Show simple item record

Files in this item


Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorRodrigues, Antonio
dc.contributor.authorGardner, Andy
dc.contributor.editorDickins, Thomas
dc.contributor.editorDickins, Benjamin
dc.identifier.citationRodrigues , A & Gardner , A 2023 , On monism and pluralism : a reply to Dickins, T. E. in T Dickins & B Dickins (eds) , Evolutionary biology : contemporary and historical reflections upon core theory . Evolutionary Biology – New Perspectives on Its Development , no. 6 , vol. 2524-776X , Springer , Cham , pp. 369-372 .
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 281576104
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 4dd390e2-1f97-4fb5-bb8b-e16a9346bbec
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85149930346
dc.descriptionFunding: Natural Environment Research Council (NE/K009524/1) and European Research Council (771387).en
dc.description.abstractDickins has made some thoughtful suggestions as to why the important contributions of inclusive fitness theory have not been more celebrated by the proponents of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, considering the extent to which inclusive fitness theory has accommodated and illuminated—and, indeed, been motivated by—their “laundry list” of supposedly neglected evolutionary factors. We agree that this oversight could be explained, in part, by their seeing inclusive fitness as a “monist” alternative to a more “pluralist” multilevel selection that was not part of the Modern Synthesis. Here we clarify that multilevel selection and inclusive fitness are not competing explanations, but rather they address orthogonal issues, concerning the process of selection and the purpose of adaptation, respectively. We discuss the sense in which inclusive fitness is “monist” in providing the only generally correct adaptive maximand, but also “pluralist” in the sense of accommodating a diversity of adaptive agents. We also emphasise that multilevel selection was, in fact, part of the Modern Synthesis and, indeed, its inadequacies as a theory of organismal adaptation provided a crucial motivation for the concept of inclusive fitness.
dc.relation.ispartofEvolutionary biologyen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEvolutionary Biology – New Perspectives on Its Developmenten
dc.rightsCopyright © The Author(s) 2023. This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.en
dc.subjectLevels of biological organisationen
dc.subjectMaximisation principleen
dc.subjectNatural selectionen
dc.subjectPurpose of adaptationen
dc.subjectShifting balanceen
dc.subjectQH301 Biologyen
dc.titleOn monism and pluralism : a reply to Dickins, T. E.en
dc.typeBook itemen
dc.contributor.sponsorEuropean Research Councilen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Centre for Biological Diversityen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Institute of Behavioural and Neural Sciencesen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. St Andrews Bioinformatics Uniten
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record