"Anon."  wrote in
news:c5h33r$19cp$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> Jim Menegay wrote:

>>>>We have the defining equation:
>>>>  r = g - e
>>>>where
>>>>  g = genetic relatedness (this is the old r)
>>>>  e = ecological competitiveness. 


>> But, so far, I can't get the idea to work.  I need a theory
>> explaining how "e" is conceptually computed, and some
ideas as to how
>> it can be empirically measured.  Plus, I need a variant of Fisher
>> showing how "e" ties in to the dynamics of gene frequencies.  Only
>> with all this ugly math in place can I then wave my magic wand and
>> reveal the simple rule (g-e)b > c.
 
> Sorry to jump in half way through, but if, by ecological
> competitiveness you mean that the effects on one individual on the
> fitness of another vary, then isn't it better to include this in the b
> term? 
 
> I think the general solution to your problem is to show that there is
> a correlation between b and r, so that a higher r means a higher b.


That had been my thought at one point - to use the sum over i of rsubi 
times bsubi, with i representing either different individuals or perhaps 
different cohorts. This may better reflect spite, but makes the equation 
less general, which is why I am intrigued by the idea of a separate term 
for e.  I hope to expound on this in a later follow.

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 4/14/04 6:27:57 AM