Re: Kin Selection contradiction?

From: Tim Tyler (tim_at_tt1lock.org)
Date: 06/27/04 

Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:39:53 +0000 (UTC)

William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com> wrote or quoted:

> I thought Hamilton originally suggested his rule to answer the question
> of how a feature like the toxicity of monarch butterflies could evolve.
>
> This feature has nothing to do with reciprocity. It might not be considered
> altruism by most, but in fact is, since being toxic doesn't help an
> individual at first - the individual will still be killed by the
> predator.The predator is likely thereafter to avoid the species - so it is
> only after the toxicity gene has spread that it provides any advantage to
> the bearer. The initial benefit has to be to other individuals who are
> likely to share the gene - i.e. kin. Note here that the benefit does not
> have to be only to kin - in the monarch butterfly example the benefit would
> be to all monarch butterflies - the benefit to kin only has to exceed the
> cost to the individual.

Conventionally (i.e. if you avoid species level selection), then
spatialisation is important.

I.e. it would really matter that a predator who had a toxic monarch
for breakfast would be likely to be avoiding relatives for lunch
and dinner - by virtue of the fact that they are in the same vicinity.

Without spatialisation, benefit would accrue equally to all monarchs -
and the costs would be paid only by those with the gene - a result
which is bound to be a net loss for them in the competiton between them.

If you permit species-level or group level explanations, toxic monarchs
are no puzzle at all, of course. 

-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
Quantcast