As Sober and Wilson (1998) note, if one insists on saying that behaviours which evolve by kin selection / donor-recipient correlation are 'really selfish', one ends up reserving the word 'altruistic' for behaviours which cannot evolve by natural selection at all.
This stipulation makes sense, since it preserves the key idea that the evolution of altruism requires statistical association between donor and recipient; this would not be true if short-term fitness were used to define altruism, for behaviours which reduce short-term fitness but boost lifetime fitness can evolve with no component of kin selection, or donor-recipient correlation.
Traditionally, heritabilities have been estimated by correlations of close kin, e.g. parent-offspring regressions [1] [4].
Legend: N = sample size, vis = visual subscale, kin = kinaesthetic subscale, ICC = Intraclass correlation coefficient, CI = confidence interval, * maximum score.
The genetic correlation between an individual's IGE on kin and its IGE on strangers,, reflects the difference between IGEs on kin and strangers.
When IGEs depend on relatedness, IGEs on kin vs strangers probably not only show incomplete correlation, but also differ systematically in level.
There was an inverse correlation between concentrations of both BA and Kin and lengths of induced shoots.
The estimated direct-indirect genetic correlation, in contrast, includes interactions among non-kin.
Therefore, such correlations will tend to increase the variability in the size of kin networks.
Comparison of the performance of G S and G NC on the ALL and ALL-kin datasets reveals that sequence similarity scores are much more family-specific than Neighborhood Correlation scores.
