Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:09:40.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Biology

Inclusive Fitness and Kin Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2024

Hannah Rubin
Hannah Rubin
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia

Summary

The biological world is full of phenomena that seem to run counter to Darwin's insight that natural selection can lead to the appearance of design. For instance, why do organisms in some species divide reproductive labor? The existence of non-reproducing organisms in such 'eusocial' species looks to be at odds with an evolutionary theory which posits traits exist because they help organisms survive and reproduce. What is the evolutionary advantage of an insect being distasteful to its predators? The distastefulness appears designed to deter predators, but can only affect the predator's actions when the insect is eaten; it is hard to see how such a trait could be passed on. This Element will cover the shared foundations of evolutionary explanations for these and other seemingly puzzling phenomena, focusing on the concepts of inclusive fitness and kin selection.
Get access

Keywords

social evolutioninclusive fitnesskin selectionphilosophy of biologyevolutionary game theory
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Biology
Online ISBN: 9781009019644
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 25 April 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbot, P., Abe, J, Alcock, J., and et al. Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality. Nature, 471:E1–E4, 2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akçay, E. and Van Cleve, J.. There is no fitness but fitness, and the lineage is its bearer. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1687):20150085, 2016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, B. and Nowak, M. A.. There is no inclusive fitness at the level of the individual. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 12:122–128, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, B., Nowak, M. A., and Wilson, E. O.. Limitations of inclusive fitness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110:20135–20139, 2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allison, P. D.. Cultural relatedness under oblique and horizontal transmission rules. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(3):153–169, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. and Franks, N. R.. Teams in animal societies. Behavioral Ecology, 12(5):534–540, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. and McShea, D. W.. Individual versus social complexity, with particular reference to ant colonies. Biological Reviews, 76(2):211–237, 2001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, C., Franks, N. R., and McShea, D. W.. The complexity and hierarchical structure of tasks in insect societies. Animal Behaviour, 62(4):643–651, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, C. D.. Kinship influences cannibalism in the wolf spider, pardosa milvina. Journal of Insect Behavior, 16(1):23–36, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archetti, M.. The volunteer’s dilemma and the optimal size of a social group. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 261:475–480, 2009a.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archetti, M.. Cooperation and the volunteer’s dilemma and the strategy of conflict in public goods games. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 22:2129–2200, 2009b.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Axelrod, R. and Hamilton, W. D.. The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489):1390–1396, 1981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belles-Isles, J.-C. and FitzGerald, G.. Filial cannibalism in sticklebacks: A reproductive management strategy? Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 3(1):49–62, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, J.. Hamilton’s rule and its discontents. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65(2):381–411, 2014a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, J.. Gene mobility and the concept of relatedness. Biology & Philosophy, 29(4):445–476, 2014b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, J.. Hamilton’s two conceptions of social fitness. Philosophy of Science, 83(5):848–860, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, J.. The inclusive fitness controversy: Finding a way forward. Royal Society Open Science, 4(7):170335, 2017a.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birch, J.. The Philosophy of Social Evolution. Oxford University Press, 2017b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, J.. Inclusive fitness as a criterion for improvement. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 76:101186, 2019a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, J.. Are kin and group selection rivals or friends? Current Biology, 29(11):R433–R438, 2019b.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birch, J.. Kin selection, group selection, and the varieties of population structure. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71:259–286, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, J. and Marshall, J. A.. Queller’s separation condition explained and defended. The American Naturalist, 184(4):531–540, 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birch, J. and Okasha, S.. Kin selection and its critics. BioScience, 65(6):22–32, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bose, A. P.. Parent–offspring cannibalism throughout the animal kingdom: A review of adaptive hypotheses. Biological Reviews, 97(5):1868–1885, 2022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourke, A. F.. Genetics, relatedness and social behaviour in insect societies. In Symposium-Royal Entomological Society of London, volume 22, page 1, 2005.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H.. A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Brading, K. and Castellani, E.. Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections. Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandvain, Y., Van Cleve, J., Ubeda, F., and Wilkins, J. F.. Demography, kinship, and the evolving theory of genomic imprinting. Trends in Genetics, 27(7):251–257, 2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruner, J. P. and Rubin, H.. Inclusive fitness and the problem of honest communication. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71(1):115–137, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burda, H., Honeycutt, R. L., Begall, S., Locker-Grütjen, O., and Scharff, A.. Are naked and common mole-rats eusocial and if so, why? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 47(5):293–303, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, T. C. and Johnson, D. D.. The biological and evolutionary logic of human cooperation. Analyse & Kritik, 27(1):113–135, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, K., Hutton, I., and Shepherd, L.. Primitive eusociality in a land plant? Ecology, 102(9):e03373, 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calcott, B.. The other cooperation problem: Generating benefit. Biology & Philosophy, 23(2):179–203, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and Feldman, M. W.. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton University Press, 1981.Google ScholarPubMed
Chapuisat, M. and Keller, L.. Testing kin selection with sex allocation data in eusocial hymenoptera. Heredity, 82(5):473–478, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, E.. The multiple realizability of biological individuals. The Journal of Philosophy, 110(8):413–435, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creel, S.. How to measure inclusive fitness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 241(1302):229–231, 1990.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R.. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R.. Replicator selection and the extended phenotype 3. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 47(1):61–76, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobler, R. and Kölliker, M.. Kin-selected siblicide and cannibalism in the European earwig. Behavioral Ecology, 21(2):257–263, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, J. E., Morrison, C. L., and Ríos, Rubén. Multiple origins of eusociality among sponge-dwelling shrimps (synalpheus). Evolution, 54(2):503–516, 2000.Google ScholarPubMed
El Mouden, C., André, J.-B., Morin, O., and Nettle, D.. Cultural transmission and the evolution of human behaviour: A general approach based on the price equation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 27(2):231–241, 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eshel, I.. On the changing concept of evolutionary population stability as a reflection of a changing point of view in the quantitative theory of evolution. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 34(5):485–510, 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eshel, I. and Feldman, M. W.. Optimality and evolutionary stability under short-term and long-term selection. Adaptationism and Optimality, 161–190, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S.. Mathematical intuition vs. mathematical monsters. Synthese, 125(3):317–332, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Henrich, J.. Is strong reciprocity a maladaptation? On the evolutionary foundations of human altruism. In Hammerstein, P., editor, Mathematical Evolutionary Theory, pages 55–82. MIT Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A.. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford University Press, 1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. M., Cornwallis, C. K., and West, S. A.. Group formation, relatedness, and the evolution of multicellularity. Current Biology, 23(12):1120–1125, 2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FitzGerald, G. J.. Filial cannibalism in fishes: Why do parents eat their offspring? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 7(1):7–10, 1992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, D. J., Michener, C. D.. Kin Recognition in Animals. John Wiley, 1987.Google Scholar
Forber, P. and Smead, R.. The evolution of fairness through spite. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1780):20132439, 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forber, P. and Smead, R.. Evolution and the classification of social behavior. Biology & Philosophy, 30:405–421, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, S.. Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486(3-5):75–174, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, S.. Foundations of Social Evolution. Princeton University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, S.. Natural selection. vii. history and interpretation of kin selection theory. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26:1151–1184, 2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fromhage, L. and Jennions, M. D.. The strategic reference gene: An organismal theory of inclusive fitness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1904):20190459, 2019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fulker, Z., Forber, P., Smead, R., and Riedl, C.. Spite is contagious in dynamic networks. Nature Communications, 12(1):1–9, 2021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gadagkar, R.. Ant, bee and wasp social evolution. In Choe, J. C., editor, Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior (2nd ed.), pages 599–608. Academic Press, 2nd ed., 2019. ISBN 978-0-12-813252-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.90136-5. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128096338901365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garay, J., Varga, Z., Gámez, M., and Cabello, T.. Sib cannibalism can be adaptive for kin. Ecological Modelling, 334:51–59, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, A.. Adaptation as organism design. Biology Letters, 5(6):861–864, 2009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, A.. The genetical theory of multilevel selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 28(2):305–319, 2015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey-Smith, P.. Local interaction, multilevel selection, and evolutionary transitions. Biological Theory, 1(4):372–380, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P.. Varieties of population structure and the levels of selection. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(1):25–50, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P.. Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection. Oxford University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafen, A.. The hawk-dove game played between relatives. Animal Behaviour, 27:905–907, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafen, A.. How not to measure inclusive fitness. Nature, 298(29):425–426, 1982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, A.. Natural selection, kin selection and group selection. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 2:62–84, 1984a.Google Scholar
