1. Presented by Samantha Sharp

2. The Story Industrial melanism Peppered moth – Biston betularia (“typical”) and carbonaria (“melanic”) Pollution, camouflage and bird predation

3. In the Beginning J.W. Tutt, 1896 Observations on camouflage Proposed selective predation hypothesis Bernard Kettlewell, 1950s Catch-and-release experiments Variables: moths’ “conspicuousness” to humans birds’ behavior in eating moths how many moths retrieved at the end

4. Criticisms of Kettlewell Experimental flaws Moths released during day Unnatural resting place High moth density Fraud? – Hooper Pressure from mentor Ford Need to “prove” Darwinism

5. Defense of Kettlewell Kettlewell was good for his day – Shapiro Attack on Wells – Coyne and Grant Not all about lichens – Grant

6. The Problems Occurrence of melanic forms increased in areas where pollution didn’t Are these areas prevalent or not? Typical forms returned before lichens did Incomplete disappearance of typicals

7. The Experiments Harrison – induced melanism in adults Contrast/conflict hypothesis Selective predation

8. Alternative Explanations Differential predation with gene flow Natural selection with unknown cause – Grant Induced trait, neutral, negative or adaptive change – Sargent, Miller & Lambert Melanics have higher viability, stopped by visual predation – Ford

9. Overreaction? Grant – people often discard rather than change Wells – don’t teach melanism If this is wrong, what else? (Hooper)

10. My Analysis Evolution? Yes. Natural selection? Yes. Harrison’s induced changes? Speed of changes – Grant vs. Sargent, Miller & Lambert Flaws? Yes. Fraud? No. Similar to global warming controversy Conflicting analyses Overreaction of opponents

11. In the End… “We still have work to do. We do not all agree about the relative roles of contributing factors, such as the flow of genes between moth populations in different regions, the importance of lichens on trees, where on trees moths might hide from predators, how important is differential predation, and so on. As in any branch of science, participants endlessly debate interpretations. Such wrangling is the norm, and it stimulates additional research. That is how we make progress.” - B. Grant

12. Sources Coyne, J. A. 2001. Creationism by stealth. Nature. 410: 745-746.Creationism by stealth Grant, B. 2000. Charges of fraud misleading. The Pratt Tribune. December 13 (Online Archives).Charges of fraud misleading Grant, B. S. 1999. Fine tuning the peppered moth paradigm. Evolution. 53: 980-984.Fine tuning the peppered moth paradigm Grant, B. S. 2002. Sour grapes of wrath. Science. 297: 940-941.Sour grapes of wrath Harrison, J.W.H., and Garrett, F.C. (1926). The Induction of Melanism in the Lepidoptera and Its Subsequent Inheritance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character, 99(696), 241-263. From JSTOR website http://www.jstor.org/stable/81092 Hooper, J. 2002. Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, Tragedy and the Peppered Moth. Fourth Estate. New York. Sargent, T. D., Miller, C. D. and D. M. Lambert. 1998. The 'classical' explanation of industrial melanism. Assessing the evidence. Evol. Biol. 30: 299-322. Shapiro, A. M.. 2002. Paint it black. Evolution. 56: 1885-1886.Paint it black Wells, J. 1999. Second thoughts about peppered moths. The Scientist. 13.Second thoughts about peppered moths Wells, J. 2003. Second thoughts about peppered moths. Origins website http://www.origins.org/articles/wells_pepmoth.html