Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 407–430

Alternative formulations of multilevel selection

  • John Damuth
  • I. Lorraine Heisler
Article

Abstract

Hierarchical expansions of the theory of natural selection exist in two distinct bodies of thought in evolutionary biology, the group selection and the species selection traditions. Both traditions share the point of view that the principles of natural selection apply at levels of biological organization above the level of the individual organism. This leads them both to considermultilevel selection situations, where selection is occurring simultaneously at more than one level. Impeding unification of the theoretical approaches of the multilevel selection traditions are the different goals of investigators in the different subdisciplines and the different types of data potentially available for analysis. We identify two alternative approaches to multilevel situations, which we termmultilevel selection [1] andmultilevel selection [2]. Of interest in the former case are the effects of group membership onindividual fitnesses, and in the latter the tendencies for the groups themselves to go extinct or to found new groups (i.e., group fitnesses). We argue that: neither represents the entire multilevel selection process; both are aspects of any multilevel selection situation; and both are legitimate approaches, suitable for answering different questions. Using this formalism, we show that: multilevel selection [2] does not require “emergent” group properties in order to provide an explanatory mechanism of evolutionary change; multilevel selection [1] is usually more appropriate for neontological group selection studies; and species selection is most fruitfully considered from the point of view of multilevel selection [2]. Finally we argue that the “effect hypothesis” of macroevolution, requiring, in selection among species, both the absence of group effects on organismic fitness (multilevel selection [1]), and the direct determination of species fitnesses by those of organisms, is untestable with paleontological data. Furthermore, the conditions for the effect hypothesis to hold are extremely restrictive and unlikely to apply to the vast majority of situations encountered in nature.

