name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied) wrote
in news:cbumko$1r5u$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> Guy Hoelzer  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> in article cblk8u$27qa$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, William Morse at
>> wdmorse{at}twcny.rr.com wrote on 6/26/04 10:00 PM:
>> > 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.
 
>> I agree that this accurately represents the kin selection model.
 
 
> I do not. If the gene benefitted all monarch butteflies equally, and
> carries any personal cost, then the gene is relatively unfit, and will
> decrease in frequency.


Note that  I did _not_ state that the gene would benefit all monarch 
butterflies equally - only that the benefit does not have to be _only_ to 
kin. Now it may well be the case that once the gene becomes widespread in 
a population it will be fixed by drift, but that is not the point. Up 
until fixation,in most real populations the gene will still benefit kin 
more than non-kin simply because of the proximity effect. Presumably your 
argument against equal benefit is based on the idea that otherwise those 
who do not have the gene will gain the benefit without incurring the 
cost. Regarding this point,it is interesting to note that in the real 
world there are mimicking species, but I am unaware of significant 
polymorphism in toxicity occurring for populations ( this may simply not 
have been studied). Perhaps one of the factors that accounts for this is 
that an individual who is freeloading will tend to prosper in relation to 
nearby individuals, so that there will then be a local population which 
does not have the gene. But if a predator "learns" that monarch 
butterflies are no longer toxic, it will tend to demolish precisely the 
local population (since the predator will feed in one locale).This will 
tend to hasten the fixation of the toxicity gene.

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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 7/1/04 1:31:34 PM