The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Evolution of Conspecific Acceptance Thresholds
Abstract
The differential treatment of conspecifics (e.g., kin recognition) has three components. (1) The production component refers to the nature of the cues used by an individual (actor) to discriminate among classes of conspecifics (recipients) differing in their effects on the actor's fitness. (2) The perception component refers both to the internal template against which the actor matches these cues and to the matching algorithm that allows classification of a recipient (Sherman and Holmes 1985). I introduce a third component, (3) the action component, which refers to the determinants of an action taken by an actor that has calculated a particular degree of similarity between its internal template and a recipient's phenotype. I attempt to provide a theory of the action component of conspecific discrimination. In particular, I examine the factors that determine the optimal or evolutionarily stable acceptance threshold, that is, the level of dissimilarity between the actor's template and the recipient's phenotype below which recipients are accepted and above which recipients are rejected. Analyses of six different classes of recognition contexts show how the optimal or evolutionarily stable acceptance threshold is a function of the relative frequencies of interaction with the different classes of recipients, of the fitness consequences of accepting or rejecting different classes of recipients, and of the ways in which the latter fitness consequences combine. I discuss diverse behavioral phenomena that are elucidated by these models and suggest ways in which these models may be further tested.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 · Cited by 15,725
On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment
MacArthur, R. H., & Pianka, E. R. (1966) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282454 · Cited by 4,593
Cited by
Nestmate recognition in social insects and the role of hydrocarbons
van Zweden, J. S., & d'Ettorre, P. (2010) · Insect Hydrocarbons · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511711909.012 · Cited by 426
Wiley, R. H. (2013) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2012.00246.x · Cited by 136
Metadata
- Authors
- Reeve, H. K.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1989-03
- Volume
- 133
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 407-435
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2079348327
- Cited by
- 539
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Evolution of Conspecific Acceptance Thresholds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284926
- The paper
- Reeve, H. K. (1989). The Evolution of Conspecific Acceptance Thresholds. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284926
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.