Key words

Natural selection selection analysis multilevel selection units of selection hierarchy group selection species selection effect hypothesis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, R. D., and G. Borgia: 1978, ‘Group selection, altruism, and the levels of the organization of life’,Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9, 449–474.Google Scholar
  2. Alker, H. R., Jr.: 1969, ‘A typology of ecological fallacies’, in M. Dogon and S. Rokkan (eds.),Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 69–86.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, A. J., and K. Fristrup: 1982, ‘The theory of evolution by natural selection: a hierarchical expansion’,Paleobiology 8, 113–129.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, H., H. C. Byerly, F. A. Hopf, R. A. Michod, and K. Vemulapalli: 1983, ‘The Darwinian dynamic’,Quarterly Review of Biology 58, 185–207.Google Scholar
  5. Boorman, S. A. and P. R. Levitt: 1972, ‘Group selection at the boundary of a stable population’,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 69, 2711–2713.Google Scholar
  6. Boorman, S. A. and P. R. Levitt: 1973, ‘Group selection on the boundary of a stable population’,Theoretical Population Biology 4, 85–128.Google Scholar
  7. Boyd, L. H. and G. R. Iversen: 1979,Contextual analysis: concepts and statistical techniques, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
  8. Brandon, R.: 1982, ‘The levels of selection’, in P. D. Asquith and T. Nickles (eds.),PSA 1982, Vol. 1. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 315–323.Google Scholar
  9. Cracraft, J.: 1985, ‘Species selection, macroevolutionary analysis, and the “hierarchical theory” of evolution’,Systematic Zoology 34, 222–229.Google Scholar
  10. Crow, J. F. and T. Nagylaki: 1976, ‘The rate of change of a character correlated with fitness’,American Naturalist 110, 207–213.Google Scholar
  11. Curtsinger, J. W.: 1984, ‘Evolutionary landscapes for complex selection’,Evolution 38, 359–367.Google Scholar
  12. Damuth, J.: 1985, ‘Selection among “species”: a formulation in terms of natural functional units,’Evolution 39, 1132–1146.Google Scholar
  13. Darlington, P. J.: 1972, ‘Nonmathematical concepts of selection, evolutionary energy, and levels of evolution’,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 69, 1239–1243.Google Scholar
  14. Dawkins, R.: 1982,The extended phenotype: the gene as the unit of selection, Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  15. Dunbar, M. J.: 1960, ‘The evolution of stability in marine environments: natural selection at the level of the ecosystem’,American Naturalist 94, 129–136.Google Scholar
  16. Eldredge, N.: 1985,Unfinished synthesis: biological hierarchies and modern biological thought, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Eldredge, N. and S. J. Gould: 1972, ‘Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism’, in T. J. M. Schopf (ed.),Models in Paleobiology, Freeman, San Francisco, pp. 82–115.Google Scholar
  18. Eldredge, N. and S. N. Salthe: 1985, ‘Hierarchy and evolution’,Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 1, 182–206.Google Scholar
  19. Eshel, I.: 1972, ‘On the neighbor effect and the evolution of altruistic traits’,Theoretical Population Biology 3, 258–267.Google Scholar
  20. Eshel, I.: 1985, ‘Evolutionary genetic stability of mendelian segragation and the role of free recombination in the chromosomal system’,American Naturalist 125, 412–420.Google Scholar
  21. Ghiselin, M. T.: 1975, ‘A radical solution to the species problem’,Systematic Zoology 23, 536–544.Google Scholar
  22. Gilpin, M. E.: 1975,Group selection in predator-prey communities, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  23. Gould, S. J.: 1980, ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’Paleobiology 6, 119–130.Google Scholar
  24. Gould, S. J.: 1982a, ‘Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory’,Science 216, 380–387.Google Scholar
  25. Gould, S. J.: 1982b, ‘The meaning of punctuated equilibria and its role in validating a hierarchical approach to macroevolution’, in R. Milkman (ed.),Perspectiveson Evolution, Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp. 83–104.Google Scholar
  26. Gould, S. J. and N. Eldredge: 1977, ‘Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered’,Paleobiology 3, 115–151.Google Scholar
  27. Griesemer, J. R. and M. J. Wade: 1988, ‘Laboratory models, causal explanation and group selection’,Biology and Philosophy 3, 67–96.Google Scholar
  28. Heisler, I. L. and J. Damuth: 1987, ‘A method for analyzing selection in hierarchically-structured populations’,American Naturalist 130, 582–602.Google Scholar
  29. Hull, D. L.: 1976, ‘Are species really individuals?’,Systematic Zoology 25, 174–191.Google Scholar
  30. Hull, D. L.: 1980, ‘Individuality and selection’,Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11, 311–332.Google Scholar
  31. Lande, R. and S. J. Arnold: 1983, ‘The measurement of selection on correlated characters’,Evolution 37, 1210–1227.Google Scholar
  32. Lazarsfeld, P. F. and H. Menzel: 1961, ‘On the relation between individual and collective properties’, in A. Etzioni (ed.),Complex organizations: a sociological reader, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 422–440.Google Scholar
  33. Leigh, E. B.: 1983, ‘When does the good of the group override the advantage of the individual?’Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 80, 2985–2989.Google Scholar
  34. Levin, B. R. and W. L. Kilmer: 1974, ‘Interdemic selection and the evolution of altruism: a computer simulation study’,Evolution 28, 527–547.Google Scholar
