Abstract
Models of parental investment often assume a trade-off for males between providing care and seeking additional mating opportunities. It is not obvious, however, how such additional matings should be accounted for in a consistent population model, because deserting males might increase their fertilization success at the cost of either caring males, other deserting males or both. Here, we present a game theory model that addresses all of these possibilities in a general way. In contrast to earlier work, we find that the source of deserting males' additional matings is irrelevant to the evolutionary stability of male care. We reject the claim that fitness gains through male care are intrinsically less valuable than those through desertion, and that the former must therefore be down-weighted by 1/2 when compared with the latter.