Evolution of paternal care in diploid and haplodiploid populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
W. D. Hamilton famously suggested that the inflated relatedness of full sisters under haplodiploidy explains why all workers in the social hymenoptera are female. This suggestion has not stood up to further theoretical scrutiny and is not empirically supported. Rather, it appears that altruistic sib-rearing in the social hymenoptera is performed exclusively by females because this behaviour has its origins in parental care, which was performed exclusively by females in the ancestors of this insect group. However, haplodiploidy might still explain the sex of workers if this mode of inheritance has itself been responsible for the rarity of paternal care in this group. Here, we perform a theoretical kin selection analysis to investigate the evolution of paternal care in diploid and haplodiploid populations. We find that haplodiploidy may either inhibit or promote paternal care depending on model assumptions, but that under the most plausible scenarios it promotes - rather than inhibits - paternal care. Our analysis casts further doubt upon there being a causal link between haplodiploidy and eusociality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".