"Perplexed in Peoria"  wrote
>
> 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).
>
The problem is that the formula works fine if only one interaction is
possible, but it gets more complex when the recipient recycles some of the
resources back to other relatives, some of whom may be more closely related
to the donor than to him.
---
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 9:34:46 PM