Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T06:33:28.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Niche construction earns its keep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2001

Kevin N. Laland ,
John Odling-Smee  and
Marcus W. Feldman
Kevin N. Laland
Affiliation:
Sub-Department of Animal Behaviour, University of Cambridge, Madingley, Cambridge CB3 8AA, United Kingdomkn11001@hermes.cam.ac.uk www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/laland/index.html
John Odling-Smee
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological Anthropology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6QS, United Kingdomjohn.odling-smee@bioanthropology.ox.ac.uk www.admin.ox.ac.uk/oxro/ad.htm
Marcus W. Feldman
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020 marc@charles.stanford.edu www.stanford.edu/dept/biology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our response contains a definition of niche construction, illustrations of how it changes the evolutionary process, and clarifications of our conceptual model. We argue that the introduction of niche construction into evolutionary thinking earns its keep; we illustrate this argument in our discussion of rates of genetic and cultural evolution, memes and phenogenotypes, creativity, the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness), and group selection.

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 2000 , pp. 164 - 172
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)