"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).

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).
---
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 8/3/04 6:34:44 AM