunks, for he wrote, "whilst undertaking big-scale releases of both forms in the wild at early dawn, I accept on many occasions been able to lookout man this species taking up its normal resting position which is underneath the larger boughs of trees, less ordinarily on trunks." It seems likely, therefore, that the reason that Kettlewell released his moths onto tree trunks was simply experimental expediency: on tree trunks, it would be easier to see what was going on.
There is now considerable circumstantial evidence from cage experiments that peppered moths do not ordinarily rest in exposed positions on tree trunks but prefer horizontal branches (Mikkola 1979, 1984; Liebert and Brakefield 1987). Field observations of peppered moths found serendipitously lead to the same general determination (Howlett and Majerus 1987; Majerus 1998). The largest data set of peppered moths constitute in the wild was accumulated during a predation experiment that involved researchers climbing trees at dusk and dawn during the flight flavour of the moth (May to August) over 6 years. Of 135 peppered moths found, 50% were on horizontal branches (Fig. 4), 37% on trunks (Fig. 5), and 13% were on smaller twigs or in foliage (Majerus 2007). Therefore, although Kettlewell's predation experiments take been criticized as being bogus because he released them onto tree trunks, it appears that this element of his protocol was non as flawed every bit some (e.g., Majerus 1998; Wells 2001) have previously thought.
A peppered moth institute at rest on a horizontal tree branch
A peppered moth plant at rest on a vertical tree trunk
One question that must be addressed in the light of this finding is, why did Clarke and his colleagues institute so few peppered moths at rest during all their years of research? My opinion is that they, like most humans, are simply not very expert at seeing peppered moths in their naturally called resting positions. In that location is some coexisting experimental evidence to support this view. An experiment was conducted to test the efficiency of the technique used in some predation experiments that entailed gluing dead moths onto trees in "life-like" positions (e.m., Bishop 1972; Howlett and Majerus 1987). Peppered moths of each of the different forms, set with their wings in natural resting postures, were glued onto birch trunks with a view to maximizing their camouflage. An equal number of alive moths were then released onto the same trunks at dawn and allowed to walk up the trunks until they clamped downwardly. Students were and so asked to walk toward the birch trunks from 10 thou away, having been told that in that location were six moths to detect. When 1 meter from the trunk, the subjects had to stop and could continue to search for the moths for ane further minute. The experiment produced ii major conclusions. First, the live moths were significantly harder to see than the dead glued moths. 2nd, none of the students found all the moths despite knowing that the moths were nowadays in a very restricted expanse, indicating that people with little experience of looking for ambiguous moths are not very proficient at spotting them (Majerus et al., unpublished data).
Problems of Artificiality or Poor Procedure in Experimental Protocols
At that place have been many criticisms of Kettlewell's experiments beyond that concerned with his releasing moths onto tree trunks:
- 1.
In his predation experiments, he often repeatedly used the same copse to release the moths onto, potentially producing a "bird table issue".
- 2.
In his mark-release-recapture experiment, he released moths at high frequencies, which may take produced an surface area of local high prey abundance, and birds may have developed a searching image for peppered moths, leading to abnormally high levels of predation.
- 3.
In both types of experiment, he released moths during daylight hours. Brindled moths are very reluctant to fly in daylight. Those prompted to fly in the day will clasp the first substrate that they contact and inside a few centimeters settle fully, "clamping down" against the substrate and and then staying still. In consequence, moths released in the day may not select the aforementioned sites every bit those that come to residual at the terminate of their nighttime action. It seems unlikely that the level of crypsis that would have been achieved by Kettlewell'due south released moths would take been as great as that of wild moths.
- 4.
The forms of the moth were not released at natural frequencies. If predators, such as birds, had already formed a searching image for the form that was almost abundant at a site, this might bias the results (although notably in the contrary direction to the results obtained).
- 5.
The moths that Kettlewell used in his experiments included moth trap-caught wild moths and reared moths. These may have different behaviors, and there exists no record to prove whether Kettlewell kept runway of the origins of his moths so that he could conduct analysis to look for differences between them.
