Guy Hoelzer wrote:
> John,
> 
> in article cesh2c$av3$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, John Edser at edser{at}tpg.com.au
> wrote on 8/4/04 10:37 PM:
> 
> 
>>>>>>>PF
>>>>>>>Since an Edserian abolute fitness is ~exactly~
one reproduced
>>>>>>>generation..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>JE:-
>>>>>>Incorrect.
>>>>>
>> 
>>
>>>>>PF:- I will concede that a suitable amendment to what I
wrote would be to
>>>>>make sure that every instance of "absolute
fitness" would be preceded by
>>>>>"one Edserian", but that otherwise my
interpretation of your counting of
>>>>>absolute fitnesses was generously accommodating of your
own definition an
>>>>>absolute fitness-count of 1. With amendments it would
look like this
>>>>>instead: Since one Edserian abolute fitness is
~exactly~ one reproduced
>>>>>generation,
>>>>
>>>>JE:-
>>>>Incorrect
>>>
>> 
>>
>>>>JE:-
>>>>Absolute fitness is defined as:
>>>>The total number of fertile forms
>>>>reproduced into one population by
>>>>a parent.
>>>>This will consist of
>>>>n generations where n is
>>>>only _minimally_ = 1.
>>>
>>>GH:-
>>>This seems like a subtle, but potentially important, change
from what I have
>>>read about your definition of absolute fitness before.  Are you
saying that
>>>one's grandchildren are to be added to one's absolute fitness tally?
>>
>>JE:-
>>No. A selectee can have MORE
>>than one fitness total because
>>it can reproduce itself into more
>>than just one population.
> 
> 
> OK.  I must say, though, that I can't see expecting anybody to get that
> message out of your statement above.  This is also the first time I have
> recognized this part of your definition.  BTW, if an individual can have
> several independent fitness measures, some potentially high and some
> potentially low, what do you see selection acting on.  I guess you see
> selection acting independently on this individual in each population.  It
> might favor the individual in some populations and disfavor it in others.  I
> find this to be an interesting way to frame the fitness problem, but I have
> never run into it before.  This seems to be one of those cryptic issues that
> results in misunderstandings in threads like this one.
> 
Hans Metz and Mats Gyllenberg thought about this problem a couple of 
years ago.  If you're prepared to wade through the maths, then these two 
papers are the relevant ones:

Gyllenberg M, Metz JAJ (2001). On fitness in structured metapopulations.
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY 43: 545-560.

Metz JAJ, Gyllenberg M (2001) How should we define fitness in structured 
metapopulation models? Including an application to the calculation of 
evolutionarily stable dispersal strategies.  PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL 
SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 268: 499-508.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf H„llstr”min katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 51400
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
---
ţ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/6/04 5:39:21 PM