Published In
Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Document Type
Post-Print
Publication Date
2006
Subjects
Altruism, Kin selection (Evolution)
Abstract
In lieu of an abstract, here is the first paragraph:
In a recent issue of TREE, Foster et al. [1] defend inclusive fitness theory [2] from recent challenges [3,4]. The main author of these challenges, E.O. Wilson, argues that inclusive fitness (also called kin selection [5]) may not be the main explanation for the evolution of altruism and eusociality. In contrast, Foster et al. claim that inclusive fitness is not only the most prominent explanation for altruism, but that genetic “relatedness is always required for altruism to evolve” [1, p. 59]. Here we take issue with their claim about genetic relatedness and place the debate in a larger historical context.
Rights
This is the post-print version licensed under CC BY-NC-ND: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
The final version © Elsevier is available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.008
DOI
10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.008
Persistent Identifier
https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/42755
Citation Details
Fletcher, J. A., Zwick, M., Doebeli, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2006). What's wrong with inclusive fitness? [Post-print] Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(11), 597-598.