- 6.
Some of the moths that Kettlewell used in his Birmingham and Dorset experiments probably did not originate in areas where they were used. This is thought to exist the case considering typica was scarce at the Birmingham site (10%) and carbonaria was absent-minded from the Dorset site at the time (Kettlewell 1973). It is possible that moths develop local adaptations (Howlett and Majerus 1987; Majerus 1998), and so translocated moths (likely to be the typica used in Birmingham and the carbonaria used in Dorset) may have both behaved differently and been under increased stress.
Each of these criticisms, with one exception, was addressed in one or more of the subsequent independent experiments (Melt 2003 for review), prior to Coyne'due south review in 1998.
The ane criticism of Kettlewell's protocol that was not addressed in any of these experiments was that he released moths in the twenty-four hour period and so did not allow live moths to select their daytime resting sites at the terminate of their night flights. This effect has recently been addressed in a predation experiment nigh Cambridge. The aim of this experiment was to decide whether differences in the levels of bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms could explicate changes in the frequencies of these forms over a period of years.
From 2001 until 2007, the frequencies of the forms of the peppered moth were monitored past trapping at Madingley Wood, to the west of Cambridge. From 2002–2007, a predation experiment was conducted at a site ane.nine km from Madingley Wood. The experiment was specifically designed to rectify flaws in Kettlewell'southward predation experiment protocols (Majerus 2005). Thus, the moths used all originated within 5 km of the experimental site. Moths were released at low densities and at natural class frequencies for the area. Moths were released onto different parts of trees (103 dissimilar release sites) in the ratios that the moths used these parts in the wild. The experiment was conducted each year throughout the moth's flight season. The origin and sex of each moth was recorded prior to release and data for males and females, lab-bred or wild caught, were analyzed separately. Finally, and most crucially, the moths were released into big cages on the trees at dusk (i moth per cage), with the cages being removed in forty min before sunrise the post-obit morn. Moths were then observed over a 4-60 minutes period and incidences of bird predation recorded (Majerus 2005). After four-hours, any remaining moths were recollected and recorded. The results of this experiment showed that the frequency of carbonaria declined from 12% of the carbonaria + typica population in 2001 to just over 1% in 2007. This is equivalent to a hateful selection coefficient of 0.29 against carbonaria over this period. In the predation experiment, proportionately more carbonaria were eaten than typica, the divergence beingness equivalent to a option coefficient of 0.22 against the black form. The difference betwixt these pick coefficients is not statistically significant. The conclusion from this experiment is that differential bird predation of the forms is sufficient to explain the changes in the frequencies of the forms in Cambridge between 2001 and 2007 (Majerus 2007).
Pseudoscientific Criticisms
Few of those who criticize the peppered moth case as an example of Darwinian evolution in action have ever worked on the moth. Moreover, few accept experience equally field biologists or training in either evolutionary genetics or ecological entomology. Their criticisms of the case, when erroneous, can thus be excused, at least in part, merely considering they have footling understanding of the ecology of the moth and its predators, or of how natural selection operates. Yet, although the vacuous nature of some of the criticisms is excusable, they do create a pregnant problem, because many of the readers of these criticisms, particularly those published in newspapers and on the web, do not have the scientific noesis or feel to objectively appraise the criticisms.
Accept, for case, the first sentence in Chapter 1 of Hooper's Of Moths and Men (Hooper 2002): "To brainstorm at the starting time, the Lepidoptera are divided into 2 orders: butterflies (Rhopalocera) and moths (Heterocera)." Those who have no experience of entomological classification may not realize that this offset sentence is only incorrect. In that location is a single order of insects chosen the Lepidoptera (meaning scale wings) to which the butterflies and moths all belong. Within this, those that we phone call butterflies contain three superfamilies (Papilionoidea, Hesperioidea, and Hedyloidea) within the order (e.1000., Scoble 1992). They are non the most archaic, nor the most advanced in the order. This is a trivial point only illustrates well that, without the necessary background, information technology is difficult to cogently evaluate the critics of this case. In addition, many of the critics are skillful writers and are well practiced in arguing their case persuasively.
