Skip to content
NatureHQ

Study

Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus

Cook, Laurence M.; Grant, Bruce S.; Saccheri, Ilik J.; Mallet, James

Biology Letters, 2012

Peer-reviewedfield experimentwild

Released peppered moths in a single wood over seven years, allowing them to settle in natural resting positions at natural densities rather than being placed on trunks, and recorded disappearance attributable to bird predation for pale and melanic forms.

Studied in
Biston betularia, Aves
Sample size
4864 moths released over seven years and monitored for predation

Melanic moths suffered significantly higher predation than pale moths in this now-unpolluted wood, at a rate sufficient to account for the observed decline in melanic frequency.

What it means

The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.

How the authors put it

Differential bird predation on the two forms is confirmed as the principal mechanism, with the methodological objections to the earlier work addressed.

How NatureHQ reads it

The third stage, and the reason NatureHQ tells this story at all. The criticisms were serious and were taken seriously; somebody spent seven years running the experiment properly; and the original conclusion survived. That sequence is a better advertisement for how science works than the textbook version ever was.

  • One wood, in a period when melanic frequency was already falling.
  • Published after Majerus’s death from his data by colleagues, so the analysis was not completed by the person who designed it.
  • Running the famous experiment properly

    The classic peppered moth experiments put moths on tree trunks, where the species does not normally rest. Does the result survive if the moths choose their own positions?

What this study is used for on NatureHQ

One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.

Published by: The Royal SocietyPublished by the Royal Society.

doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.1136

Checked against Crossref on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.

NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-03.