Helping hand %>!$ eCX
`xF^9;5mi
According to the theory, people or animals can pass on their genes by helping their relatives. That means they should be more willing to help brothers or sisters, who share half their genes on average, than more distant relatives who share less. g& ?{^4t]
=a!_H=+4
But relatives also have a nasty habit of competing with you for resources, be they chicks squabbling over food, or heirs fighting for the throne. And this is where the flip side of Hamilton's rule comes in. Fu[< zA^
H_d^Xk QZ
If you kill two brothers, say, you've essentially wiped out your genetic identity rather than preserving it for future generations, says McCullough. "Then you have really damaged yourself in an evolutionary sense. So you can eliminate relatives but only up to a certain level." M992XXd
MW J}
But it turns out no king or queen, from Edward III who succeeded to the throne in 1327 to Elizabeth I who died in 1603, killed enough relatives to wipe out the equivalent of their own genetic inheritance (see graphic). OI^sd_gkZ
{YF(6wVl
Edward IV, who reigned in the late 15th century, was the worst offender, executing his brother, George, Duke of Clarence, and five cousins, including Henry VI and Edward, Prince of Wales. Yet even Edward IV's victims shared only two-thirds of his genes in total. 57[tUO
.njk^,N
"I was astounded. We thought that at least two or three would violate [Hamilton's rule] because some very close relatives were killed," says McCullough. "They had no theory of genetics at the time so they were simply operating under their own set of rules," he says. "As it turns out, it is in accord with scientific expectations."
