Hi all
We often hear references to survival of the fittest, evolution, host/parasite relationships, etc. Many people have what would be politely called a "pop science" view of these things. On the other hand

>  We find that a subset of species can be identified as consistent winners, and others as consistent losers. Most species do not improve or worsen in their competitive abilities through the 2 Myr period, but a minority of species are winners in some intervals and losers in others. Counterintuitively, competitive ability has no bearing on ecological dominance.

> While interactions such as sexual selection, competition, predator–prey relationships, disease and symbiosis are relatively easy to observe among living organisms ...  the evolutionary consequences of interactions observable among organisms are not easily extrapolated from short-term ecological observations. 

> Ecological abundance does not seem to be related to competitiveness in any straightforward way ... This negative relationship resonates with theoretical observations that poor competitors can be more abundant and vice versa.

Interspecific interactions through 2 million years: are competitive outcomes predictable?
Lee Hsiang Liow, Emanuela Di Martino, Kjetil Lysne Voje, Seabourne Rust, and Paul D. Taylor
Proc. R. Soc. B 283:20160981; doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.0981 (published August 31, 2016)
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/283/1837/20160981

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html