Grafen, A.. Natural selection, kin selection and group selection. In Krebs, J. and Davies, N., editors, Behavioural Ecology. pages 62–84, Blackwell Scientific, 2nd ed., 1984b.Google Scholar
Grafen, A.. A geometric view of relatedness. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 2(2):28–89, 1985.Google Scholar
Grafen, A.. Split sex ratios and the evolutionary origins of eusociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 122(1):95–121, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafen, A.. Optimization of inclusive fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 238(3):541–563, 2006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, A.. The simplest formal argument for fitness optimization. Journal of Genetics, 87(4):421–433, 2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, A.. Formalizing darwinism and inclusive fitness theory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1533):3135–3141, 2009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greaves, H. and Wallace, D.. Empirical consequences of symmetries. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65:59–89, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, A. S. and West, S. A.. Kin discrimination and the benefit of helping in cooperatively breeding vertebrates. Science, 302(5645):634–636, 2003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, A. S., West, S. A., and Buckling, A.. Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria. Nature, 430(7003):1024–1027, 2004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahn, H.. The crisis in intuition. In McGuinness, Brian, editor, Empiricism, Logic and Mathematics, pages 73–102. The Netherlands: Springer, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haig, D.. Parental antagonism, relatedness asymmetries, and genomic imprinting. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 264(1388):1657–1662, 1997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haig, D.. Genomic imprinting, sex-biased dispersal, and social behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 907(1):149–163, 2000a.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haig, D.. The kinship theory of genomic imprinting. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31:9–32, 2000b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haig, D.. Genomic Imprinting and Kinship. Rutgers University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Haig, D.. Troubled sleepnight waking, breastfeeding and parent–offspring conflict. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, 2014(1):32–39, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haig, D. and Wharton, R.. Prader-willi syndrome and the evolution of human childhood. American Journal of Human Biology, 15(3):320–329, 2003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halperin, T. and Levy, A.. What, if anything, is biological altruism? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1086/716097.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D.. The genetical evolution of social behavior i and ii. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7:1–16, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. D.. Selfish and spiteful behaviour in an evolutionary model. Nature, 228(5277):1218–1220, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. D.. Altruism and related phenomena, mainly in social insects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 3:193–232, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. D.. Innate social aptitudes of man: An approach from evolutionary genetics. Biosocial Anthropology, 133:315–352, 1975.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. and May, R. M.. Dispersal in stable habitats. Nature, 269(5629):578–581, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerstein, P.. Streetcar theory and long-term evolution. Science, 273(5278):1032–1032, 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammerstein, P. and Selten, R.. Game theory and evolutionary biology. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, 2:929–993, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J.. Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53(1):3–35, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, N. and Henrich, J. P.. Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation. Oxford University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heydon, E.. Exploring an evolutionary paradox: An analysis of the “spite effect” and the “nearly neutral effect” in synergistic models of finite populations. Philosophy of Science, 2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, W. G. S. and Maynard Smith, J.. Games between relatives. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 79(1):19–30, 1979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hrdy, S. B.. Infanticide as a primate reproductive strategy: Conflict is basic to all creatures that reproduce sexually, because the genotypes, and hence self-interests, of consorts are necessarily nonidentical. Infanticide among langurs illustrates an extreme form of this conflict. American Scientist, 65(1):40–49, 1977.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B.. Infanticide among animals: A review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1(1):13–40, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L.. Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11:311–332, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J.. Understanding and equivalent reformulations. Philosophy of Science, 88(5):810–823, 2021a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J.. Epistemic dependence & understanding: Reformulating through symmetry. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2021b.Google Scholar
