Selfishness and altruism can coexist when help is subject to diminishing returns

Altruism and selfishness are 30–50% heritable in man in both Western and non-Western populations. This genetically based variation in altruism and selfishness requires explanation. In non-human animals, altruism is generally directed towards relatives, and satisfies the condition known as Hamilton's rule. This nepotistic altruism evolves under natural selection only if the ratio of the benefit of receiving help to the cost of giving it exceeds a value that depends on the relatedness of the individuals involved. Standard analyses assume that the benefit provided by each individual is the same but it is plausible in some cases that as more individuals contribute, help is subject to diminishing returns. We analyse this situation using a single-locus two-allele model of selection in a diploid population with the altruistic allele dominant to the selfish allele. The analysis requires calculation of the relationship between the fitnesses of the genotypes and the frequencies of the genes. The fitnesses vary not only with the genotype of the individual but also with the distribution of phenotypes amongst the sibs of the individual and this depends on the genotypes of his parents. These calculations are not possible by direct fitness or ESS methods but are possible using population genetics. Our analysis shows that diminishing returns change the operation of natural selection and the outcome can now be a stable equilibrium between altruistic and selfish alleles rather than the elimination of one allele or the other. We thus provide a plausible genetic model of kin selection that leads to the stable coexistence in the same population of both altruistic and selfish individuals. This may explain reported genetic variation in altruism in man.

Fighting in fig wasps: do males avoid killing brothers or do they never meet them?

1. In many fig wasp species, armoured wingless males regularly engage in lethal fights for access to females inside figs, which act as discrete mating patches. 2. Kin selection generally opposes killing brothers, because their reproductive success provides indirect genetic benefits (inclusive fitness). However, siblicide may be avoided if (i) brothers do not occur in the same figs, or (ii) males avoid fighting brothers in the same fig. Alternatively, (iii) siblicide may occur because intense mate competition between brothers at the local scale overcomes kin selection effects, or (iv) males do not recognise kin. 3. A fig may also contain wasps from other closely related species and it is not known if males also fight with these individuals. 4. Nine microsatellite loci were used in the first genetic analysis of fighting in fig wasps. We assigned species and sibling identities to males and tested alternative fighting scenarios for three Sycoscapter wasp species in figs of Ficus rubiginosa. 5. Approximately 60% of figs contained males frommore than one Sycoscapter species and approximately 80% of fights were between conspecifics, but a surprising 20% were between heterospecific males. 6.Within species, fewfigs contained brothers, suggesting that females typically lay one son per fig. Overall, most males do not compete with brothers and all fights observed were between unrelated males. Key words:Competition, fighting, genetics, kin selection, microsatellites, relatedness.