An instance from Hooper (2002), concerning peppered moths and bats, illustrates the bug that nonspecialists have in commenting sensibly on a case such equally that of the peppered moth. Prior to publishing Of Moths and Men, Hooper e-mailed me (November 16, 2000) to ask questions virtually the peppered moth instance. One set of questions concerned the role of bat predation and was asked in the context of Hooper'south view that Kettlewell idea that 90% of the predation of adult moths was caused by bats. These questions have previously been published verbatim (Majerus 2005).
I explained my view in a telephone conversation on November xix, 2000. I cannot remember exactly what I said, just my notes on Hooper's email were that Kettlewell was right that the different forms were unlikely to differ in gustatory modality or aroma simply that scale types and pigments might affect sonar. I also explained why Kettlewell's reasoning was logical and pointed out the flaws in Hooper'due south argument past theoretical example. Hooper (2002) cites this example (accurately I believe); "Say three hundred eggs are originally laid. In one case y'all get to the developed phase, maybe you take 10 left. Of these more than half are killed by things not hunting by sight, so say you take four moths left—two typical and two carbonaria. You lot must exist prepared to say that none of the bloodshed prior to this is due to selection on colour design, no pleiotropic effects of alleles, no differences in palatability, no greater energetic costs in producing black pigment and so on. If so, so despite 296 moths existence killed up to that point, if those two typicals are eaten by birds, you've increased carbonaria by a hundred per cent at one go."
This simple example was intended to clarify Hooper'south obvious misunderstanding of how selection works, as manifest in part of her e-mail, where, in the two questions she asks, she couples and muddles percentage mortalities (10% selectively by birds, xc% randomly by bats), with the 2:1 and iii:i selective advantages to 1 form or the other in Kettlewell's experiments. Yet, my intent was obviously not accomplished: I had overestimated Hooper's grasp of how natural selection works. To analyze my clarification, I here spell out my reasoning in more detail.
The female moth that laid 300 eggs was either carbonaria or typica and had mated with a male of the other phenotype. As the difference betwixt carbonaria and typica is due to a pair of alleles of a single factor, with the carbonaria allele being fully genetically dominant to the typica allele (Bowater 1914), the carbonaria moth in this pairing would have to be heterozygous to produce equal numbers of carbonaria and typica offspring. This means that of the 600 alleles nowadays in the 300 eggs laid by this female, three quarters (i.e., 450) would have been typica (two in each of the 150 typica eggs, plus one in each of the 150 carbonaria eggs) and 1 quarter (i.e., 150) carbonaria (one in each of the 150 carbonaria eggs). By the fourth dimension we reach the final 4 moths (two typica and two carbonaria), 444 typica and 148 carbonaria alleles volition have been randomly eliminated, leaving merely six typica alleles (two in each of the two typica and one in each of the two carbonaria moths) and ii carbonaria alleles (one in each of the two carbonaria). If the two typica moths are eliminated before they take reproduced, by birds preying selectively, the remaining two moths that breed and laissez passer on their genes volition both exist heterozygous for the carbonaria and typica alleles. Thus, at present, half the alleles that are passed on are carbonaria. And then the final clause in my example: "you've increased carbonaria by a hundred per cent in one get", is realized (from 25% to 50% for this family).
Hooper (2002) wrote that Kettlewell'southward view was that if bat predation did account for 90% of the predation of adult moths, information technology did not matter, "because bat predation wasn't differential predation; evolution was driven by the small percentage of moths that are eaten selectively by birds hunting visually". So, although Hooper failed to understand my explanatory example, Kettlewell certainly would have.
Hooper's e-mailed questions, "Wouldn't it be wrong to assume that bat predation was totally random?" and "Would a skilful scientist need to do an experiment to rule out selective predation by bats?" (Majerus 2005), caused me to design only such an experiment. In four tests in which equal numbers of flying brindled moths of the two forms were fabricated available to bats, bats did non favor either form over the other. In total, bats were seen to consume 211 typica and 208 carbonaria (Majerus 2008). The results support Kettlewell'southward view that although bats may cause significant mortality in B. betularia, they do not prey selectively with respect to B. betularia forms.
