... notation:¹

You knew you were going to see this again, didn't you?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... adults.²

How many organisms and traits can you think of that satisfy this criterion? Any?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... up?³

Would I be asking the question if the answer were ``Yes''?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... viabilities.⁴

At least that's true until we start worrying about how selection and drift interact.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... viabilities.⁵

If anyone cares, it's because of the invariance property of maximum-likelihod estimates. If you don't understand what that is, don't worry about it, just trust me.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... pseudoobscura.⁶

Taken from [1].

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... excerise.⁷

In past years Problem #3 has consisted of making Bayesian estimates of viabilities from data like these and predicting the outcome of viability selection. That may or may not be part of Problem #3 this year. Stay tuend.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... 0.⁸

Meaning that we don't have good evidence for selection either for or against the associated homozygotes, relative to the heterozygote.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.