Abstract
Dr Mueller writes: DR KAUFMAN'S analysis is naive and ignores information given in several of my publications and papers I have presented at meetings, at some of which I believe he was in the audience. My first report clearly indicates that I was aware of the ambiguity of Pielowski's2 results which can be interpreted as the prey being conspicuous relative to the flock rather than evidence for selection for oddity. All of my experiments have been designed to segregate the effects of conspicuousness. My ten mice were on pedestals 10 cm square on an arc of a circle 2 m in radius3. The hawk was perched at the centre of the circle and 85 cm above the level of the pedestals. The pedestals were affixed to a board 122×244 cm, painted the same colour as the pedestals and those constituting the substrate. Measurements for four photographs taken with the camera at the hawk's perch showed that, on the average, the ten mice covered 1.6% of the substrate as viewed by the hawk. The mean distance between mice was 2.9 times their average width. I submit that the mice formed an inconsequential portion of the substrate and that Kaufman's Fig 1 is a simplistic and misleading portrayal of my experimental design.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
Mueller, H. C., Nature, 217, 92 (1968).
Pielowski, Z., Ekologia Polska (A), 9, 11 (1961).
Mueller, H. C., Nature, 233, 345 (1971).
Mueller, H. C., Amer. Zool., 12, 656 (1972).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MUELLER, H. Was Oddity Conspicuous in Prey Selection Experiments?. Nature 244, 112 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1038/244112a0
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/244112a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.