"Perplexed in Peoria"  wrote in
message news:...
> "Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote in message
news:celrvu$170q$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> > Note that John Edser wrote:
> >
> > > Within Hamilton's rule the two fitnesses
> > > being compared are inclusive fitness
> > > (rb) and Darwinian fitness implied as
> > > as just the cost (c).
> >
> > This is wrong. Conventionally, inclusive fitness is r b - c, not r b.
> 
> This is also wrong.  At least as Hamilton defined inclusive fitness in
> 1964.  He defined it as something like (K + rb - c), where K would be
> the fitness that an organism would have if all social interactions were
> excluded (and the costs of those interactions).
>

You are correct, I neglected the baseline fitness. r b - c might be
described as the "inclusive fitness consequences" of an action.
 
> Inclusive fitness as you have defined it and inclusive fitness as
> Hamilton defined it maximize together only if there are no pleiotropic
> effects that modify both K and (rb-c).


I disagree with you here: surely any change to K is caught in the -c
term.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/4/04 12:34:44 PM