Measurement of the Relative Importance of Individual Selection and Kin Selection Among Females of the Genus Macaca

Evolution ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan B. Silk
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Individual Selection

A kind man benefits himself – but how? Evolutionary models of human food sharing

2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Getty
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Food Sharing ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Evolutionary Models ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Human Food ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rule Out

Can evolutionary models explain food sharing in traditional human societies? Gurven's analysis cannot rule out any of the models (kin selection, reciprocal altruism, tolerated scrounging, costly signaling, or by-product mutualism), and quantitative partitioning of relative importance is not feasible. For now, the hypotheses seem like the proverbial blind men examining the elephant: each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

The Biological and Evolutionary Logic of Human Cooperation

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence C. Burnham ◽  
Dominic D. P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Human Nature ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Alternative Solution ◽  
Individual Selection ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Indirect Reciprocity ◽  
Costly Punishment

AbstractHuman cooperation is held to be an evolutionary puzzle because people voluntarily engage in costly cooperation, and costly punishment of non-cooperators, even among anonymous strangers they will never meet again. The costs of such cooperation cannot be recovered through kin-selection, reciprocal altruism, indirect reciprocity, or costly signaling. A number of recent authors label this behavior ‘strong reciprocity’, and argue that it is: (a) a newly documented aspect of human nature, (b) adaptive, and (c) evolved by group selection. We argue exactly the opposite; that the phenomenon is: (a) not new, (b) maladaptive, and (c) evolved by individual selection. In our perspective, the apparent puzzle disappears to reveal a biological and evolutionary logic to human cooperation. Group selection may play a role in theory, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain human cooperation. Our alternative solution is simpler, makes fewer assumptions, and is more parsimonious with the empirical data.

THE SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE OF FOUNDRESS ASSOCIATIONS IN POLISTES FUSCATUS (HYMENOPTERA: VESPIDAE): A FIELD STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF PREDATION ON PRODUCTIVITY

1978 ◽  
Vol 110 (5) ◽  
pp. 519-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Gibo
Keyword(s):  
Life Table ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Selective Advantage ◽  
Selection Model ◽  
Individual Selection ◽  
Selection Models ◽  
Nest Sites ◽  
Parental Manipulation ◽  
Equivalent Potential ◽  
Manipulation Model

AbstractColonies of P. fuscatus that were initiated by various numbers of foundresses were studied to gather basic life table information. This information was used to estimate the selective advantage of foundress association according to a kin selection model, a parental manipulation model, two individual selection models, and a combined kin and individual selection model. Life table data were obtained for colonies located in exposed nest sites and for colonies located in nest sites provided with protection from vertebrate predators. Relative productivity of colonies produced by different size foundress associations and under different levels of predation pressure were determined. Multiple foundress colonies were found to be more productive and have an increased ability to re-establish after an episode of predation when compared with single foundress colonies. When predation levels on the colonies were high, multiple foundress colonies were more productive per colony and per foundress. When predation levels on the colonies were low, multiple foundress colonies were more productive per colony but less productive per foundress. At high levels of predation, when the queens and joiners were all assumed to have equivalent potential productivities, the kin selection model, the parental manipulation model, and the combined kin and individual selection model all predicted a selective advantage for joiners in foundress associations. At low levels of predation, when the wasps are assumed to have equivalent productivities, only the parental manipulation model predicted a selective advantage for joiners in foundress associations. When the assumption of equivalent potential is relaxed and when the wasps are assumed to be capable of detecting and acting upon individual differences in productivity, then all of the models could account for the existence of foundress associations. However, under this last set of assumptions the individual selection models require that the joiners have very low potential productivities.

scholarly journals Reciprocal mimicry: kin selection can drive defended prey to resemble their Batesian mimics

2018 ◽  
Vol 285 (1890) ◽  
pp. 20181149
Author(s):  
Øistein Haugsten Holen ◽  
Rufus A. Johnstone
Keyword(s):  
Signal Detection ◽  
Social Insects ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Batesian Mimicry ◽  
Individual Selection ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Detection Model ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Aggressive Attack ◽  
Over Time

Established mimicry theory predicts that Batesian mimics are selected to resemble their defended models, while models are selected to become dissimilar from their mimics. However, this theory has mainly considered individual selection acting on solitary organisms such as adult butterflies. Although Batesian mimicry of social insects is common, the few existing applications of kin selection theory to mimicry have emphasized relatedness among mimics rather than among models. Here, we present a signal detection model of Batesian mimicry in which the population of defended model prey is kin structured. Our analysis shows for most of parameter space that increased average dissimilarity from mimics has a twofold group-level cost for the model prey: it attracts more predators and these adopt more aggressive attack strategies. When mimetic resemblance and local relatedness are sufficiently high, such costs acting in the local neighbourhood may outweigh the individual benefits of dissimilarity, causing kin selection to drive the models to resemble their mimics. This requires model prey to be more common than mimics and/or well-defended, the conditions under which Batesian mimicry is thought most successful. Local relatedness makes defended prey easier targets for Batesian mimicry and is likely to stabilize the mimetic relationship over time.

scholarly journals Relatedness decreases and reciprocity increases cooperation in Norway rats

2018 ◽  
Vol 285 (1874) ◽  
pp. 20180035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manon K. Schweinfurth ◽  
Michael Taborsky
Keyword(s):  
Rattus Norvegicus ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Evolution Of Cooperation ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Cooperative Interactions ◽  
Social Partners ◽  
Norway Rats

Kin selection and reciprocity are two mechanisms underlying the evolution of cooperation, but the relative importance of kinship and reciprocity for decisions to cooperate are yet unclear for most cases of cooperation. Here, we experimentally tested the relative importance of relatedness and received cooperation for decisions to help a conspecific in wild-type Norway rats ( Rattus norvegicus ). Test rats provided more food to non-kin than to siblings, and they generally donated more food to previously helpful social partners than to those that had refused help. The rats thus applied reciprocal cooperation rules irrespective of relatedness, highlighting the importance of reciprocal help for cooperative interactions among both related and unrelated conspecifics.

The relative importance of luminal and systemic signals in the control of intestinal iron absorption

2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A678-A679
Author(s):  
G ANDERSON ◽  
S WILKINS ◽  
T MURPHY ◽  
G CLEGHORN ◽  
D FRAZER
Keyword(s):  
Iron Absorption ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Intestinal Iron Absorption ◽  
Systemic Signals
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document