It is worth noting that although Hooper (2002) asserts that "Kettlewell himself admitted that they {bats} probably deemed for 90 per cent of the predation of developed moths.", this was almost certainly not the case. Hooper's reference for this assertion is a letter from Kettlewell to B.J. Lempke, in June 1959. In this letter of the alphabet, Kettlewell wrote: "No one would exist foolish enough to argue that your statement 'The greatest enemies of moths are not the birds but the bats' is untrue, but... their predation is not selective. It does non matter the slightest if bats have 90% of a species population at random on the wing but if birds...business relationship for the other 10%, merely do so selectively...". Hooper interprets these figures of 90% bat predation and 10% bird predation—used as explanatory case to illustrate a specific bespeak—to be what Kettlewell believed the actual levels of predation by bats and birds were. Nevertheless, it is clear from Kettlewell'southward writings on the peppered moth that he had a very thorough knowledge of the behavior of this species and did not believe that bats, which feed mainly on flying insects, were responsible for 90% of the predation of B. betularia adults. This is, for instance, manifest when he notes that, in a resting site option experiment, he and Conn used only females, "which practice not commonly wing" (Kettlewell 1973, p. 88, footnote). Here, Kettlewell preempts the findings of Liebert and Brakefield, who demonstrated that female B. betularia rarely fly, except for a single dispersal flying following mating, unremarkably on the second night subsequently eclosion (Liebert and Brakefield 1987). That Hooper gets so much wrong in this pocket-sized facet of the peppered moth story may be a function of the agenda that she was writing to, or, more probably, was a result of Hooper understanding neither how natural choice operates nor how peppered moths behave and collaborate with their predators.
My own view, based on both literature and field observation, is that while bat predation of day-cryptic night-flight moths in the summertime is considerable, it will differ in level betwixt the sexes of a species because of the variation in the amount that the sexes wing. In the peppered moth, I doubt that bat predation accounts for as much as 90% of total predation on adult males, and I am sure that it accounts for only a small proportion of the full predation of females.
Data Manipulation and/or Scientific Fraud
Finally, we come to suggestions that Kettlewell designed his experiments, "in order to come up with the right answer" (Matthews 1999), or changed his experimental protocols or data in a deceptive manner (Hooper 2002). Rudge (2005) considers Hooper's accusation of scientific fraud in considerable item. While not wishing to repeat his deft, surgical dissection of Hooper'due south flawed calendar ("She decided in advance that she wanted to tell an entomological whodunnit."), iii major points in Rudge's arguments are worth detailing. First, he notes that, "among the many scientists who have worked on the phenomenon over the last l years, neither Kettlewell'southward colleagues, nor his severest critics, nor researchers since have ever alleged that he committed fraud: nor has any historian of biology."
Second, he points out that one of Hooper's strongest accusations was that Kettlewell inverse his release procedure (increasing the number of moths released) to try to increase the numbers of marked moths that were recaptured and ties this to her own unsubstantiated interpretation of a letter that Ford wrote to Kettlewell on July one, 1953. She wrote, referring to Kettlewell'due south 1955 paper, "there is a table, Table 5, listing releases, catches and recaptures for each day. Squinting at the columns of numbers, we notice a foreign thing: from 1 July on, later the letter from his boss, the recaptures all of a sudden soar." Both Rudge (2005) and Majerus (2005) notation that the timings of the changes in process exercise not fit with this estimation. Kettlewell changed his protocol on June 30, presumably in response to the low recapture rates that he had informed Ford of. Moreover, the increase in recapture rates was starting time recorded on July one and would represent the moths found in his traps early on in the morning following the night of June 30/July 1, i.e., before Ford had written his letter of the alphabet. Third, from his comprehensive review of Hooper'due south accusation that Kettlewell committed fraud, in which he examined her book, the sources that she cites and many other sources of the brindled moth that Hooper fails to cite, Rudge (2005) concludes, "that Hooper (2002) does not provide one shred of show to support this serious allegation."