  35. Levins, R.: 1970, ‘Extinction’, in M. Gerstenhaber (ed.),Some mathematical questions in biology, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
  36. Levins, R.: 1975, ‘Evolution in communities near equilibrium’, in M. L. Cody and J. M. Diamond (eds.),Ecology and Evolution of Communities, Belknap, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 16–50.Google Scholar
  37. Lewontin, R. C.: 1965, ‘Selection in and of populations’, in J. A. Moore (ed.),Ideas in modern biology, Natural History Press, Garden City, New York, pp. 297–325.Google Scholar
  38. Lewontin, R. C.: 1970, ‘The units of selection’,Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1, 1–18.Google Scholar
  39. Maynard Smith, J.: 1964, ‘Group selection and kin selection’,Nature 201, 1145–1147.Google Scholar
  40. Maynard Smith, J.: 1976, ‘Group Selection’,Quarterly Review of Biology 51, 277–283.Google Scholar
  41. Michod, R. E.: 1982, ‘The theory of kin selection’,Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13, 23–65.Google Scholar
  42. Nunney, L.: 1985, ‘Group selection, altruism, and structured-deme models’,American Naturalist 126, 212–230.Google Scholar
  43. Ohta, K.: 1983, ‘Hierarchical theory of selection: the covariance formula of selection and its application’,Bulletin of the Biometrical Society of Japan 4, 25–33.Google Scholar
  44. Price, G. R.: 1970, ‘Selection and covariance’,Nature 227, 520–521.Google Scholar
  45. Price, G. R.: 1972, ‘Extension of covariance selection mathematics’,Annals of Human Genetics 35, 485–490.Google Scholar
  46. Sober, E.: 1984,The nature of selection: evolutionary theory in philosophical focus, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  47. Sober, E. and R. C. Lewontin: 1982, ‘Artifact, cause and genic selection’,Philosophy of Science 49, 157–180.Google Scholar
  48. Stanley, S. M.: 1975, ‘A theory of evolution above the species level’,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 72, 646–650.Google Scholar
  49. Stanley, S. M.: 1979,Macroevolution: pattern and process, Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  50. Thorndike, E. L.: 1939, ‘On the fallacy of imputing the correlations found for groups to the individuals or smaller groups composing them’,American Journal of Psychology 52, 122–124.Google Scholar
  51. Uyenoyama, M. and M. Feldman: 1980, ‘Theories of kin and group selection: a population genetics perspective’,Theoretical Population Biology 17, 380–414.Google Scholar
  52. Van Valen, L. M.: 1976, ‘Individualistic classes’,Philosophy of Science 43, 539–541.Google Scholar
  53. Van Valen, L. M.: 1983, ‘Molecular selection’,Evolutionary Theory 6, 297–298.Google Scholar
  54. Vrba, E. S.: 1980, ‘Evolution, species and fossils: how does life evolve?’South African Journal of Science 76, 61–84.Google Scholar
  55. Vrba, E. S.: 1983, ‘Macroevolutionary trends: new perspectives on the roles of adaption and incidental effect’,Science 221, 387–389.Google Scholar
  56. Vrba, E. S.: 1984a, ‘Patterns in the fossil record and evolutionary processes’, in M. W. Ho and P. S. Saunders (eds.),Beyond Neo-Darwinism, Academic Press, London, pp. 115–142.Google Scholar
  57. Vrba, E. S.: 1984b. ‘Evolutionary pattern and process in the sister-group Alcelaphini-Aepycerotini (Mammalia: Bovidae)’, in N. Eldredge and S. M. Stanley (eds.),Living Fossils, Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 62–79.Google Scholar
  58. Vrba, E. S. and N. Eldredge: 1984, ‘Individuals, hierarchies and processes: towards a more complete evolutionary theory’,Paleobiology 10, 146–171.Google Scholar
  59. Wade, M. J.: 1978, ‘A critical review of the models of group selection’,Quarterly Review of Biology 58, 101–114.Google Scholar
  60. Wade, M. J.: 1984, ‘Soft selection, hard selection, kin selection and group selection’,American Naturalist 125, 61–73.Google Scholar
  61. Wiens, J. A.: 1966, ‘On group selection and Wynne-Edwards' hypothesis’,American Scientist 54, 273–328.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, G. C.: 1966,Adaptation and Natural Selection, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  63. Williams, M. B.: 1970, ‘Deducing the consequences of natural selection: a mathematical model’,Journal of Theoretical Biology 29, 343–385.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson, D. S.: 1975, ‘A theory of group selection’,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 72, 143–146.Google Scholar
  65. Wilson, D. S.: 1980,The natural selection of populations and communities, Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, California.Google Scholar
  66. Wilson, D. S.: 1983, ‘The group selection controversy: history and current status’,Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 14, 159–187.Google Scholar
  67. Wimsatt, W. C.: 1980, ‘Reductionistic research strategies and their biases in the units of selection controversy’, in T. Nickles (ed.)Scientific discovery: case studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 213–259.Google Scholar
  68. Wright, S.: 1945. ‘Tempo and mode in evolution: a critical review’,Ecology 26, 415–419.Google Scholar
  69. Wynne-Edwards, V. C.: 1962,Animal dispersion in relation to social behaviour, Hafner, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Damuth
    • 1
  • I. Lorraine Heisler
    • 2
  1. 1.Evolution of Terrestrial Ecosystems Program Department of Paleobiology National Museum of Natural HistorySmithsonian InstitutionWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyVassar CollegePoughkeepsieUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations