Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- snippets [2013/02/28 11:03] – [Gradual change] mkopp
+++ snippets [2019/03/21 09:21] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
   * Make qualitative predictions about the effect of different environmental and genetic variables.
   * Provide rough rules of thumb for the magnitude of genetic (but not plastic, wee above) changes.
-  * Make suggestions about measurements and scaling (e.g. Herford et al. 2004, Hansen and Houle 2008, Gingerich 2009)
+  * Make suggestions about measurements and scaling (e.g. Hereford et al. 2004, Hansen and Houle 2008, Gingerich 2009)
 == Outline ==
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 </latex>
-Here, z is the phenotype of an individual, theta_t is the optimum at time t, and the "variance" sigma^2 measures the width of the fitness function (i.e., selection is strong sigma^2 is small). Here and later on, our notation mainly follows ... (Bürger and Lynch 1995?). Frequently, it is assumed that, at time 0, z = theta_0, that is, the population is perfectly adapted before the optimum stops moving. Movement of the optimum is typically assumed to the linear, potentially accompanied by stochastic white noise:
+Here, z is the phenotype of an individual, theta_t is the optimum at time t, and the "variance" sigma^2 measures the width of the fitness function (i.e., selection is strong sigma^2 is small). Here and later on, our notation mainly follows ... (Bürger and Lynch 1995?). Frequently, it is assumed that, at time 0, z = theta_0, that is, the population is perfectly adapted before the optimum starts moving. Movement of the optimum is typically assumed to be linear, potentially accompanied by stochastic white noise:
 <latex>