Guy Hoelzer  wrote in
news:cbdlb2$2mpm$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> in article cbc9qk$276c$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
> jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net wrote on 6/23/04 9:06 AM:
>> I fully agree that most altruism-like behaviors in nature (excluding
>> parental care, and perhaps the social insects) are based on
>> reciprocity rather than on the unilateral altruism covered by the
>> Rule. 
 
> It's good to know that our estimates of reality are close.


I disagree with both of your estimates of reality. I thought Hamilton 
originally suggested his rule to answer the question of how a feature like 
the toxicity of monarch butterflies could evolve. 

This feature has nothing to do with reciprocity. 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. 
 

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 6/27/04 6:00:18 AM