In decision, to answer the question of whether the criticisms of the peppered moth story are justified, each of the classes of criticism should exist considered separately. Certainly, the criticisms in the beginning two classes, pertaining to lack of cognition of some aspects of the behavior and ecology of the moth and to the artificiality in some of the experiments, were justified. Indeed, many of these criticisms accept been accustomed by the scientists they were aimed at and in some cases the criticisms were self-criticisms. Moreover, almost of these weaknesses in the case have been addressed and answered over the concluding half century.
The pseudoscientific criticisms are themselves and so flawed as a result of lack of either objectivity or understanding, or both, that they are clearly unjustified and, as such, demand no further response. Finally, the accusations of fraud take been found to be vacuous, unsubstantiated, and unsustainable. While scientifically they crave no further consideration, as they denigrate the reputations of two dead scientists, information technology is to be hoped that those who invented them and others who have repeated them will retract and apologize for these accusations in print.
Should the Brindled Moth Story be Taught as an Example of Darwinian Evolution in Action?
Whether Coyne (1998), in his review of Melanism: Evolution in Action (Majerus 1998), was correct in considering the case of the peppered moth, "to be in bad shape," is open to question. What is certain is that piece of work over the decade since Coyne wrote these words has placed the peppered moth story dorsum on solid basis, with its reputation equally the prime case of Darwinian evolution restored. The work over the terminal decade has provided evidence of where wild brindled moths spend the twenty-four hour period and has shown that bats cannot business relationship for observed changes in the class frequencies and that differential bird predation can. However, this new show changes the story of industrial melanism in the brindled moth that has been taught in schools and colleges over the terminal half century very trivial. Majerus (1998) wrote, in the conclusion to his analysis of the brindled moth story, that "My view of the rise and fall of the melanic peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors." That is still my view.
Antievolution lobbyists, who expressed concerns over the artificiality and other weaknesses in Kettlewell'due south experimental methods, should receive the new evidence that has been accumulated over the last decade warmly. Their concerns have been answered. More importantly, teachers in schools and colleges, who have been worried that they may take been teaching an case based on flawed science, can now return to education the story of industrial melanism in the brindled moth with confidence. Hither is a story that is easy to understand, makes logical sense, and can be easily explained to a class of students. Moreover, the hypothesis on which the story is based has been used to make predictions that have been tested and verified, while other potential explanations accept been refuted (e.g., Kettlewell 1973; Majerus 1998; Ford 1964). Thus, the peppered moth case tin can non only be used every bit a superb example of Darwinian development in action but also to illustrate how proficient science is done (Rudge 2004). Within the case, once more and again, the methodology of "adept science:" ascertainment–hypothesis formation–prediction conception–experimental testing–and verification or refutation of the hypothesis, can exist seen. The researches on Tutt's hypothesis to explain the observations of increasing carbonaria frequencies in the nineteenth century and Kettlewell'southward experimental tests which confirmed this hypothesis, the many studies showing that the predicted decline in carbonaria following antipollution legislation has and is being realized, or my own simple experiment leading to the refutation of the hypothesis that bats predate the forms differentially, all follow good science practice.
Virtually objective scientists who have examined the story in detail in the last one-half century have never veered from the view that the rising of carbonaria in polluted habitats was largely a consequence of differential bird predation. So, one has to wonder why this particular example has been so heavily targeted by antievolutionists. Certainly, there are many other examples in which natural selection has been observed, from antibody resistance in bacteria to pesticide resistance in mammals and numerous insects, to heavy metal tolerance in many plants, to changes in beak shape in Galapagos finches, to the origin of new species by polyploidy, and on and on. So why has the brindled moth been singled out? I think that the reason is simply that the peppered moth story is the well-nigh accessible teaching example of Darwinian development through the process of natural selection.
