4 ms·
I don't follow this conclusion. Especially if the ratio changes back "quickly". I have yet to read the original article, but this sounds to me more like a simpl
by bayesianhorse 12y ago
I don't follow this conclusion. Especially if the ratio changes back "quickly". I have yet to read the original article, but this sounds to me more like a simple dynamical system: Depending on the food "income", threats and other factors, either more nannies or more warriors hatch. The key may be whether or not the colonies revert to an ancestral composition in the wrong place.
- SoftwareMaven 12y agoIt's the opposite of that, and that's why it's interesting. You'd expect dynamics to produce matching warrior/nanny to their environment. Instead, even when their ratio matched the environment (ideal for individuals), the group reverted to its genetic roots (to the detriment of the individuals and group). Alternatively, when the group didn't match its environment, but the ancestors of the group did, the group reverted to matching (an important point left out of the GP).