Hunt, J.. Symmetry and Reformulation: On Intellectual Progress in Science and Mathematics. PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, 2022.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. H.. Trait mapping and salience in the evolution of eusocial vespid wasps. Evolution, 53(1):225–237, 1999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huttegger, S. M., Rubin, H., and Zollman, K. J.. Invariance and symmetry in evolutionary dynamics. American Philosophical Quarterly, 58(1):63–78, 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonka, E. and Lamb, M. J.. Evolution in Four Dimensions, Revised Edition: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. MIT Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, K.. Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1553):2635–2650, 2010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnstone, R.. Efficacy and honesty in communication between relatives. The American Naturalist, 152:45–58, 1998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnstone, R. and Grafen, A.. The continuous Sir Philip Sidney game: A simple model of biological signaling. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 156:215–234, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. and Radford, A. N.. Sibling quality and the haplodiploidy hypothesis. Biology Letters, 16(3):20190764, 2020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klug, H. and Bonsall, M. B.. When to care for, abandon, or eat your offspring: The evolution of parental care and filial cannibalism. The American Naturalist, 170(6):886–901, 2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klug, H., Lindströum, K., and Mary, C. M. S.. Parents benefit from eating offspring: Density-dependent egg survivorship compensates for filial cannibalism. Evolution, 60(10):2087–2095, 2006.Google ScholarPubMed
Koliofotis, V. and Verreault-Julien, P.. Hamilton’s rule: A non-causal explanation? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 92:109–118, 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krama, T., Vrublevska, J., Freeberg, T. M. et al. You mob my owl, I’ll mob yours: Birds play tit-for-tat game. Scientific Reports, 2(1):1–3, 2012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J. J. and Chow, C. C.. The causal meaning of Fisher’s average effect. Genetics Research, 95(2–3):89–109, 2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, L. and Feldman, M. W.. The co-evolution of culturally inherited altruistic helping and cultural transmission under random group formation. Theoretical Population Biology, 73(4):506–516, 2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, L. and Rousset, F.. The genetical theory of social behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1642):20130357, 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, L, Keller, L., West, S., and Roze, D.. Group selection and kin selection: Two concepts but one process. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(16):6736–6739, 2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, S. R. and Grafen, A.. Inclusive fitness is an indispensable approximation for understanding organismal design. Evolution, 73(6):1066–1076, 2019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, S. R. and Grafen, A.. Extending the range of additivity in using inclusive fitness. Ecology and Evolution, 11(5):1970–1983, 2021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewens, T.. Neo-paleyan biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 76:101185, 2019.Google Scholar
Liao, X., Rong, S., and Queller, D. C.. Relatedness, conflict, and the evolution of eusociality. PLoS Biology, 13(3):e1002098, 2015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, E.. Units and levels of selection: An anatomy of the units of selection debate. In Singh, R., Krimbas, C., Paul, D., and Beatty, J., editors, Thinking about Evolution. Cambridge University Press, pages 267–291, 2001.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E.. Units and levels of selection. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017.Google Scholar
Manica, A.. Filial cannibalism in teleost fish. Biological Reviews, 77(2):261–277, 2002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marrow, P., Johnstone, R. A., and Hurst, L. D.. Riding the evolutionary streetcar: Where population genetics and game theory meet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(11):445–446, 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, J. A.. Queller’s rule ok: Comment on van Veelen “when inclusive fitness if right and when it can be wrong.” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 270:185–188, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J. A.. Social Evolution and Inclusive Fitness Theory. Princeton University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Mateo, J. M.. Kin-recognition abilities and nepotism as a function of sociality. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269(1492):721–727, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthen, M. and Ariew, A.. Two ways of thinking about fitness and natural selection. The Journal of Philosophy, 99(2):55–83, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J.. Group selection and kin selection. Nature, 201(4924):1145–1147, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J.. Group selection. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 51(2):277–283, 1976.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J.. Optimization theory in evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9:31–56, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J.. Models of evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 219(1216):315–325, 1983.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J.. Evolutionary Progress and Levels of Selection. In: Nitecki, M.H. (ed.), Evolutionary Progress, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 219–230.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J.. Honest signaling, the Philip Sidney game. Animal Behavior, 42:1034–1035, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J.. The origin of altruism. Nature, 393(6686):639–640, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehdiabadi, N. J., Reeve, H. K., and Mueller, U. G.. Queens versus workers: Sex-ratio conflict in eusocial hymenoptera. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(2):88–93, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesoudi, A, Whiten, A., and Laland, K. N.. Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(4):329–347, 2006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meunier, J., West, S. A., and Chapuisat, M.. Split sex ratios in the social hymenoptera: A meta-analysis. Behavioral Ecology, 19(2):382–390, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micheletti, A. J., Ge, E., Zhou, L. et al. Religious celibacy brings inclusive fitness benefits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 289(1977):20220965, 2022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michod, R. E.. Darwinian Dynamics: Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Mochizuki, A., Takeda, Y., and Iwasa, Y.. The evolution of genomic imprinting. Genetics, 144(3):1283–1295, 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murgueitio Ramírez, S.. A puzzle concerning local symmetries and their empirical significance. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 73:1021–1044, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, M. and Sigmund, K.. The evolution of stochastic strategies in the prisoner’s dilemma. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 20(3):247–265, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, M. A.. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805):1560–1563, 2006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowak, M. A., Tarnita, C. E., and Wilson, E. O.. The evolution of eusociality. Nature, 466(26):1057–1062, 2010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowak, M. A., Tarnita, C. E., and Wilson, E. O.. Nowak el al. reply. Nature, 471:E9–E10, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S.. Why won’t the group selection controversy go away? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52(1), 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S.. Genetic relatedness and the evolution of altruism. Philosophy of Science, 69(1):138–149, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S.. Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Oxford University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S.. Agents and Goals in Evolution. Oxford University Press, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S.. The relation between kin and multilevel selection: An approach using causal graphs. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67:435–470, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S. and Martens, J.. The causal meaning of Hamilton’s rule. Royal Society Open Science, 3(3):160037, 2016a.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okasha, S. and Martens, J.. Hamilton’s rule, inclusive fitness maximization, and the goal of individual behaviour in symmetric two-player games. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 29:473–482, 2016b.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okasha, S. and Paternotte, C.. Group adaptation, formal darwinism and contextual analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25(6):1127–1139, 2012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okasha, S., Weymark, J. A., and Bossert, W.. Inclusive fitness maximization: An axiomatic approach. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 350:24–31, 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orlove, M. and Wood, C. L.. Coefficients of relationship and coefficients of relatedness in kin selection: A covariance form for the rho formula. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 73(4):679–686, 1978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Otsuka, J.. The Role of Mathematics in Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, K. M. and Nowak, M. A.. Unifying evolutionary dynamics. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 219(1):93–98, 2002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parsons, W, Zhong, W., and Rudolf, V. H.. Mating status and kin recognition influence the strength of cannibalism. Animal Behaviour, 85(2):365–369, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, M., Ross, L., Curley, J. et al. The evolution of genomic imprinting: Theories, predictions and empirical tests. Heredity, 113(2):119–128, 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polis, G. A.. The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 12:225–251, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescod-Weinstein, C.. The Disordered Cosmos: A Journey into Dark Matter, Spacetime, and Dreams Deferred. Hachett, 2021.Google Scholar
Queller, D.. What life is for: A commentary on Fromhage and Jennions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1905):20191060, 2019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Queller, D. C.. A general model for kin selection. Evolution, 46(2):376–380, 1992a.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Queller, D. C.. Quantitative genetics, inclusive fitness, and group selection. The American Naturalist, 139(3):540–558, 1992b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queller, D. C.. The measurement and meaning of inclusive fitness. Animal Behaviour, 51(1):229–232, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queller, D. C.. Theory of genomic imprinting conflict in social insects. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 3(1):1–23, 2003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Queller, D. C.. Expanded social fitness and Hamilton’s rule for kin, kith, and kind. