Arthur S. Lodge | home
First statements | First replies: Thomas | First replies: Wells | Second replies: Wells | Dr Musgrave's reply | Wells' third reply | Dr Musgrave's 2nd Reply | Dr Wells' reply to Dr Musgrave's 2nd Reply | From "Melanism: Evolution in Action" | Melanism via NDT? | Needed: statistical analysis | Summary | "Of Moths and Men" by Judith Hooper | Natural selection: the only mechanism?
First replies: Thomas
Wells cites Howlett and Majerus (1987) as stating that "they found that Mikkola's observations on caged moths were valid for wild moths, as well. They concluded: '...it seems certain that most B. betularia rest where they are hidden.... [and] that exposed areas of tree trunks are not an important resting site for any form of B. betularia" (Howlett and Majerus 1987, p. 40)." But Wells disregards other portions of this same study, the most comprehensive ever performed, which clearly state that 25% of the moths found resting in the wild were found ON TRUNKS (and another 50% on branch/trunk junctions). More importantly, he ignores the experiments these workers did that showed there was no statistically significant difference between predation in exposed vs unexposed moths.
Wells mentions Mikkola's 1984 work in which moths appeared to PREFER uppermost branches over trunks, but Wells does NOT mention that Mikkola found that 40 PERCENT of the moths in his experiments did indeed choose trunks.
Wells mentions Liebert & Brakefield's 1987 work as supporting Mikkola, but again fails to include the whole story, such as the part where Liebert & Brakefield disagree with Mikkola's conclusions, and where they note that moths WILL be found on lower branches and trunks. Wells misrepresents the Clarke/ Mani/ Wynne 1985 article as well.