Douglas Adams (2002), in an essay in The Salmon of Doubt, wrote, "even today that persists as a slightly tricky trouble if you are trying to persuade somebody who doesn't believe in this development stuff and wants you to show him an example—they are difficult to notice in terms of everyday observation." But the peppered moth story is like shooting fish in a barrel considering it does involve elements that virtually people are familiar with: birds and moths, colour and vision, camouflage and pollution, and dinner and decease. The antievolution lobby is worried that if the peppered moth story is allowed to stand, too many people will exist able to understand.
One major positive effect has resulted from the subjective criticisms aimed at the brindled moth story between 1998 and 2003. Information technology is that these criticisms catalyzed both bookish comment on the criticisms (e.g., Melt 2003; Mallett 2004; Rudge 2003, 2005; Grant 2002), reanalysis of information (Young and Musgrave 2005), and empirical inquiry to address the criticisms (e.g., Majerus 2005, 2007, 2008). The targeting of the peppered moth story may now backfire on the antievolutionists. Unless those that Kohn (2004) has termed, "the moth-bothering Darwin-baiters" now concede the validity of the case as an case of Darwinian development in action, they will reveal themselves as biased, subjective, and unscientific.
Postscript
Many of the anti-Darwinian critics of the brindled moth case argue that alternatives, such equally Special Creation and Intelligent Blueprint, should be taught in biology class as an alternative to Darwinian option theory every bit an explanation of adaptive evolution. However, unlike Darwinian selection theory, which makes predictions that have been tested and verified, creationist alternatives make no predictions and cannot be tested. They are not science. Consequently, they should not be taught in biology class.
Of course, such creationist ideas may and indeed should exist taught elsewhere in schools and colleges, such every bit in philosophy, history, or religious studies classes. Here, issues relating to faith and fact are correctly discussed and judged. It is to be hoped that the thought of Intelligent Blueprint volition in future exist advisedly considered in such classes against the classical case of Tutt's differential bird predation hypothesis to explicate the rise of the black peppered moth in industrial Victorian England. An analysis of the dissimilar approaches of journalists, who want a "good story," of the antievolution lobbyists who have commented on the case and of the experimental scientists who have worked on the case would be an excellent and illuminating illustrative case written report to allow students to critically appraise the methodologies and philosophies of the iii groups. Consequently, the peppered moth may go non merely one of the best instruction examples of Darwinian development in action that nosotros have but also a boulder example of the difference between scientific discipline and nonscience.
References
-
Adams D. The salmon of doubt. London: Macmillan; 2002.
-
Bishop JA. An experimental study of the cline of industrial melanism in Biston betularia (L.) (Lepidoptera) betwixt urban Liverpool and rural North Wales. J Anim Ecol. 1972;41:209–43. doi:x.2307/3513.
-
Bishop JA, Melt LM, Muggleton J. The response of two species of moths to industrialization in northwest England. I. Polymorphism for melanism. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1978a;281:489–515. doi:ten.1098/rstb.1978.0006.
-
Bishop JA, Cook LM, Muggleton J. The response of two species of moths to industrialization in northwest England. II. Relative fitness of morphs and population size. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1978b;281:517–42. doi:10.1098/rstb.1978.0007.
-
Bowater West. Heredity of melanism in Lepidoptera. J Genet. 1914;3:299–315.
-
Brakefield PM. Industrial melanism: practise we have the answers? Trends Ecol Evol. 1987;ii:117–22. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(87)90051-6.
-
Brakefield PM. A decline of melanism in the peppered moth, Biston betularia in The Netherlands. Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 1990;39:327–34. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1990.tb00520.ten.
-
Brakefield PM, Liebert TG. The reliability of estimates of migration in the peppered moth Biston betularia and some implications for selection–migration models. Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 1990;39:335–42. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1990.tb00521.x.
-
Brakefield PM, Liebert TG. Evolutionary dynamics of declining melanism in the peppered moth in Holland. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000;267:1953–vii. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1235.
-
Clarke CA, Sheppard PM. Genetic control of the melanic form insularia of the moth Biston betularia L. Nature. 1964;202:215–6. doi:ten.1038/202215a0.
