The Grant (1999) paper I referenced earlier comments on this: =20 "Parallel changes in melanism have also occurred in the North American = subspecies of the peppered moth, Biston betularia cognataria, again in = concert with changes in regional levels of pollution (Owen 1962, Grant = et al. 1996, 1998). While minor geographic anomalies within countries = can be attributed to gene flow, the similarity of patterns between the = British Isles and North America indicated parallel evolutionary changes = that cannot be explained by anything other than selection acting = independently on similar phenotypes in widely separated populations of = the same species. On both continents, high frequencies of melanism and = subsequent reductions correlate well to the same key factor: atmospheric = pollution from regional industrial development and urbanization." =20 I haven't read the paper referenced (Grant et al., 1998) but from the = title it sounds like it may have a broader discussion of the phenomenon = you describe. =20 Grant, BS, AD Cook, CA Clarke, and DF Owen. 1998. Geographic and = temporal variation in the incidence of melanism in peppered moth = populations in America and Britain. J. Hered. 89: 465-471.
________________________________ From: Steve Brewer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 9/1/2006 1:00 PM To: Elizabeth Hane; [email protected] Subject: Re: Google and peppered moths Elizabeth and others, One of the criticisms that I have heard is that more-or-less simultaneous changes in color morph frequency occurred in North America, presumably before industrialization and the concomitant increase in air pollution. Does anyone know anything about the validity of this claim? This criticism relates more to the generality of the conclusions of Kettlewell's experiments, and not so much to his methods. Also, there have been other well-designed selection studies involving other taxa, which have come to similar conclusions as Kettlewell's. As far as I know, they have not received similar criticism. Antonovics' studies of mine spoil plants come to mind, to give one example. Steve Brewer At 11:23 AM -0400 9/1/06, Elizabeth Hane wrote: >The story is even more complex than that, I think, in that some of the = =3D >criticisms of Kettlewell's original experiments are legitimate. No =3D >reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though, and more =3D >recent, more robust experiments have upheld Kettlewell's findings, =3D >thought his methods were flawed. >=3D20 >I use this story as an example of how science is done in my ecology =3D >class. Someone publishes something, people accept it, but years later, = =3D >problems are discovered, and people repeat experiments to fine-tune the = =3D >knowledge. It doesn't mean the original science was necessarily wrong, = =3D >but that our methods have improved and there are better ways of testing = =3D >the hypothesis. I think teaching students how to evaluate whether a = =3D >website is credible can also be an important lesson. Far better if = they =3D >can learn to debunk these websites on their own that for us to tell = them =3D >it's wrong. >=3D20 >I highly recommend Bruce S. Grant's paper, "Fine Tuning the Peppered = =3D >Moth Paradigm" as a teaching tool and discussion of this problem. >=3D20 >Grant, Bruce S. 1999. Fine Tuning the Peppered Moth Paradigm. =3D >Evolution 53 (3) 980-984. > >________________________________ > >From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = =3D >Leslie Mertz >Sent: Fri 9/1/2006 9:07 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Google and peppered moths > > > >Something is wrong here. When I typed "peppered moths" into = Google,=3D20 >up popped a listing of pages claiming to expose the famed study as=3D20 >faulty science. Anyone with an understanding of natural selection = and=3D20 >evolution can quickly see through the pages' creationist=3D20 >underpinnings and find the myriad mistakes in their claims. To the=3D20 >many people who are still forming opinions about the topics, = however,=3D20 >the sheer number of these web pages -- even though they are mainly=3D20 >repeats of the same purposely erroneous information -- may lead = them=3D20 >to the wrong conclusion. This includes college students, who will=3D20 >"google" just about anything and everything. Perhaps we need to = use=3D20 >the same tactics to ensure that the scientifically accurate story = is=3D20 >told. > >=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D= 3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D >Leslie Mertz, Ph.D. >educator >Wayne State University -- Department of Biology PO Box 1848 University of Mississippi University, Mississippi 38677-1848 Brewer web page - http://home.olemiss.edu/~jbrewer/ FAX - 662-915-5144 Phone - 662-915-1077
