No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2022
Lennox and Wilson (1994) critique dispositional accounts of selection on the grounds that such accounts will class evolutionary events as cases of selection whether or not the environment constrains population growth. Lennox and Wilson claim that pure r-selection involves no environmental checks on growth, and that accounts of natural selection ought to distinguish between the two sorts of cases. I argue that Lennox and Wilson are mistaken in claiming that pure r-selection involves no environmental checks, but suggest that two related cases support their substantive complaint, namely that dispositional accounts of selection have resources insufficient for making important distinctions in causal structure.
Thanks are owed to Jim Lennox and Brad Wilson for helpful discussions, and to Lindley Darden and Richard Burian for pointing out a difficulty in an earlier version of this paper.