Many social Hymenoptera species have morphologically sterile worker castes. It is proposed that the evolutionary routes to this obligate sterility must pass through a 'monogamy window', because inclusive fitness favours individuals retaining their reproductive totipotency unless they can rear full siblings. Simulated evolution of sterility, however, finds that 'point of view' is critically important. Monogamy is facilitating if sterility is expressed altruistically (i.e. workers defer reproduction to queens), but if sterility results from manipulation by mothers or siblings, monogamy may have no effect or lessen the likelihood of sterility. Overall, the model and data from facultatively eusocial bees suggest that eusociality and sterility are more likely to originate through manipulation than by altruism, casting doubt on a mandatory role for monogamy. Simple kin selection paradigms, such as Hamilton's rule, can also fail to account for significant evolutionary dynamics created by factors, such as population structure, group-level effects or non-random mating patterns. The easy remedy is to always validate apparently insightful predictions from Hamiltonian equations with life-history appropriate genetic models.

Social Hymenoptera have played a leading role in development and testing of kin selection theory. Inclusive fitness models, following from Hamilton's rule, successfully predict major life history characteristics, such as biased sex investment ratios and conflict over parentage of male offspring. However, kin selection models poorly predict patterns of caste-biasing nepotism and reproductive skew within groups unless kin recognition constraints or group-level selection is also invoked. These successes and failures mirror the underlying kin recognition mechanisms. With reliable environmental cues, such as the sex of offspring or the origin of male eggs, predictions are supported. When only genetic recognition cues are potentially available, predictions are not supported. Mathematical simulations demonstrate that these differing mechanisms for determining kinship produce very different patterns of behavior. Decisions based on environmental cues for relatedness result in a robust mixture of cooperation and noncooperation depending on whether or not Hamilton's rule is met. In contrast, cooperation evolves under a wider range of conditions and to higher frequencies with genetic kin recognition as shared greenbeard traits. This "excess of niceness" matches the existing patterns in caste bias and reproductive skew; individuals often help others at an apparent cost to their inclusive fitness. The results further imply a potential for greenbeard-type kin recognition to create arbitrary runaway social selection for shared genetic traits. Suggestive examples in social evolution may be alloparental care and unicoloniality in ants. Differences in kin recognition mechanisms also can have consequences for maintenance of advantageous genetic diversity within populations.

Two of John et al.'s examples of proxy failures in ecological situations are not failures: Runaway sexual selection and marsupial neonate competition. Instead, more appropriate ecological examples may be paternal genetic kin recognition and warning coloration. These differ in proxy effectiveness and failure in ways that illustrate the importance of "costs" in the evolution of ecological proxy traits.

Ants are social and are haplodiploid. This combination may allow the evolution of a variety of unusual genetic pathways to achieve reproductive success. These include hybridizing across species, differential use of sperm to create a hybrid worker population, and reproductively isolated gene pools that depend on each other for their survival. Although there are demonstrable costs for colony development and reproduction, these phenomena may nevertheless be relatively common in nature. The specific ecological advantages that favor the evolution of these reproductive modes remain to be discovered.

A multitude of factors may determine reproductive skew among cooperative breeders. One explanation, derived from inclusive fitness theory, is that groups can partition reproduction such that subordinates do at least as well as noncooperative solitary individuals. The majority of recent data, however, fails to support this prediction; possibly because inclusive fitness models cannot easily incorporate multiple factors simultaneously to predict skew. Notable omissions are antagonistic selection (across generations, genes will be in both dominant and subordinate bodies), constraints on the number of sites suitable for successful reproduction, choice in which group an individual might join, and within-group control or suppression of competition. All of these factors and more are explored through agent-based evolutionary simulations. The results suggest the primary drivers for the initial evolution of cooperative breeding may be a combination of limited suitable sites, choice across those sites, and parental manipulation of offspring into helping roles. Antagonistic selection may be important when subordinates are more frequent than dominants. Kinship matters, but its main effect may be in offspring being available for manipulation while unrelated individuals are not. The greater flexibility of evolutionary simulations allows the incorporation of species-specific life histories and ecological constraints to better predict sociobiology.

Abstract Background Phylogenetic analyses strongly associate nonsocial ancestors of cooperatively-breeding or eusocial species with monogamy. Because monogamy creates high-relatedness family groups, kin selection has been concluded to drive the evolution of cooperative breeding (i.e., the monogamy hypothesis). Although kin selection is criticized as inappropriate for modeling and predicting the evolution of cooperation, there are no examples where specific inclusive fitness-based predictions are intrinsically wrong. The monogamy hypothesis may be the first case of such a flawed calculation. Results A simulation model mutated helping alleles into non-cooperative populations where females mated either once or multiply. Although multiple mating produces sibling broods of lower relatedness, it also increases the likelihood that one offspring will adopt a helper role. Examining this tradeoff showed that under a wide range of conditions polygamy, rather than monogamy, allowed helping to spread more rapidly through populations. Further simulations with mating strategies as heritable traits confirmed that multiple-mating is selectively advantageous. Although cooperation evolves similarly regardless of whether dependent young are close or more distant kin, it does not evolve if they are unrelated. Conclusions The solitary ancestral species to cooperative breeders may have been predominantly monogamous, but it cannot be concluded that monogamy is a predisposing state for the evolution of helping behavior. Monogamy may simply be coincidental to other more important life history characteristics such as nest defense or sequential provisioning of offspring. The differing predictive outcome from a gene-based model also supports arguments that inclusive fitness formulations poorly model some evolutionary questions. Nevertheless, cooperation only evolves when benefits are provided for kin: helping alleles did not increase in frequency in the absence of potential gains in indirect fitness. The key question, therefore, is not whether kin selection occurs, but how best to elucidate the differing evolutionary advantages of genetic relatedness versus genetic diversity.