-
Clarke CA, Mani GS, Wynne G. Evolution in opposite: clean air and the peppered moth. Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 1985;26:189–99. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1985.tb01555.x.
-
Melt LM. Changing views on melanic moths. J Linn Soc. 2000;69:431–41. doi:ten.1111/j.1095-8312.2000.tb01215.x.
-
Cook LM. The ascension and fall of the carbonaria form of the peppered moth. Q Rev Biol. 2003;78:399–417. doi:10.1086/378925.
-
Cook LM, Askew RR, Bishop JA. Increasing frequency of the typical course of the peppered moth in Manchester. Nature. 1970;227:1155. doi:x.1038/2271155a0.
-
Coyne JA. Not black and white. Nature. 1998;396:35–6. doi:10.1038/23856.
-
Edleston RS. No championship (offset carbonaria melanic of moth Biston betularia). Entomologist. 1864;two:150.
-
Ford EB. Ecological genetics. London: Methuen; 1964.
-
Frack D. Peppered moths—in black and white. Posting to 'Anticreation List', anticreation@talkorigins.org, March 30, 1999.
-
Grant BS. Sour grapes of wrath. Science. 2002;297:940–ane. doi:ten.1126/science.1073593.
-
Grant BS, Owen DF, Clarke CA. Reject of melanic moths. Nature. 1995;373:565. doi:ten.1038/373565a0.
-
Grant BS, Owen DF, Clarke CA. Parallel rise and fall of melanic brindled moths in America and Great britain. J Hered. 1996;87:351–vii.
-
Hooper J. Of moths and men: intrigue, tragedy & the brindled moth. London: Fourth Manor; 2002.
-
Howlett RJ, Majerus MEN. The understanding of industrial melanism in the peppered moth (Biston betularia) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 1987;30:31–44. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb00286.ten.
-
Kettlewell HBD. Pick experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Heredity. 1955;9:323–42. doi:10.1038/hdy.1955.36.
-
Kettlewell HBD. Further selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Heredity. 1956;10:287–301. doi:ten.1038/hdy.1956.28.
-
Kettlewell HBD. A survey of the frequencies of Biston betularia (L.) (Lepidoptera) and its melanic forms in Great United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. Heredity. 1958a;12:51–72. doi:x.1038/hdy.1958.iv.
-
Kettlewell HBD. The importance of the micro-environs to evolutionary trends in the Lepidoptera. Entomologist. 1958b;91:214–24.
-
Kettlewell HBD. The evolution of melanism. Oxford: Clarendon; 1973.
-
Kohn M. A reason for everything: natural selection and the English language imagination. London: Faber and Faber; 2004.
-
Lees DR. Genetic control of the melanic form insularia of the peppered moth Biston betularia L. Nature. 1968;220:1249–l. doi:10.1038/2201249a0.
-
Lees DR. Industrial melanism: genetic adaptation of animals to air pollution. In: Bishop JA, Cook LM, editors. Genetic consequences of human being made modify. London: Academic; 1981. p. 129–76.
-
Lees DR, Creed ER. Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation. J Anim Ecol. 1975;44:67–83. doi:10.2307/3852.
-
Liebert TG, Brakefield PM. Behavioural studies on the peppered moth Biston betularia and a discussion of the role of pollution and epiphytes in industrial melanism. Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 1987;31:129–50. doi:x.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb01985.x.
-
MacArthur RH, Connell JH. The biology of populations. New York and London: Wiley; 1966.
-
Majerus MEN. Melanism: evolution in action. Oxford: Oxford Academy Printing; 1998.
-
Majerus MEN. The brindled moth: refuse of a Darwinian disciple. In: Fellowes MDE, Holloway GJ, Rolff J, editors. Insect evolutionary ecology. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2005. p. 367–91.
-
Majerus MEN. The peppered moth: the proof of Darwinian evolution. Bachelor at http://www.gen.cam.ac.united kingdom/Research/Majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf, 2007.
