As usual, dawkins, I appreciate your knowledge and clarity of explanation. Here's where I've a problem with Kettlewell: It appears (and I think you tend to confirm this, though I wouldn't put words in your mouth) that the moth had differing shades throughout its population. I mean, one could find darker and lighter shading wherevever this species of moth could be encountered and the literature I read indicates it to be fairly ubiqutious in the U.K. That said, one of Majerus' concerns was Kettlewells lack of investigation into the coloration and ratios of the larvae. It appears possible that the poulation of "wrong" shaded moths could be decimated because of increased visibility. At no time does Kettlewell infer (as far as I can see, not having read the entire project) that all of the "wrong" shaded moths disappear due to increased predation. Once the environmental causes were reversed the numbers appear to return to "normal" of both or all various shades. I think my read of your last post (first part) seems to agree that a variety of shading is found in the general population. I can't see how this can, at least for the short term, presage DNA modifications leading to permanent changes in the species. In fact, the return to 'normal' after the Clean Air Act only, in my way of thinking, indicates population shifts in numbers, since there appears to have always been some remnants of all shadings. I think this evidenced by your comment "...any variation in phenotype is reduced (emphasis mine) by predation." At any rate, thanks for your reasoned approach...