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(Supplement 2):10792–10799, 2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Queller, D. C.. The gene’s eye view, the Gouldian knot, Fisherian swords and the causes of selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1797):20190354, 2020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Queller, D. C. and Strassmann, J. E.. Kin selection and social insects. BioScience, 48(3):165–175, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queller, D. C. and Strassmann, J. E.. Beyond society: The evolution of organismality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1533):3143–3155, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rautiala, P., Helanterä, H., and Puurtinen, M.. Extended haplodiploidy hypothesis. Evolution Letters, 3(3):263–270, 2019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richerson, P. J. and Boyd, R.. The evolution of human ultra-sociality. Indoctrinability, Ideology, and Warfare: Evolutionary Perspectives, In: Eibl-Eibesfeldt and Salter, F., Books, Berghahn. 71–95, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, P. J. and Boyd, R.. Complex societies: The evolutionary origins of a crude superorganism. Human Nature, 10:253–289, 1999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richerson, P. J. and Boyd, R.. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. University of Chicago Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Rickles, D.. A philosopher looks at string dualities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42(1):54–67, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, A. M. and Gardner, A.. Inclusive fitness: A scientific revolution. In E. Dickins, Thomas, Benjamin J.A., Dickins, editor, Evolutionary Biology: Contemporary and Historical Reflections upon Core Theory, pages 343–360. Springer, 2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosas, A.. Beyond inclusive fitness? On a simple and general explanation for the evolution of altruism. Philosophy & Theory in Biology, 2:1–9, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstock, S., Barrett, T. W., and Weatherall, J. O.. On Einstein algebras and relativistic spacetimes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 52:309–316, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L., Gardner, A., Hardy, N., and West, S. A.. Ecology, not the genetics of sex determination, determines who helps in eusocial populations. Current Biology, 23(23):2383–2387, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousset, F.. Inbreeding and relatedness coefficients: What do they measure? Heredity, 88:371–380, 2002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, H.. Genetic models in evolutionary game theory: The evolution of altruism. Erkenntnis, 80(6):1175–1189, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, H.. The phenotypic gambit: Selective pressures and ESS methodology in evolutionary game theory. Biology & Philosophy, 31(4):551–569, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, H.. The debate over inclusive fitness as a debate over methodologies. Philosophy of Science, 85(1):1–30, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, H.. Reintroducing kin selection to the human behavioral sciences. Philosophy of Science, 88(1):44–66, 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, H.. Unlike agents: The role of correlation in economics and biology. In du Crest, A., Valkovic, M., Ariew, A., Desmond, H., Huneman, P., and Reydon, T., editors, Evolutionary Thinking across Disciplines: Problems and Perspectives in Generalized Darwinism. Synthese, 375–397, 2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampaio, E., Seco, M. C., Rosa, R., and Gingins, S.. Octopuses punch fishes during collaborative interspecific hunting events. Ecology, 102(3):1–4, 2021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shavit, A. and Millstein, R. L.. Group selection is dead! Long live group selection? BioScience, 58(7):574–575, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonet, C. and McNally, L.. Kin selection explains the evolution of cooperation in the gut microbiota. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(6):e2016046118, 2021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skyrms, B.. Altruism, inclusive fitness, and the logic of decision. Philosophy of Science, 69:S104–S111, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smead, R. and Forber, P.. The evolutionary dynamics of spite in finite populations. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 67(3):698–707, 2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sober, E. and Wilson, D. S.. Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. N., Scheines, R., and Heckerman, D.. Causation, Prediction, and Search. MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Starks, P. T.. Recognition systems: From components to conservation. In Annales Zoologici Fennici, volume 41, pages 689–690. Helsinki: Suomen Biologian Seura Vanamo, 1964–, 2004.Google Scholar
Stephens, S.. The genetics of “corky” ii. further studies on its genetic basis in relation to the general problem of interspecific isolating mechanisms. Journal of Genetics, 50:9–20, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strassmann, J. E., Page, R. E., Robinson, G. E., and Seeley, T. D.. Kin selection and eusociality. Nature, 471(7339):E5–E6, 2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, C. and Nowak, M. A.. Transforming the dilemma. Evolution, 61(10):2281–2292, 2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, G., Wild, P. D. and Gardner, A.. Direct fitness or inclusive fitness: How shall we model kin selection? Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20:301–309, 2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorne, B. L.. Evolution of eusociality in termites. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28:27–54, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Melis, A. P., Tennie, C., Wyman, E., and Herrmann, E.. Two key steps in the evolution of human cooperation. Current Anthropology, 53(6):673–692, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R.. Social Evolution. Benjamin/Cummings, 1985.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L.. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1):35–57, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. L. and Hare, H.. Haploidploidy and the evolution of the social insect: The unusual traits of the social insects are uniquely explained by Hamilton’s kinship theory. Science, 191(4224):249–263, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Úbeda, F. and Gardner, A.. A model for genomic imprinting in the social brain: Adults. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 65(2):462–475, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, J., Feldman, M. W., and Lehmann, L.. How demography, life history, and kinship shape the evolution of genomic imprinting. The American Naturalist, 176(4):440–455, 2010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Veelen, M.. On the use of the Price equation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 237:412–426, 2005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Veelen, M.. Group selection, kin selection, altruism and cooperation: When inclusive fitness is right and when it can be wrong. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 259(3):589–600, 2009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Veelen, M.. The replicator dynamics with n players and population structure. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 276(1):78–85, 2011a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Veelen, M.. A rule is not a rule if it changes from case to case (a reply to Marshall’s comment). Journal of Theoretical Biology, 270(1):189–195, 2011b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Veelen, M., García, J., Sabelis, M. W., and Egas, M.. Group selection and inclusive fitness are not equivalent; the Price equation vs. models and statistics. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299:64–80, 2012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Veelen, M., Luo, S., and Simon, B.. A simple model of group selection that cannot be analyzed with inclusive fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 360:279–289, 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ventura, R.. The evolution of cooperation in finite populations with synergistic payoffs. Biology & Philosophy, 34(4):1–13, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, M. J.. A critical review of the models of group selection. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 53(2):101–114, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, M. J.. Soft selection, hard selection, kin selection, and group selection. The American Naturalist, 125(1):61–73, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, G. P.. The measurement theory of fitness. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 64(5):1358–1376, 2010.Google ScholarPubMed
Walsh, D. M., Ariew, A., and Matthen, M.. Four pillars of statisticalism. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology, 9(1):1–18, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, J. O.. Part 1: Theoretical equivalence in physics. Philosophy Compass, 14(5):e12592, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S. A. and Gardner, A.. Adaptation and inclusive fitness. Current Biology, 23(13):R577–R584, 2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, S. A., Griffin, A. S., and Gardner, A.. Social semantics: Altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20(2):415–432, 2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, S. A., Griffin, A. S., and Gardner, A.. Social semantics: How useful has group selection been? Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21(1):374–385, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S. A., El Mouden, C., and Gardner, A.. Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(4):231–262, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West Eberhard, M. J.. The evolution of social behavior by kin selection. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 50(1):1–33, 1975.Google Scholar
Wheeler, D. E.. Developmental and physiological determinants of caste in social hymenoptera: Evolutionary implications. The American Naturalist, 128(1):13–34, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wild, G. and Traulsen, A.. The different limits of weak selection and the evolutionary dynamics of finite populations. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 247(2):382–390, 2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, G. C.. A defense of reductionism in evolutionary biology. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 2:1–27, 1985.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S.. A theory of group selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 72(1):143–146, 1975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, D. S.. Structured demes and trait-group variation. The American Naturalist, 113(4):606–610, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. S.. Weak altruism, strong group selection. Oikos, 59:135–140, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. S. and Sober, E.. Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(4):585–608, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. O.. One giant leap: How insects achieved altruism and colonial life. BioScience, 58(1):17–25, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodford, P. J.. The many meanings of “cost” and “benefit”: Biological altruism, biological agency, and the identification of social behaviours. Biology & Philosophy, 34(1):1–22, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J. and Weatherall, J.. Between a stone and a Hausdorff space. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 0(ja):null, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1086/728532. www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/728532.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Inclusive Fitness and Kin Selection
  • Hannah Rubin, University of Missouri, Columbia
  • Online ISBN: 9781009019644
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Inclusive Fitness and Kin Selection
  • Hannah Rubin, University of Missouri, Columbia
  • Online ISBN: 9781009019644
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Inclusive Fitness and Kin Selection
  • Hannah Rubin, University of Missouri, Columbia
  • Online ISBN: 9781009019644
Available formats
×