-
Majerus MEN. Non-morph specific predation of brindled moths (Biston betularia) by bats. Ecol Entomol. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120122275/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0, 2008.
-
Mallett J. The peppered moth: a black and white story later all. Genet Soc News. 2004;l:34–8.
-
Mani GS, Majerus MEN. Peppered moth revisited: analysis of contempo decreases in melanic frequency and predictions for the hereafter. Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 1993;48:157–65. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1993.tb00884.x.
-
Matthews R. Scientists pick holes in Darwin moth theory. The Dominicus Telegraph, March 14, 1999.
-
Mikkola K. Resting site choice of Oliga and Biston moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae and Geometridae). Acta Entomol Fenn. 1979;45:81–7.
-
Mikkola K. On the selective force acting in the industrial melanism of Biston and Oliga moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae and Noctuidae). Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 1984;21:409–21. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1984.tb01602.x.
-
Raeburn P. The moth that failed. The New York Times, July 25 department seven, p. three, 2002.
-
Rudd Due south. The piltdown moth. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-pepper-moth-biston-betularia.htm, 2001.
-
Rudge DW. The role of photographs and films in Kettlewell'south popularizations of the phenomenon of industrial melanism. Sci Educ. 2003;12:261–87. doi:10.1023/A:1024031432066.
-
Rudge DW. Using the history of research on industrial melanism to aid students improve appreciate the nature of scientific discipline. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Teaching Grouping Meeting Winnipeg 761–772 (available through http://ihpst.arts.unsw.edu.au/alphabetize.html), 2004.
-
Rudge DW. Did Kettlewell commit fraud? Re-examining the evidence. Public Underst Sci. 2005;14:249–68. doi:ten.1177/0963662505052890.
-
Scoble MJ. The Lepidoptera: grade, function and multifariousness. London: British Museum (Natural History); 1992.
-
Smith PD. Darwinism in a flutter: did a moth show development in action? The Guardian, May 11, 2002.
-
Steward RC. Industrial and non-industrial melanism in the peppered moth Biston betularia (L.). Ecol Entomol. 1977;2:231–43. doi:x.1111/j.1365-2311.1977.tb00886.x.
-
Tutt JW. British moths. London George: Routledge; 1896.
-
Wade North. Staple of evolutionary history may non be a textbook case. The New York Times, June 18 section F, p. iii, 2002.
-
Wells J. 2d thoughts near peppered moths: this classical story of evolution by natural option needs revising. The True Origin Archive, http://trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.htm, 2001.
-
Wells J. Moth-eaten statistics: a reply to Kenneth R. Miller. Discovery Institute: Centre for Renewal of Scientific discipline and Culture—Commodity Database, http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?command=view&id=1147&program=CRSC, 2002.
-
Whittle PDJ, Clarke CA, Sheppard PM, Bishop JA. Farther studies on the industrial melanic moth Biston betularia (L.) in the northwest of the British Isles. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1976;194:467–eighty.
-
Yoon CK. Parallel plots in classic of development. New York Times: Science Times, Nov 12, pp C1, C7; 1996.
-
Young Thou, Musgrave I. Moonshine: why the peppered moth remains an icon of development. Skeptical Inquirer March–April 23–28, 2005.
Writer information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open admission article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits whatsoever noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(southward) and source are credited.
Reprints and Permissions
About this commodity
Cite this article
Majerus, M.East.North. Industrial Melanism in the Brindled Moth, Biston betularia: An First-class Didactics Case of Darwinian Evolution in Action. Evo Edu Outreach ii, 63–74 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0107-y
-
Received:
-
Accepted:
-
Published:
-
Outcome Date:
-
DOI : https://doi.org/ten.1007/s12052-008-0107-y
Keywords
- Industrial melanism
- Bird predation
- Evolution in activeness
- Natural selection
- Genetic polymorphism
- Peppered moth
- Biston betularia
Source: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0107-y
Posted by: nishimuranaturawrove.blogspot.com
0 Response to "What Animals Eat The Peppered Moth Months That Have 31 Days"
Post a Comment