Limits of Hamilton's rule

The evolution of cooperation is a fundamental problem in evolutionary biology. Over the last decades a wealth of models and mechanisms have been proposed for explaining how cooperators can thrive under Darwinian selection. At the same time, discussions of the conceptual connections between the different approaches have often been neglected. The synthesis proposed by Lehmann & Keller (2006) is therefore a welcome contribution to the literature on the evolution of cooperation. Their framework for understanding the evolution of cooperative traits is based on the fitness gradient. A particular mechanism is said to favour cooperation if it generates a positive fitness gradient towards higher values of the cooperative trait. The proposed framework is based on an extension of Hamilton’s rule that is obtained by adjusting and reinterpreting costs, benefits and genetic relatedness. While such an approach may be useful in many circumstances, we would like to point out that if selection on cooperation is frequency-dependent, the classification given by Lehmann & Keller (2006) is not applicable in an interesting class of evolutionary scenarios.

[1]  L. Keller,et al.  The evolution of cooperation and altruism – a general framework and a classification of models , 2006, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[2]  Michael Doebeli,et al.  Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game , 2004, Nature.

[3]  Christoph Hauert,et al.  Effects of Space in 2 × 2 Games , 2002, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos.

[4]  M. Doebeli,et al.  Variable investment, the Continuous Prisoner's Dilemma, and the origin of cooperation , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  É. Kisdi,et al.  Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree , 2004, Evolutionary Ecology.

[6]  Ulf Dieckmann,et al.  Evolutionary Branching and Sympatric Speciation Caused by Different Types of Ecological Interactions , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[7]  D. Queller Kinship, reciprocity and synergism in the evolution of social behaviour , 1985, Nature.

[8]  U. Dieckmann,et al.  The Dynamical Theory of Coevolution : A Derivation from Stochastic Ecological Processes , 1996 .

[9]  J. Koella,et al.  The spatial spread of altruism versus the evolutionary response of egoists , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary games and spatial chaos , 1992, Nature.

[11]  J. Metz,et al.  Adaptive Dynamics: A Geometrical Study of the Consequences of Nearly Faithful Reproduction , 1995 .

[12]  C. Hauert,et al.  The Evolutionary Origin of Cooperators and Defectors , 2004, Science.

[13]  É. Kisdi,et al.  Adaptive dynamics and the paradigm of diversity , 2005, Journal of evolutionary biology.